One stat you’ll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Are you suggesting that “school shootings” are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn’t be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn’t be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn’t be stopped?
That muggings shouldn’t be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You’re 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the general public. If you want to stop gun crimes, you would be more successful by prohibiting everyone except concealed carriers.
Concealed carriers have a lower rate of criminality because of how selective the process is to get that license. As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates getting that license and thus spiking that number.
As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates
Where are you getting the idea that Oregon’s concealed carry laws are loosening to allow “less ideal” candidates?
Oregon went to a minimally-restrictive “Shall Issue” licensing model back in 1989. “Shall Issue” means that the state imposes no discretionary limits; anyone who has not been explicitly prohibited from owning a gun will receive a license upon request.
And yet, licensed concealed carriers still have a lower rate of criminality than the general population.
The reason, of course, is because of the background check: The “general population” includes convicted felons, whose predilection for violent crime is so high it skews the statistics for the general public. Licensed concealed carriers exclude this group of perpetrators, so their “normal” numbers seem extraordinarily low.
Oregon specifically? I don’t have any bit nationally it will absolutely without question get worse. Right now concealed carry is neigh impossible for anyone in NYC or NJ. If you aren’t LEO you will not have one right now, but the expectation is that will change and as we get more untrained and less ideal people carrying we should see an increase in crimes committed by people with cc permits.
My warning is more about how I wouldn’t rely on old data anymore because the pool of people who can carry concealed has massively increased.
LEO total crime rate is only half that of general public, and five times that of concealed carriers. For certain acts (domestic violence) they are twice as likely to commit violent crime as the general public.
Opening up NYCs and NJs concealed carry from “LEO-Only” to “Shall Issue” (Meaning: “Background checked members of the general public”) would improve the rates among concealed carriers in general.
I’m saying that if we are going to try to increase safety by banning people from public buildings and parks on the basis of whether they are carrying a gun, it would be statistically safer to ban non-carriers than carriers.
I’m not suggesting that we actually do this, of course.
I’m a little ok with this, a couple walked in to the supermarket and she had a Beretta in her shoulder holster, outside of her nice dress. Sure it was kinda sexy but…
I was glad she and her wife were ready to protect each other or others, but I really don’t like losing the element of surprise and the possibility the gun can then be used against the owners if things go poorly.
If you’re carrying, get the drop on dumbasses trying to fuck your day up.
I’ve never understood open carry. Only place I do so is in the woods.
When Oklahoma passed open carry back in the day, I read about some dumbass cowboy walking around downtown Tulsa with six shooters. Robber just came up behind him, put a gun in his back, stole his guns.
Even if it as legal in my state I wouldn’t do it. Why would you purposefully make the people around you uncomfortable?
I don’t live in Seattle. I’d like to ask a local, if one is reading, how they feel about this.
We already do not allow concealed carry in many places. I think it makes sense to not allow them in parks, public buildings, etc.
This coming from a firearm owner who has had a concealed carry permit in the past.
If they are somehow immune from violent perpetrators, I would agree. For example, if the “public building” has armed security.
Otherwise, we’re just creating unarmed victim zones.
From my perspective, it’s zones that are free of hammers looking for nails.
You are calling out the armed civilian argument. Please point me to an armed civilian who has stopped a school shooting.
One stat you’ll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Are you suggesting that “school shootings” are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn’t be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn’t be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn’t be stopped?
That muggings shouldn’t be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
That is, indeed, a better question.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You’re 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Your last sentence is impossible to prove.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked a simple question of you which you don’t seem to be able to answer.
Correct. I specifically said that I couldn’t answer it. Would you care to address any of the other points I presented?
Proof?
I wonder what the concern is now though? Has there been a problem I’m not aware of?
Yeah. Guns killing people.
Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the general public. If you want to stop gun crimes, you would be more successful by prohibiting everyone except concealed carriers.
Concealed carriers have a lower rate of criminality because of how selective the process is to get that license. As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates getting that license and thus spiking that number.
Where are you getting the idea that Oregon’s concealed carry laws are loosening to allow “less ideal” candidates?
Oregon went to a minimally-restrictive “Shall Issue” licensing model back in 1989. “Shall Issue” means that the state imposes no discretionary limits; anyone who has not been explicitly prohibited from owning a gun will receive a license upon request.
And yet, licensed concealed carriers still have a lower rate of criminality than the general population.
The reason, of course, is because of the background check: The “general population” includes convicted felons, whose predilection for violent crime is so high it skews the statistics for the general public. Licensed concealed carriers exclude this group of perpetrators, so their “normal” numbers seem extraordinarily low.
Oregon specifically? I don’t have any bit nationally it will absolutely without question get worse. Right now concealed carry is neigh impossible for anyone in NYC or NJ. If you aren’t LEO you will not have one right now, but the expectation is that will change and as we get more untrained and less ideal people carrying we should see an increase in crimes committed by people with cc permits.
My warning is more about how I wouldn’t rely on old data anymore because the pool of people who can carry concealed has massively increased.
LEO total crime rate is only half that of general public, and five times that of concealed carriers. For certain acts (domestic violence) they are twice as likely to commit violent crime as the general public.
Opening up NYCs and NJs concealed carry from “LEO-Only” to “Shall Issue” (Meaning: “Background checked members of the general public”) would improve the rates among concealed carriers in general.
Isn’t that the default state? Prohibited concealed carriers except those permitted?
I’m saying that if we are going to try to increase safety by banning people from public buildings and parks on the basis of whether they are carrying a gun, it would be statistically safer to ban non-carriers than carriers.
I’m not suggesting that we actually do this, of course.
Agreed.
The people who apply for permits are the ones who’ll obey the law.
I guess that means that permits are not an effective deterrent and that we should just ban guns altogether.
Less guns around me the better. The older I get the more I think we’d be better off banning all guns in this country.
I suspect you’re vastly underestimating the number of concealed guns around you.
Doesn’t really help me feel better about it.
I’m a little ok with this, a couple walked in to the supermarket and she had a Beretta in her shoulder holster, outside of her nice dress. Sure it was kinda sexy but…
I was glad she and her wife were ready to protect each other or others, but I really don’t like losing the element of surprise and the possibility the gun can then be used against the owners if things go poorly.
If you’re carrying, get the drop on dumbasses trying to fuck your day up.
I’ve never understood open carry. Only place I do so is in the woods.
When Oklahoma passed open carry back in the day, I read about some dumbass cowboy walking around downtown Tulsa with six shooters. Robber just came up behind him, put a gun in his back, stole his guns.
Even if it as legal in my state I wouldn’t do it. Why would you purposefully make the people around you uncomfortable?
Because you’re a dick would be my bet