A US appeals court Saturday paved the way for a California law banning the concealed carry of firearms in “sensitive places” to go into effect January 1, despite a federal judge’s ruling that it is “repugnant to the Second Amendment.”
The law – Senate Bill 2 – had been blocked last week by an injunction from District Judge Cormac Carney, but a three-judge panel filed an order Saturday temporarily blocking that injunction, clearing the path for the law to take effect.
The court issued an administrative stay, meaning the appeals judges did not consider the merits of the case, but delayed the judge’s order to give the court more time to consider the arguments of both sides. “In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of these appeals in any way,” the judges wrote.
The deterrent is the uncertainty of who may and may not have a gun on them. A lot of self defense is making yourself a harder target, the knowledge that a firearm might come into play and the victim may be proficient at using it makes anyone and everyone a harder target. It doesn’t mean desperate criminals won’t still make a move, but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.
Again, it is already uncertain who may and may not have a gun on them.
Is there any data to that effect or is that just wishful thinking?
There’s not good data on anything related to guns and it’s frustrating.
Intuitively it makes sense that if there might be a bear in the woods some people aren’t going to go into the woods because they’re afraid of getting mauled by a bear. It almost certainly has an effect, but quantifying it is going to be hard and subject to bias and the real effect will always be subject to other unrecorded factors (e.g. maybe when they tested one group the bears were hibernating).
I personally don’t think many people who aren’t into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place … which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I’m going to go rob this gas station).
Very well said and I am in agreement.
By saying it’s already uncertain, you’ve immediately made an assumption. Congratulations, you’re just as biased as the rest of us. Nothing you said so far has been supported by evidence.
Are you saying you can be certain that someone doesn’t have a gun concealed on their person where concealed carry is illegal?
Otherwise, I don’t think it’s an assumption.
I’d say the crime rates in no carry zones vs like… Red bits of Texas would be an indicator. No idea what those are but the number of stories out of Texas like “robber shot by 3 different people during hold-up”… Yeh.
Those stories are curated by the media. That is not good data any more than all the crime reports the media makes is an indication of the crime rate which has been dropping for years.
It’s assumed that no one is armed in California because of all the unjust laws here. No thief is going to hesitate thinking “what if my target has a gun…”
That’s sort of the crux of the issue here- this all seems to be based on assumptions rather than data. And even my merely asking for data has apparently been a step too far for some people judging by the downvotes.
I realize that guns in general are a hotbutton issue, but I really don’t think asking for data on concealed carry being a deterrent to crime is unreasonable when questioning the legality of it…
I don’t think you asked for anything. I think you made your own assumptions and they’re incorrect. Have a nice day.
I literally have asked for data and evidence over and over. Just view the comment thread. Do I need to start showing you screenshots with accompanying links? Because we can start with higher up in this very comment chain:
https://lemmy.world/comment/6318617
And what specifically have I assumed? Please quote an assumption I have made.
Obvious troll is obvious