Possible reason some oppose legal guns in public places.

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JellyJar

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
1,295
Location
Alabama
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • Respect.jpg
    Respect.jpg
    106.4 KB · Views: 110
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
 
mljdeckard said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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

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


http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
 
JellyJar asked for sources we can cite.

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.
 
JellyJar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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, 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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top