You Never know 2...

[JackTheRipper]

Okay first thread got shut down... (dunno why, sometimes I think this website is pretty strict)...

It happened in my state where a 19 year old man was trying to rob the place and a customer was legally carrying and shot the robber and the other robber got away. Makes me wonder about states with more relaxed gun carrying laws being the safest carrying states vs the states where you can't carry and they have more crime.

here is the original article: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/art...-customer-authorities-say?odyssey=mod|mostcom

what do you all think about it? the less strict the gun laws, the the less crime? or the tighter the gun laws, the more crime? I'd honestly like to get some discussion out of this one and not shut down. I'm sure many of you have some insight that is different and appealing. Please give me your thoughts...

thanks!

 

[Bobson]

Art closed your first thread on this topic because you posted half a sentence, a link, and left it at that. If you want to discuss an article you found (and it falls within THR goals), post the link, summarize the article in at least moderate detail, and introduce the discussion with some questions, at the very least. You did a much better job this second time around.

As far as the topic itself, it's my opinion that states with "relaxed" carry laws - like Arizona for example - will tend to be safer places to live, in general. Of course there are exceptions to that, and every state has unsafe areas, but it's reasonable to conclude that when law-abiding citizens are armed, criminals will be at least a bit more careful about who/where/when they strike.

 

[bikemutt]

The link gave little details for me but I'm not so sure business establishment robbery is a crime which, when contemplated, is likely to have armed customers on the list of reasons not to do it. I guess I don't credit armed robbers with enough foresight to weigh that factor, especially knowing that most businesses have strict bans on employee carry.

Armed robbery is already an extremely high-risk career choice, I wonder if the rare possibility of meeting with resistance from a lawfully armed citizen really registers with folks employed in this line of work.

 

[M-Cameron]

this is one of the easiest examples i have found to convey loose gun laws and CC

http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/in...concealed-carry-helps-those-who-do-not-carry/


and it is spot on.....

and the less restrictive the gun laws......the more poisoned candy makes its way into the bowl.

 

[Art Eatman]

Check out John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime". He also has a website with a lot of discussion about this sort of event.

 

[mortablunt]

Places with really tough gun laws tend to be bad with crime. The most dangerous 1'st world countries, UK and South Africa, have close to total gun bans.

 

[smalls]

I thought South Africa had half decent gun laws, compared to most places (excluding the US)?

 

[mortablunt]

^No, not at al

Posted from Wikipedia:

In South Africa, owning a gun is conditional on a competency test and several other, ill defined factors, including background checking of the applicant, inspection of an owner's premises, and licensing of the weapon by the police introduced in July 2004. The process is currently undergoing review[4], as the police are at present, not able to adequately or within reasonable time, process either competency certification, new licenses or renewal of existing licenses. Minimum waiting period frequently exceeds 2 years from date of application.[3]

Getting permission to own a gun is arbitrary and takes a long time of uncertainty. Only about %2 of black applicants (80%) of the country, are approved. Guns must be registered and available types are limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As far as the topic itself, it's my opinion that states with "relaxed" carry laws - like Arizona for example - will tend to be safer places to live, in general.

I don't really see it. New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii with very restrictive laws turn out to be safer than Arizona and New Mexico with very relaxed laws. Wisconsin that only recently got CCW was also better off. Massachusetts which is restrictive is comparable to AZ in violent crimes but has less property crime and it is much better off than NM. Alaska has some relaxed carry laws and they are almost as bad off as NM. Florida, which is often cited as a great case example of crime declining after CCW began (thought it immediately shot up after the first year) is worse off than NM.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

At least for 2008 and 2009, I can't say that I see a correlation between carry laws and crime. Apparently there is some other factor(s) driving and restricting crime more so than carry laws.

 

[macadore]

Mexico has somewhat more restrictive gun law than the U.S. and it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Tourism was a large part of the Mexican economy has practically disappeared. Tight gun control not only causes crime to rise, but damages the economy. IMO, people are less productive when they live in fear.

 

[cskny]

Mexico has somewhat more restrictive gun law than the U.S. and it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Tourism was a large part of the Mexican economy has practically disappeared. Tight gun control not only causes crime to rise, but damages the economy. IMO, people are less productive when they live in fear.

They may have restrictions on the books but are they enforcing anything down there these days?

 

[macadore]

They may have restrictions on the books but are they enforcing anything down there these days?

That depends on how much you pay the police.

 

[mitchell11]

I really dont think it is about more or less crime as it is control the public no guns more control in the worst case.That is if there were some kind of rise up in our country.Scary thought.

 

[HardKnox]

has anyone ever met the local police in mexico? unless its the federales the cops are regular looking people who drive around in unmarked pickups wielding machine guns, if you and me had a beatup truck and some EBRs we could pass as local police, probably for a very long time, because you cant quetion a cop in mexico.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

An armed society is a polite society. Jackals look for weak sheep. If the jackal can't know which sheep could be a well-disquised wolf, it will then seek prey in locales where the LAW will help HIS chances of successful identification. Picking wrong can be fatal & jackals know it. And please remember, laws don't make things safe. Citizens alone determine the relative safety of a street, neighborhood, city, state & nation.

 

[cskny]

this is one of the easiest examples i have found to convey loose gun laws and CC

http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/ind...-do-not-carry/


and it is spot on.....

and the less restrictive the gun laws......the more poisoned candy makes its way into the bowl.

I don't really see it. New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii with very restrictive laws turn out to be safer than Arizona and New Mexico with very relaxed laws. Wisconsin that only recently got CCW was also better off. Massachusetts which is restrictive is comparable to AZ in violent crimes but has less property crime and it is much better off than NM. Alaska has some relaxed carry laws and they are almost as bad off as NM. Florida, which is often cited as a great case example of crime declining after CCW began (thought it immediately shot up after the first year) is worse off than NM.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

At least for 2008 and 2009, I can't say that I see a correlation between carry laws and crime. Apparently there is some other factor(s) driving and restricting crime more so than carry laws.

How do you reconcile the 'candy hypothesis' with data that doesn't seem to support it? Flawed data, flawed hypothesis, both?

 

[cskny]

I guess the silence means we won't or can't reconcile them?

 

[Neverwinter]

I guess the silence means we won't or can't reconcile them?

The candy hypothesis isn't invalid on its face, but the problem is the attempt to use it beyond its applicability.

The candy hypothesis is actually the well-studied concept of mimicry.

 

[cskny]

The candy hypothesis isn't invalid on its face, but the problem is the attempt to use it beyond its applicability.

I agree.

But let's stretch it more for some fun.

I'll point out that the candy hypothesis doesn't account for different levels of hunger. So standing in front of the candy bowls will a starving person on the brink of death make a different choice than a person who just walked out of the all you can eat buffet? I think so.

Now, is it a stretch to think that a drug addict desperate for a fix might be a little more like the starving person, not the satisfied buffet lover? I don't think so.

 

[Hondo 60]

It's been my observation that places that have more freedoms when it comes to firearms tend to be safer places.

When a state allows more freedoms, it's because the citizens have demanded it, or not knuckled under to the "paranoid element".
The citizens are much more likely to exercise those freedoms, such as bearing arms.
This makes it MUCH more likely the criminal will have 2nd thoughts of trying to commit crimes because they know they don't have the safety of a "gun-free zone".

 

[cskny]

It's been my observation that places that have more freedoms when it comes to firearms tend to be safer places.

When a state allows more freedoms, it's because the citizens have demanded it, or not knuckled under to the "paranoid element".
The citizens are much more likely to exercise those freedoms, such as bearing arms.
This makes it MUCH more likely the criminal will have 2nd thoughts of trying to commit crimes because they know they don't have the safety of a "gun-free zone".

But Hondo 60, respectfully, that's just rhetoric, no different than anti-gun rhetoric. The question is, why does this data not seem to support your statement:

Quote:
As far as the topic itself, it's my opinion that states with "relaxed" carry laws - like Arizona for example - will tend to be safer places to live, in general.
I don't really see it. New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii with very restrictive laws turn out to be safer than Arizona and New Mexico with very relaxed laws. Wisconsin that only recently got CCW was also better off. Massachusetts which is restrictive is comparable to AZ in violent crimes but has less property crime and it is much better off than NM. Alaska has some relaxed carry laws and they are almost as bad off as NM. Florida, which is often cited as a great case example of crime declining after CCW began (thought it immediately shot up after the first year) is worse off than NM.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

At least for 2008 and 2009, I can't say that I see a correlation between carry laws and crime. Apparently there is some other factor(s) driving and restricting crime more so than carry laws.

 

[lemaymiami]

This type of thread is one that I normally avoid - but I'll venture an opinion here... My years on the street tell me that carry or no carry, armed citizen or not, restrictive gun laws or not restrictive.... none of it makes much of a difference for those inclined to violent crime. Like our economy (sad as it is currently) a rising tide floats all boats. Crime rates have a lot more to do with social conditions than any other factor. The only thing that I'm certain affects the crime rate is whether known bad actors are in prison or not. In places where the known violent are locked away for a long time the crime rate definitely goes down. Now that California is releasing folks as fast as they lock them up you can predict a bad outcome.... I'd like to be wrong about this but it's what my experience has taught me.

For those with that choose to be an armed citizen and their families. You're the exception in a world of sheep.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

An armed society is a polite society.

Ah, the paranoid Heinlein quote rears its ugly head. Aside from the fact that the quote comes from a work of fiction, the quote specifically refers to people being scared all the time that they might do something to offend another and have that person kill them for the infraction.

If you follow the quote a bit further...

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

This indicates that in such an armed society, people may willingly kill you for a behavior of yours that is considered ill-mannered. That is some scary thinking. It means that society isn't actually safer, but living on the brink of chaos such that a tiny infraction of manners could result in your death.

Somalia is an armed society. How polite are those people?

Notice that the quote is NOT ...

An armed society is a safe society.

Think about it.

But Hondo 60, respectfully, that's just rhetoric, no different than anti-gun rhetoric. The question is, why does this data not seem to support your statement:

We all would like to believe that being an armed society that we are safer. The truth of the matter is that society isn't safer because of being armed. It isn't less safe either. As lemaymiani notes, those inclined to violent crime will commit it no matter the circumstances. Being armed certainly may mean that you are safer as an individual, but that does not mean that society is safer.

This is why we don't see the changes in crime rates relative to carry status. All that relaxed carry laws do is to give individuals more options for self defense, though by and large only a tiny percentage of the population will carry daily.

Also, relaxed carry laws do nothing to change crime that takes place in the home where people could have guns away. All that the relaxed carry laws would affect would be the crimes away from home where restrictive laws would not allow for carrying.

It should also be pointed out that within states with relaxed carry laws or that have gotten carry laws after not having them, violent crime is still an issue. In looking at Texas, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are often amongst the top 10 for numbers of murders committed despite 16 years of concealed carry. Now maybe the criminals were polite and said "please" and "thank you" before killing their victims, but being polite does not translate directly into being safe.

 

[cskny]

The truth of the matter is that society isn't safer because of being armed. It isn't less safe either.

So, the candy hypothesis is wrong. The non-poisoned bowl has simply taken away the individual M&M's ability to defend themselves against consumption

Of course, I'm kidding. Excellent insight Double Naught Spy and lemaymiami, thanks for contributing.

 

[Art Eatman]

Wright, Rossi and Daly did a major statistical survey of laws and violent crimes in Florida involving firearms, and included extensive interviews with felons in Raiford prison. "Under The Gun", Univ. of Fla. Press, 1985.

The primary conclusion was that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes with firearms.

IMO, the problem is more with sub-cultures where young males are more prone to violence. Avoidance of those areas, whether or not you have a gun, means a greater degree of safety.

Regardless of the beliefs as to causality between low-restriction and high-restriction locales--Arizona vs. New York City, e.g.--the fact remains that a firearm can readily be insurance against bodily harm.

IMO there is too much focus on firearms. A data point from the mid-1990s from New York State indicated that of some 2,400 homicides, three were via "assault weapons". Around 2,300 were via knives, fists, feet and clubs.