Possible reason some oppose legal guns in public places.


PDA






JellyJar
October 27, 2009, 05:51 PM
Recently there was a lot of news about how the Mayor of Seattle WA wanted to prohibit lawful carrying of handguns in Seattle City parks. All of the counter arguments I have read here or elsewhere in opposition to his stance always made the argument that simply posting signs will not keep bad guys from carrying weapons in public parks. While this is a valid argument in and of itself I think it misses the real reason that mayor and others like him do not want law abiding citizens to possess handguns in public places. I suspect that they believe that citizens who have concealed handgun licenses or permits are just as likely or almost as likely as people in the non-carrying population to commit crimes. That is to say that we who have gotten those permits or licenses are just not trustworthy enough to be allows weapons in public places.

I disagree with this. I believe that we who have these permits or licenses are far less likely to commit crimes, by many factors, than the general non-carrying population.

I would like to see if anyone can come up with specific information to confirm this. By that I mean comparing the percent of the adult population of a given state that are convicted of crimes against the percentage of the CCWer part of the population that are convicted of crimes in a given year. I only want convictions and not arrests or indictments because in many jurisdictions no matter how justified a civilian legal defensive homicide or gun use may be the SOP of the police is to arrest and charge the CCWer with a crime and leave it to either the grand or petite jury to make the final ruling.

To be accurate you must be careful to leave out the part of the population of people convictioned of crimes those not old enough to get a CCW in the state in question.

I did this once myself for the state of Texas for the year 2007 but I did not write down all the particulars and when I tried to recreate my previous work I could not find out all the information I needed. I will try again.

If you enjoyed reading about "Possible reason some oppose legal guns in public places." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
highorder
October 27, 2009, 06:03 PM
The usual quoted statistics say that CCW holders are 1/5th or 1/7th as likely to commit crimes.

Less likely than LEO's and Congressmen, never mind the general population.

robhof
October 27, 2009, 06:10 PM
Congressmen are an unfair comparison; career criminals are less likely to comit crimes than congressmen.

highorder
October 27, 2009, 06:13 PM
Without term limits, Congressmen are career criminals!

mljdeckard
October 27, 2009, 06:45 PM
I'll be more specific, this is from an article making a different point, but it still applies.



can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...


Can you guess which organization this is?




Give up yet?





It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.

The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

No, I don't think that politicians are a good group at all to look toward to find solutions to crime.

t165
October 27, 2009, 09:04 PM
I agree with you completely highorder. Unfortunately they are the ones who have to craft and pass the Bill which would actually limit their terms.

t165
October 27, 2009, 09:24 PM
I wonder how many of these store/restraunt owners have a firearm squirreled away some where on the premises? Reminiscent of lawmakers who vote with the anti-gun crowd but own firearms themselves. Hypocrisy is alive and well. I was sent the picture below...looks like some neighbors have fundamental differences concerning gun rights.

John Parker
October 27, 2009, 10:25 PM
(oppose)

JpSnareGuy
October 31, 2009, 10:41 AM
There are stats on the TX DPS website. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
You can start there.

1911Tuner
October 31, 2009, 12:05 PM
I wonder how many of these store/restraunt owners have a firearm squirreled away some where on the premises? Reminiscent of lawmakers who vote with the anti-gun crowd but own firearms themselves.

Probably several...but IMO, equating it with lawmakers' hypocrisy may be a little...severe.

Business owners who post those signs may be avid supporters of your right to own and carry a gun...even into their establishment. The problem they're faced with is that they have to operate on the assumption that their customer base may not. So, they post the signs with no real intent to enforce it...but rather to make the customers who are fearful of people carrying guns feel better about eating/shopping/browsing in a "Safe Gun Free Zone."

I've spoken with several who have confirmed that, and have told me..."just between me'n'you...I hope that every other man who walks in the door is carrying...as long as they don't let anybody else see it."

oldman1946
December 11, 2009, 07:54 AM
Guys, I sure love this site. A person can depend on thought provoking questions and replies.

I can say I oppose illegal cary in public places. However legislation that restricts carry in certain areas only create crime zones. Using schools and churches as an example, we can see that mass shootings occur in these places more often than in others. The shooters know they will encounter little, if any, resistence due to the law of the land. Once the shooting begins, it will end only when a good guy arrives with a gun in hand. Often time the good guy is breaking a law by having the gun there himself. In one school shooting, an official with the school retrieved a handgun from his car and was able to hold the shooter for police. He was promptly fired for having a gun on school property.

FWIW: A friend was a uniformed officer and stopped by a school to leave something in the office for his child. He was on duty at the time and was in his patrol area. Someone with the school complained and he was fired. The law says he could not bring a firearm onto school property without being dispatched to the school in an official capacity.

Creating gun free zones makes criminals out of us. Sad to say, we are all guilty of carrying at times where it was illegal. I would guess everyone here has carried a firearm in our vehicle on to post office property or parked our auto in a parking lot belonging to the federal government. The difference is we do so unintntionally while the criminal does so intentionally and often with malice on his mind.

wilkersk
December 16, 2009, 01:07 PM
I'll be more specific, this is from an article making a different point, but it still applies.



can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...


Can you guess which organization this is?




Give up yet?





It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.

The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

No, I don't think that politicians are a good group at all to look toward to find solutions to crime.


Is that really true? Has someone actually researched this? Where did these facts come from?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO, Seattle's lame-duck mayor seems to thrive on chaos. His whole mayoral tenure was one constant over-the-top issue after another. I'm glad he's on his way out. His gun ban won't be far behind him.

52grain
December 20, 2009, 04:15 PM
can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...

If anyone has a source for this I would love to have it.

52grain
December 20, 2009, 04:18 PM
T165- what city was that photo taken in?

highorder
December 20, 2009, 04:45 PM
T165- what city was that photo taken in?

It's a photoshop.

Deanimator
December 20, 2009, 05:04 PM
I suspect that they believe that citizens who have concealed handgun licenses or permits are just as likely or almost as likely as people in the non-carrying population to commit crimes.
Don't confuse belief with assertion. It's monotonously routine for anti-gunners to say things which they KNOW and ADMIT are not true. Look at Josh Sugerman and so-called "assault weapons". He ADMITTED that he was intentionally trying to confuse them with machineguns in the public mind.

Remember Michael Belliles. He KNEW there was no basis for his assertion that firearms ownership in colonial America was "rare". That's why he had to MAKE UP many of his sources out of thin air, as attested to by the supposed holders of those materials who stated FOR THE RECORD that they'd neither met him nor possessed the supposed documents in the first place.

You set yourself the task of Sisyphus if you run around refuting all of the lies of anti-gunners. Rather than disprove this assertion or that assertion in isolation, prove that the person who makes it is a liar. Destroy their credibility and you make it an uphill battle for THEM.

Deanimator
December 20, 2009, 05:13 PM
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.

The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
For an even more egregious example, consider this:

Who are the only two groups allowed to carry concealed in the City of Chicago?

LEOs and the Chicago City Council.

That's like NYC having a law saying that only cops and the Gambino crime family can carry. Compare the percentage of Ohio CHL holders who have been imprisoned with the number of Chicago Aldermen who have, one of whom had a boyfriend who was a gang member, and in whose home were found copies of search warrants naming gang members. Even Teddy Kennedy and Chuck Schumer had the discretion to not vote themselves the Federal power to carry concealed.

cambeul41
December 20, 2009, 06:20 PM
can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...

If anyone has a source for this I would love to have it.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

ants
December 21, 2009, 02:33 AM
So far, this thread falls short.
Untruths, ineuendo, misinformation, mistakes, and fabrications are human. Our side must work hard to avoid them.

This site http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp may not answer all your questions, but it does include an extensive bibliography at the bottom so you can research your own facts.

I really don't consider Wikipedia a reliable resource, but the page on Gun Politics includes a over hundred references you can research.

duns
February 17, 2010, 11:48 PM
I suspect that they believe that citizens who have concealed handgun licenses or permits are just as likely or almost as likely as people in the non-carrying population to commit crimes.

It's NOT credible that they would believe what you suggest. Someone who has been through background checks and training is going to be less of a risk than someone who hasn't (who could dispute that?). No, that cannot be their reasoning. IMO they probably believe that guns are a bad idea generally due to the potential for accidents as well as deliberate misuse. If so, it's a hard argument to refute. I'm a gun owner myself and will carry when my license comes through shortly but I have yet to see any totally convincing statistics one way or the other as to whether gun ownership/carrying is a good or bad idea. Despite this uncertainty, I have made the decision that it is responsible and advisable for me myself to bear arms wherever legal.

JellyJar
February 18, 2010, 12:28 AM
duns

Please look at this:

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

duns
February 18, 2010, 12:44 AM
JellyJar, thank you for the statistics. However, from a quick glance, these statistics are about killings by CHL holders. Where are the comparable statistics about killings by non-CHL holders? I need both but don't want to disparage your work since any information is better than none. I will surely take it into account.

JellyJar
February 18, 2010, 01:59 PM
Duns

The gist of your post #20 is that it is "not credible" that many people would believe that CHL holders are as likely or almost as likely to commit violent crimes as the non carrying population.

The link to the VPC proves that you are wrong.

The purpose for which I started this thread was to elicit information that would prove that CHL holders are less, much less, likely to commit violent crimes then the non carrying population.

Do you have any such information?

Nico Testosteros
February 18, 2010, 02:07 PM
I can say I oppose illegal carry in public places.

I'm strongly with Oldman in this one.

I think the reason some oppose legal carry in public places is simply fear of guns.

Nico Testosteros
February 18, 2010, 02:10 PM
Oh and http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

hso
February 18, 2010, 02:11 PM
I think it's more likely based on the incorrect assumption that anyone that would want to carry a gun is going to be prone to use it in an unsafe manner and are therefore not that much different than a criminal's behavior.

Statistics and facts don't bear this out, but keep in mind it's an assumption based on ignorance.

duns
February 18, 2010, 03:28 PM
The purpose for which I started this thread was to elicit information that would prove that CHL holders are less, much less, likely to commit violent crimes then the non carrying population.

Do you have any such information?
I've made a quick analysis for Texas.

See http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf
Out of 61,260 convictions, 160 (0.26%) involved CHL holders.

From http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2007.pdf, there were about 288,000 CHL holders.

So the conviction rate amongst CHL holders was about 160/288000=0.056%.

The adult population of Texas is about 16.2 million so the conviction rate generally is about 61260/16.2E6 = 0.378%.

The ratio is about 6.75 (general adult population):1 (CHL holders).

Many of the convictions relate to non-firearms related offenses. It would be interesting to analyze the rates by type of offense but I don't have time to do it.

mec
February 18, 2010, 03:36 PM
The snopes link establishes that this came from a 1999 article with no citation nor any way to check to see if the figures given are correct.

JellyJar
February 18, 2010, 10:44 PM
I just received the latest issue of American Rifleman for March 2010. Starting on page 16 they have an article about how the VPC is attacking lawful concealed carry by citizens. On page 18 they state that ..

Florida's rate of revoking carry permits for firearm crimes has been 10 for every 100,000 permits issued.

then

[O]ver the same 22 year period, Florida's rate of firearm-related violent crimes by non-permit holders --not counting misdemeanors --has been over 3,000 crimes per 100,000 state residents age 21 and older.

duns
February 18, 2010, 11:25 PM
JellyJar, I don't know about your first statistic but your second statistic does not appear correct. According to http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/6dcf8a34-8940-4738-b8ac-5923642d32af/firearms_2008.aspx there were 34585 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. The adult population of Florida is about 13.1 million. That means about 264 firearms crimes per 100000 adult residents per year. Your figure seems too high by a factor of about 10. Or was your figure of 3000 for the entire 22 year period?

JellyJar
February 19, 2010, 09:05 PM
duns

If you have access to that issue of American Handguner I suggest that you read it.

Please note where I quote the American Handguner on page 18 it says [O]ver the same 22 year period,

The next part of that quote is over 3,000 crimes per 100,000. It does not say firearm related crimes.

Also these are not MY FIGURES. They are taken from that issue of the American Handguner.

Also according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Index for 2008 for the State of Florida, Table 5, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people is 2755.9. That is very close to the 22 year average reported in that article in the American Handguner.

duns
February 20, 2010, 01:45 AM
It does not say firearm related crimes.

According to your original quotation it was "firearm-related violent crimes".

If you have access to that issue of American Handguner I suggest that you read it.

You said American Rifleman in your previous post.

Also these are not MY FIGURES. They are taken from that issue of the American Handguner.

You've no doubt heard that 87.4% of statistics are made up? ;)


Also according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Index for 2008 for the State of Florida, Table 5, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people is 2755.9. That is very close to the 22 year average reported in that article in the American Handguner.
According to my reading of Table 5 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html , the rate of violent crime in Florida is 688.5 per 100000 inhabitants.

To compare apples with apples, you need a pair of crime statistics, one for CHL holders and one for non-CHL holders (or the adult population generally). In one of my earlier posts in this thread, I did just that for Texas based on conviction rates and came out with a ratio of 6.75:1 (general adult population:CHL holders). An earlier poster (highorder) said the generally accepted ratio is in the order of 5:1 to 7:1. I've seen similar ratios in various places on the web.

JellyJar
February 20, 2010, 08:33 PM
Duns

You are correct. In rereading the article it does not state if the rate is per year or for the entire 22 year period. Now it appears to be for the entire 22 year period.

Either way the per capita rate of violent crimes committed by permit holders is far, far less than the general adult population.

JellyJar
February 20, 2010, 08:43 PM
Perhaps I should wear my glasses even when I read. The magazine I have been quoting from is not the American Handguner but the American Rifleman.

squinty
February 20, 2010, 08:47 PM
mods please delete

1911Tuner
February 20, 2010, 08:56 PM
I started this thread was to elicit information that would prove that CHL holders are less, much less, likely to commit violent crimes then the non carrying population

For my 2% of a buck, you don't need validation or proof. Joe Citizen minding his own plate is more likely to suffer a for kicks beat down at the hands of a rat pack of gangstas on a given Saturday night than he is to be shot by a CCW permit holder...and probably most people who don't hold a permit, but carry anyway. Gang-bangers excluded, of course. They're as subject to shoot as they are to cut or bludgeon, and can't really be counted as representative citizens. They're a different breed, and respect nothing.

My wager is that there are probably many times more unlicensed, peaceably disposed, otherwise law-abiding folks who carry a gun every day than licensed. In fact...I'd quote odds on that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Possible reason some oppose legal guns in public places." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!