Why would a criminal be afraid of your gun ? If he knows you have it, he’ll just shoot you in the back and take it; now he has two guns. If it’s a face to face confrontation, he’ll likely shoot first; doing that sort of thing is what makes people criminals.
Yes I am afraid of you; someone who carries a gun and thinks it makes him safer is armed and has poor judgement. Not a good combination. It certainly doesn’t make the people around you safer.
That’s why it’s called concealed carry. And supposing that the casual mugger will automatically graduate to attempted murder just because a potential victim might be armed is just that: supposition. And unfounded by the indications of U.S. crims statistics which show marked decrease in muggings in most jurisdictions which pass concealed carry laws.
You also assume that a criminal will always have the initiative; if the potential victim practices any kind of situational awareness, the criminal can be the one reacting to an alert and armed person.
Not at all; someone who carries a gun and feels safer may or may not be practicing realistic threat assessment. If TheEggman works nights in a high crime neighborhood (as I used to in Dallas), my decision to carry concealed wasn’t paranoia or poor judgement; it was a realistic assessment of local crime rates, the lack of security in and around my employer’s building, several incidents of assaults and robberies upon my fellow coworkers in our employer’s parking lot, and the overall lack of any kind of police presence necessary to deter criminals.
Actually, I’m quite sure you did intend such, but this is Great Debates, not the Pit, and I don’t have any particular emotional investment in this issue that might provoke me into incivility anyway.
I’m not actually too concerned about you, or any other person who’s been properly vetted, walking around with a concealed piece, but I merely point out that many if not most people tend to overestimate some risks while underestimating others, and I have to doubt (sorry, but I think my own anecdotal experience is valid for many) that the need for concealed carry is as urgent as many seem to think it is.
Well, one significant difference here is that both of the above are legally required, while carrying a concealed weapon is not. Another is that people in this country, I believe, are in far greater danger of injury from traffic accidents than from gun-carrying criminals. Show me some valid data stating otherwise, and I’ll cheerfully concede that last point.
Well, hey, I’m all for carrying a sword around if it helps. Looks more dashing, at least.
To be honest, and not wanting to jump in on either side of the issue, this statistic really doesn’t prove anything, one way or another.
The difference in violent crime rates could be the result of any number of things; the much larger problems with drugs in the USA, racism, poverty, or what have you. I’ve commented before than in my travels throughout the USA, I find the culture to be surprisingly fearful, and strongly inclined towards going to great lengths to justify the use of violence to solve problems, so maybe it’s just cultural. I just don’t think that if the USA and Australia had the same gum control laws that they’d have the same level of gun violence.
The article appears to be claiming that Britons were ‘disarmed’ - deprived of weapons that they owned for personal defence; this is a gross distortion of fact.
Well, they would increase, because after handguns are banned, there’s a whole new class of offences to be recorded; to wit: being found in possession of a handgun.
I’ll get back at you … but I have absolutely no argument that the overall violent crime rates are lower in GB, Aus, etc. You’ll have no argument from me there.
The point that I was making (and will get back with some stats) is that as the ‘severity’ of gun control increases, so does the ‘overall’ crime rate, including some crimes often considered non-violent such as burglary.
You are absolutely correct when you point to the US abysmal homicide rate, it’s not something to be proud of. There are many more and more severe causitive factors, however, than the availability of firearms.
Again, you’re right, OVERALL there is no comparison between the US and Europe.
To try and keep the comparison on an ‘apples to apples’ basis …
*Scotland has the second highest murder rate in western Europe and Scots are more than three times more likely to be murdered than people in England and Wales, according to a study by the World Health Organisation.
The study, based on crime figures from 21 western European countries, finds that only Finland has a higher murder rate than Scotland.
Scotland’s homicide rate is 2.33 deaths for every 100,000 people each year, compared with 0.7 in England and Wales. In Spain it is 1.02, and in Italy 0.96. Germany has western Europe’s lowest murder rate: 0.68 per 100,000 people.
While Finland’s high murder rate is attributed to its liberal penal policy, which sees offenders sent to jail only as a very last resort, Scotland’s rate is put down to the use of alcohol and drugs.
Almost half of murders in Scotland are committed by people under the influence of drink or drugs - particularly in Glasgow, which, despite its successful effort to shed its hardman image in the city centre, is still plagued with violence in its east end and hinterland estates.
Scotland’s second city is in fact the murder capital of Europe, with about 70 killings each year. Much of the violence is caused by gangs vying to control the city’s drugs trade.
But a culture of young men carrying knives also plays a part.
Official figures show that serious crime in the city has risen heavily: murders increased by 19% from 70 in 2003 to 83 in 2004. Attempted murders rose by a third in the same period, from 343 to 459.
*
Scotland and Finland, while still far below the US, do have a higher rate than the rest of Europe. This is not related to the greater availability of guns, but to an increase in the societal problems that are the true causitive factor.
The US has a plethora of problems with gangs, drugs and other societal ills that have to be solved. The mere removal of guns hasn’t, can’t and will not do anything here but disarm the victims.
What we have seen here in the US, however, is a dramatic decrease in crimes against people in areas where the right to self-defense is less restricted.
Washington DC has the toughest gun control in the country, closely followed by Chicago and New Jersey/NY.
These areas also have the highest violent crime rates. When guns are not available, knives and other weapons soon take their place.
The overall rate of crime in the US is dropping, but it is dropping far faster than the national average in those places where the citizens are trusted with the right to self-defense.
Apologies for being less than clear on my point, but I guess I got my feet wet here in a hurry.
Best
E
ExTank,
Our friend Eggman stated this:
He stated unambiguously that “violent crime” rose once the British banned guns. I pointed to statistics showing that this was the exact opposite of the truth; violent crime (and overall crime) dropped steadily in the years following Britain’s 1997 gun ban. I then told Eggman that with regards to his claim about British crime rates, he should put up or shut up. It appears that he’s chosen the second option.
All of the links that you’ve pointed to are not about rates of violent crime. They’re about rates uf gun crime, which isn’t the same thing as violent crime. In Britain gun crime is only a very small percentage of violent crime, so it’s amply possible for violent crime to fall while gun crime rises. Further, as Magetout pointed out, the rise in gun crime can be explained by the chage in the definition of gun crime. Hence we’ve seen nothing contradicting the fact that violent crime has dropped since the gun ban. Eggman is still wrong.
What are you f’n kiddin’. You are the person I would like to have a gun. I want more of iyou, many many more. I want the criminals to be afraid of the honest people.
Fair enough to be gentle on beginners. Here at the SDMB, we have a concept known as a cite. A cite is a link to a source, preferrably a source with some credibility, proving the claims that you are making. For instance, here is a cite to an article about the FBI’s crime report for 2004. You will note, uopn reading it, that Washington D. C. does, in fact, have the highest crime rate in the country. New Jersey and New York, on the other hand, have crime rates a lot lower than the national average. Illinois is above the national average but still lower than many gun-friendly states such as Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida. Thus your claim that “these areas have the highest violent crime rates” is now proven incorrect.
That’s not how it works, Wild West movies notwithstanding. In reality, the person who draws first fires first; human reflexes aren’t fast enough to overcome initiative.
It’s not ( simply ) paranoia I’m worried about. First, I think it bad judgement to think a concealed weapon will make you safer.
Second, I’ve noticed a lot of pro-gun people seem to think guns are magic. After all, the assumptions behind arming everyone are right out of a action movie. The good guys win, the bad guys miss, innocents don’t get in the crossfire. I remember people like that suggesting after 9-11 that everyone on planes be armed; the likely results of large numbers of bullet holes on a plane never occured to them.
Frankly, I’d be less worried if training in the safe use of weapons was more common. I’d also be less worried if it wasn’t such a near-religious mania for many Americans; someone who has that level of enthusiasm about guns is unlikely to use good judgement with them.
Show that those increases are “illegal possession” crimes, as a percentage of the total.
Er, yes, it is. If a potential target avoids being “channeled” by a perspective criminal by avoiding blind spots, dark spots, etc., the confrontation is aborted before it happens by the simple virtue of not giving the criminal the chance to strike. If the potential victim is paying attention, they can possibly spot the criminal before he attacks, and be waiting with firearm in hand.
Is it foolproof? No. Nothing is. But being aware of your environment, and practicing scan techniques are routinely taught in self defense courses (even ones without firearms).
Your opinionis noted, and irrelevant.
Again, the plural of anecdote is not data.
And who here has made the case for arming everyone? I certainly didn’t, so I don’t know why you’re bringing it into the debate.
Show what proportion of the gun-owning population advocated arming everyone on an airplane. The best I can recall was a few gun-rights organizations advocating the arming of all pilots.
Again, an opinion, and irrelevant. But it is one that I share.
And more opinion. Do you have something factual to add?
If this is how it is, I’m happy with the existing state of gun laws. All of this strikes me as things being as they should be.
I don’t think it should be easier or harder than that to become a gun owner in America.
I’m not afraid of you, but I have to confess that I’m not a fan of the glurgey/occasionally confrontational tone of your OP. If you’re a responsible gun owner, great.
Could I get cites for these two claims, please?
We all know that ‘statistics’ are what you make them. (If the stats don’t prove your point, you need more or different stats)
Semantics also rears its ugly head.
There is a major difference between ‘gun crime’ and ‘crime with a gun.’
The difference being one involves an otherwise law-abiding person whose only crime is running afoul of a ‘gun control law’. The other is a crime, (robbery, assault, burglary, etc., committed while in posession of a gun.
Since criminals, by nature, don’t observe law (making them criminals) more restrictive gun laws should, by logical extrapolation, result in an increase in gun crime, with little effect on crime with guns.
In fact, this variable works into most debates in which there could be a distinct divergence between statistics and facts – semantics and point.
But then again, to paraphrase a former President, that depends on your definition of facts.
In fact (pun intended), this discussion moves the topic out of the very specific issue of Gun Contol, bringing up ‘food for thought’ on just about any issue, debatable or not.
Best
E
OK, I’ve had it with this citing gun crimes/deaths in the US as proof the US is nuts to allow gun ownership.
Can we start looking at stats outside of national deaths per gun crimes? Quit averaging this shit. Would anyone here seriously equate risk of gun crime between Detroit and Sacramento? DC and Kansas City? Chicago and Austin? The cities populations aren’t the same, but per 100k capita should give an inkling that it’s not the widespread national pandemic that is seen by the rest of the world.
For instance, (And find your own cites, I’m not here to prove wood burns), compare the murder rate of Fargo, ND to Detroit. North Dakota has concealed-carry. Detroit (or DC, Chicago, et al) don’t. Compare the per capita rate of gun deaths (minus accidental hunting incidents) and you’ll see the fallacy in stating America as a whole is gun-wild.
If Detroit hass 1000 gun murders in a year, and Fargo has none, it still looks bad because averaging them out each has 500 a year.
Maybe someone can compare the largest 10 non-carry cities to the largest 10 conceal-carry cities? I’ll bet my house, dog and wife that the conceal-carry cities fare better overall to the non-carry cities when it comes to the odds of your ass getting shot off.
So you are, by your own admission, a complete nobody.
Quite an accomplishment, that one. I mean, it’s not so easy to avoid being convicted of a felony and to take a 6-hour course.
Good for you! I mean, what good is paranoia if you can’t feed it?
Again, quite an accomplishment, what with the not having been convicted of a felony. Congratulations on avoiding conviction, well done!
Still no evidence of having been convicted of a felony? Nor having been locked up for being a loony, or of reporting yourself as a big-time dope fiend? You, sir, are the man!
So you can more or less hit what you shooot at, and you haven’t shot yourself or anyone else by accident, at least so far as your instructor knows or your record otherwise reveals? Quite the special case you are, that’s for certain!
That is such a relief, because I thought it was a requirement to be a felon, junkie, drug dealer, stalker or shoplifter in order to carry a concealed weapon. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I once sat in on a lecture by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, and now I get to run my own nuclear power plant!
No! It cannot be so! Surely, the Constitution forbids disarmament as a fate worse than death?
Almost exactly as if you didn’t have a concealed carry license at all!
Thank goodness. Because, really, that just completely destroys the argument that concealed carry shouldn’t be allowed because gun fetishists can’t hit what they’re aiming at.
In your dreams, buddy.
I was deathly afraid that you might be French.
Hence, the gun.
No! Say it ain’t so, Bernie Goetz!
Don’t worry, they’ll never dare take away your NRA Life Member bumper sticker.
No doubt, given your paranoid and persecuted worldview.
Okey dokey.
See “paranoid” and “persecuted” above
I feel safer already.
Not a chance. I shit glurge like yours for breakfast.
I SHALL DRINK THE BLOOD OF YOUR FIRST-BORN AND DESECRATE THE CHAMBERS OF YOUR FIREARMS, UNBELIEVER!
Okay, that really wasn’t very scary on my part. Sorry, just trying to live up to expectations and the spirit of the season. Maybe next time I’ll, like, propose that folks ought not to be allowed to carry rocket launchers in their briefcases. Or something equally frightening.
Boo!
Ha ha, made you shoot!
I take from the OP that that’s what he went through to get a Concealed Carry Permit, not what he went through to originally purchase the firearm.
TheEggman, you might want to look up a thread Crafter Man posted in the Pit about his fellow gun-owners at a routine safety class. THEY are the ones we’re all afraid of.
Yep, you’re right!
It’s right out of Chris Rock and a point I really hadn’t taken before,
It COULD be construed, (by persons less conceptually adept than yourself) that I express a desire for 'extra credit; just for doing my job and being a law-abiding citizen.
The ball that I toss into the ‘court of the other person’ boils down to how does my choosing to accept responsibility for the safety of myself and my family, interfere with anyone elses rights.
The police only exist to protect society, not individuals. (Supreme Court opinion)
What do I do beteen the time the bad guys are breaking down my door and the police finally arrive to draw chalk outlines around the bodies and collect evidence?
(BTW: The Bad Guys will Always Have Superior Weapns because 'that’s their job.)
Oh yeah, one other thing (quoting Columbo) … Double Boo!
Ha ha, made you duck!
(I DO hope you take this in the proper spirit and context, If not … well I tried)
Best
Egg