The “governor and mayors” bit was referring to NJ sorry that should have been made clearer.
You know those 8 state that were may issue pre 2022 account for a substantial percentage of the country’s population, right? CA is 10% of the US population by itself. That means you are going to see that rate change as more people have concealed firearms. The 2020 RAND study on concealed carry apparently claimed this exact thing.
My point is rational you are just confusing the number of states instead of the total number of people who will suddenly face little to no issues getting a license. NJ/NY wont have to commit more crimes those eight states would merely have to house a large part of the population which they do.
You’re right guns do not commit crimes but people do commit more crimes. The more people who own concealed permits the larger amount of people you will have who commit crime and have concealed permits.
This will happen because you are increasing the volume of people who get licenses while reducing the restrictions on how they are obtained
That means you are going to see that rate change as more people have concealed firearms.
That is only true if the people in those 8 states are inherently more violent than the people in the 42.
I’ve got 100 people in this room. 8 of them are felons, and prohibited from getting a license. Of the remaining 92, 30 get a license, and those 30 commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 100.
Next door, I’ve got 1000 people. 80 of them are felons. Nobody in this group currently has a license. Tomorrow, 300 of them are going to get one. Tomorrow, those 300 will commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 1000.
The rate does not change.
That’s why we use the rate, and not the total numbers. The rate does not change because the violent crimes are being committed by the 8 and the 80, not the 92 and the 920.
Concealed carriers do not include the 8 and the 80: they are prohibited from getting licenses. There is no “relaxing of the requirements”, and certainly not any that would allow those violent criminals to become licensed.
while reducing the restrictions on how they are obtained
I’ve addressed the restrictions you’re talking about: You claimed that the restrictions are only allowing cops to get licenses. I pointed out that cops are more likely to commit (certain) violent crimes than the general public. The “restrictions” you are talking about are keeping the rates higher because they are keeping the least-likely-to-offend from getting licenses.
When you stop preventing non-violent people from getting licenses, the violent crime rate among licensees will fall, not rise.
There is no reason to think that the people of California will start committing more crimes when non-violent people - concealed carriers - pick up more guns.
The “governor and mayors” bit was referring to NJ sorry that should have been made clearer.
You know those 8 state that were may issue pre 2022 account for a substantial percentage of the country’s population, right? CA is 10% of the US population by itself. That means you are going to see that rate change as more people have concealed firearms. The 2020 RAND study on concealed carry apparently claimed this exact thing.
My point is rational you are just confusing the number of states instead of the total number of people who will suddenly face little to no issues getting a license. NJ/NY wont have to commit more crimes those eight states would merely have to house a large part of the population which they do.
You’re right guns do not commit crimes but people do commit more crimes. The more people who own concealed permits the larger amount of people you will have who commit crime and have concealed permits.
This will happen because you are increasing the volume of people who get licenses while reducing the restrictions on how they are obtained
That is only true if the people in those 8 states are inherently more violent than the people in the 42.
I’ve got 100 people in this room. 8 of them are felons, and prohibited from getting a license. Of the remaining 92, 30 get a license, and those 30 commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 100.
Next door, I’ve got 1000 people. 80 of them are felons. Nobody in this group currently has a license. Tomorrow, 300 of them are going to get one. Tomorrow, those 300 will commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 1000.
The rate does not change.
That’s why we use the rate, and not the total numbers. The rate does not change because the violent crimes are being committed by the 8 and the 80, not the 92 and the 920.
Concealed carriers do not include the 8 and the 80: they are prohibited from getting licenses. There is no “relaxing of the requirements”, and certainly not any that would allow those violent criminals to become licensed.
I’ve addressed the restrictions you’re talking about: You claimed that the restrictions are only allowing cops to get licenses. I pointed out that cops are more likely to commit (certain) violent crimes than the general public. The “restrictions” you are talking about are keeping the rates higher because they are keeping the least-likely-to-offend from getting licenses.
When you stop preventing non-violent people from getting licenses, the violent crime rate among licensees will fall, not rise.
There is no reason to think that the people of California will start committing more crimes when non-violent people - concealed carriers - pick up more guns.