There’s going to be lots of gun violence in places where the only people with guns are young men in gangs fighting other gangs (including the dictator’s gang which gets to call itself the Army). Conspicuously absent are civilians with the means to defend themselves. Yes, criminals might think twice about plundering and burning a village if the people they intended to rape, murder and carry off as child soliders were armed.
No cite available, but I’ve read that cities with lax open carry laws, esp. in Arizona & Texas, have lower overall crime rates (but more accidental shootings.)
Clearly they aren’t. All you have to do is look at the turf wars between American gangs and between Mexican drug cartels. But these people largely prey upon each other, or at least people tangentially associated with their activities. What I am saying is that if more people were armed it would discourage and lessen the types of crimes where criminals, usually acting alone, prey upon law abiding citizens going about their daily lives . These would be hold-up crimes, abductions, muggings, rape, etc.
Beats me. I never said they would.
Again, it’s because what you’re talking about is a turf war between rival gangs. It’s how they convince themselves that they’re all, like, badass and shit. Plus they’re fighting over territory and the profits from the illegal activies they’re engaged in. Not much different than the gang wars of prohibition, only uglier and on a hugely larger scale.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. 
More like a dead fish, actually. And I’ve already explained why there’s more gunplay in high crime areas. Besides, the fact of the matter is that high crime areas are where citizens would likely benefit the most by being armed. You wanna rob me, or steal my car in a convenience store parking lot, or force me to drive to an ATM and then to the outskirts never to be heard from again? Then you better be damn sure I’m not packing and I don’t have more pieces hidden around somewhere, including maybe a small gun in my pocket or hidden in the car somewhere. Also you might want to think twice about abducting that female jogger or woman driving alone late at night. She just might blow your head off.
Ball’s in your court.
Perhaps another tangentlly related question is that it is lucky for Loughner that he was not killed by the people present-although on the other hand it would have saved us the cost of a trial.
Actually, I thought I’d seen it reported that he’d planned to go out as a “martyr” (either by shooting himself or suicide by cop), so it’s probably unlucky, from his point of view, that he wasn’t killed.
Jared Lee is indeed rare among spree killers in that he didn’t kill himself, or get killed by police, during the attack.
Dr. Chilton would consider him a prime specimen.
Armed hero nearly shot wrong man in Arizona
It seems Joe Dimuzio was across the street when the shooting started and was carrying a gun. He ran to the scene where he saw a man with a gun and almost shot him. He “luckily” did not fire; it turns out the man with the gun had wrestled it away from Loughner.
Saletan must be getting dizzy from all the spinning. The bottom line is that Dimuzio did everything right in a situation where even a professional police officer could easily end up shooting an innocent civilian or even another police officer.
Bingo.
We finally have solid proof that not every gun toten gun nut out there aint just looking to put a cap in someone’s ass at the slightest excuse…
The linked article (now?) calls him Zamudio. And good on him. Yes, he did everything right. The article is quite unfair, saying things like “he was poised to fire” when in fact he hadn’t drawn his weapon. His courage, quick thinking, and restraint are commendable. And good on his dad, it seems, for raising him to handle himself, and a weapon, with all those qualities.
Thanks for the link, Shirley.
Isn’t that because cities with high crime rates tend to enact stricter gun control laws?
The US is already, far and away, the most heavily armed populace in the world (cite).
Are the crimes you listed substantially lower here than they are in other Western countries?
I still don’t follow the logic of an armed criminal being willing to fight turf wars against other criminals whom he knows are armed; but that an armed criminal would be too afraid to try to mug someone who may or may not be carrying a concealed weapon.
One would think that if armed criminals were indeed afraid of their victims being armed, they would not use violence against rival gangs.
I welcome any insights into the criminal mind on why a drug dealer isn’t deterred from acts of extreme violence targeting his fellow murderous thugs armed with illegal weapons; but they don’t want to mess with grandpa who may (or may not) have a .38 special jammed in his cowboy boot.
Because criminals and particularly gang members don’t go toe to toe with an opponent they know to be armed, hence drive by shootings or other forms of ambush while a mugging involves face time.
Uh, pretty much everyone I know who has been mugged says that their assailant came out of nowhere.
Personally, I think if a criminal suspects that most of his potential victims may be armed, he’s more likely to use more violence. Which is a step backwards.
There’s a difference in the value of winning here. An armed criminal as part of a gang fighting for turf gets a fairly high reward if he wins. New turf means more area and customers to deal drugs to means a fair amount of money is riding on the conflict.
Someone mugging grandpa is after twenty bucks or whatever it is grandpa carries on him.
Higher rewards means some people are willing to take higher risks.
But it was still face to face, he didn’t shoot the victim from across the street and then take the valuables.
And the $400 gun that grandpa could be carrying.
I don’t think you understand that low level drug dealers aren’t paid particularly well. Their reward is more like hopes of moving up in the organization. It’s not like gangs have an employee stock ownership program.
From the article linked:
I don’t have a more recent or detailed site but this one Gun ownership rates by country suggests that the US although still in #1 place (and that’s hardly surprising in a former frontier nation that specifically protects gun ownership at the constitutional level), it’s not extraordinary in the percentage of households that have some sort of gun. And it reveals some interesting comparisons: for some reason, the French have nearly five times as many armed households as their neighbors across the Channel.
In other words, it’s your fault if you make the poor criminal have to use more violence? IMHO, this is as repugnant as advising women to submit to being raped.
Most of the scenarios that are being presented depends on criminals being of average intelligence and rational human beings. But often they’re not. Look at the stats of criminals in prison - nothing handy, but I’ve seen data estimating that between 40 to 70% of inmates in the state pen are dropouts. That’s why, of course, one might choose to become a criminal - shitty employment prospects.
And the small-time criminal that burgles your home or breaks into your car probably isn’t some criminal mastermind, it’s a young kid pumped up full of adrenalin (and other recreational drugs) or someone cracked- or methed-out looking for the next fix. These types don’t behave predictably or rationally.
The focus on guns, frankly is addressing the symptom and not the disease, I’m afraid. Happy Lendervedder made this point in a Pit thread a day or so ago. I don’t like guns, precisely because of this type of thing (remote as it might be). I do know that a large percentage of gun owners are well-trained and rational, which I why I can live in Texas and not be constantly pissing my pants in fear.
Who uses guns for bad purposes? Criminals of all ilks and occasionally, one gets in the hands of someone with a psychiatric disorder. So maybe if we try to reduce the number of criminals, and the number of people with mental illness, we might see better outcomes. Making sure kids that grow up in at-risk environments have excellent educational opportunities will keep them in school, engage them in fields of endeavor and interest, and make them productive, law-abiding taxpayers. Ensuring that folks with mental illnesses have access to high-quality care would hopefully reduce the number of Loughner-type cases as well.
I’m not saying this will turn every gangbanger away from a life of crime, or if it will eliminate all crime and/or irresponsible gun use. But I do think that while there are some bad seeds out there, a lot of the criminal populace were not necessarily predisposed to choose that lifestyle…