The Concealed Carry Fantasy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I just read the thread. The pro-gun poster(s) on this thread seem to be misinterpreting the deterrence point (perhaps willfully). As I read it, the point of PP was that increased gun ownership by society does not deter crime in society. In other words, if we arm 90% of the citizens in Columbus OH, but only arm 10% of the citizens in Indianapolis, we're not going to find that Columbus's crime level drops to 1/10th of the level in Indianapolis.

There's also a related point about whether an increase in gun ownership leads to other bad effects -- like increased suicide or increased accidental deaths -- regardless of any effect on crime.

But logic certainly suggests that a single individual armed with a gun is better able to deter a criminal than a single individual without a gun. It certainly seems someone holding a gun will have a better chance of deterring a criminal threat than the same person not holding a gun. Of course, the person holding a gun also faces an increased risk of blowing his own damn fool head off, and an increased risk of shooting an innocent bystander too. And perhaps the deterrence effect of the gun is less than the deterrence effect of a dog. But if you want to look at an artificially narrow question, then I suppose you can get the answer you want.

And then there are some studies that even suggest my simple logic might be wrong -- https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/ . That study from Philadelphia found people carrying guns are 4 times more likely to be shot than unarmed citizens!: "Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

The unfortunate risk of studying anything is that perhaps the observational effect is because those who carry guns in Philadelphia are already in an inherently more dangerous situation than those who do not- hence their risk of violence is already higher- otherwise they wouldn't carry a gun. Your quoted study does not control for this. It's very similar to my field- in medicine, old people with hip fractures have a higher mortality rate if we wait more than two days to operate on them. It's not because we waited two days- it's because they were too sick to go to surgery before two days and hence a higher risk for mortality already.

It's impossible to conclude that carrying a gun makes you more at risk to die from gun violence. It's a product of the environment which one lives which leads to the decision to carry a gun. Obviously there are exceptions on both sides...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I just read the thread. The pro-gun poster(s) on this thread seem to be misinterpreting the deterrence point (perhaps willfully). As I read it, the point of PP was that increased gun ownership by society does not deter crime in society. In other words, if we arm 90% of the citizens in Columbus OH, but only arm 10% of the citizens in Indianapolis, we're not going to find that Columbus's crime level drops to 1/10th of the level in Indianapolis.

There's also a related point about whether an increase in gun ownership leads to other bad effects -- like increased suicide or increased accidental deaths -- regardless of any effect on crime.

But logic certainly suggests that a single individual armed with a gun is better able to deter a criminal than a single individual without a gun. It certainly seems someone holding a gun will have a better chance of deterring a criminal threat than the same person not holding a gun. Of course, the person holding a gun also faces an increased risk of blowing his own damn fool head off, and an increased risk of shooting an innocent bystander too. And perhaps the deterrence effect of the gun is less than the deterrence effect of a dog. But if you want to look at an artificially narrow question, then I suppose you can get the answer you want.

And then there are some studies that even suggest my simple logic might be wrong -- https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/ . That study from Philadelphia found people carrying guns are 4 times more likely to be shot than unarmed citizens!: "Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

The problem is a criminal that has a gun and gets shot gets included in their data that lead them to state that if you have a gun you are 4.2 times more likely to get shot. Data can be twisted to prove any point, either for or against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

Forgive any perceived sock puppeting, but here's another analysis, this time by the CDC, concluding that suicide was the highest risk posed by owning a gun, especially by veterans:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

Again, both are from a single google search.

Ok so from that article:

"Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although th e exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

So I guess the data is showing that they ARE a deterrent? Contrary to what the earlier PP was saying.

They did a nice job of partial quotation, ignoring the state he that other studies put the number at around 100,000. The fact is the NRA cronies passed a law forbidding the CDC from studying gun violence. Seems unlikely that the data is on their side, or else they would be massively funding the research instead.

I was just quoting the article someone provided...if you have any data on whether criminals are/are not deterred by armed victims, feel free to share. Until then it's really just opinion based.

And I am saying that if you pull the report they cited, they cut out the parts of the report that did not support their perspective. Whenever someone partially quotes a source, there is a problem. And I explained why we don't have conclusive answers to this. The government was prohibited, by law, from studying it.

[Anonymous]

How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

You'd be surprised, but many gun owners are okay with much of this (as long as it doesn't create additional hardships). Many many people are perfectly fine with background checks etc. This, however, will not stop the bad/sick people from getting guns and killing people. I say go for it, if it alleviates your anxiety. But don't expect real change. Good folks don't need more rules to behave well, and bad folks don't give a crap about rules however strict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

You'd be surprised, but many gun owners are okay with much of this (as long as it doesn't create additional hardships). Many many people are perfectly fine with background checks etc. This, however, will not stop the bad/sick people from getting guns and killing people. I say go for it, if it alleviates your anxiety. But don't expect real change. Good folks don't need more rules to behave well, and bad folks don't give a crap about rules however strict.

That's great to hear, but people have been trying for years to get those simple controls passed. The NRA and Conservative politicians consistently block them, and demonize people who try to pass them. Why is that? Why won't responsible gun owners stand up in support of those basic controls, which would make gun ownership safer for everyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

I had to pass a test at the NRA range before I could shoot there. Are you aware of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

I had to pass a test at the NRA range before I could shoot there. Are you aware of this?

Gee, it's pretty hypocritical of the NRA to oppose testing requirements for gun purchasers, when they require it to shoot on their own ranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

You'd be surprised, but many gun owners are okay with much of this (as long as it doesn't create additional hardships). Many many people are perfectly fine with background checks etc. This, however, will not stop the bad/sick people from getting guns and killing people. I say go for it, if it alleviates your anxiety. But don't expect real change. Good folks don't need more rules to behave well, and bad folks don't give a crap about rules however strict.

You know what will keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys? Register every weapon and every sale. Then hold gun owners accountable for crimes committed with the weapons last registered to them.

[Anonymous]

How about the pro-gun people get on the side on those who want more restrictions and ask Congress to fund gun research. Then maybe we will have better studies that are more up to date. And we can use those studies to determine the which hypothesis is correct. I can't imagine why anyone wold take issue with that unless, of course, you are worried about the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

I had to pass a test at the NRA range before I could shoot there. Are you aware of this?

Gee, it's pretty hypocritical of the NRA to oppose testing requirements for gun purchasers, when they require it to shoot on their own ranges.

How will your law reduce gun deaths?

[Anonymous]

I think they should make it a law that gun owners have to join an actual militia. Since gun advocates are always clamoring about the 2nd Amendment which states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", then they should be required to join a militia and put in 20 hours a week training, patrolling, participating in exercises, and volunteering as security at local businesses. If you don't meet your volunteer hours requirements you lose your gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

You'd be surprised, but many gun owners are okay with much of this (as long as it doesn't create additional hardships). Many many people are perfectly fine with background checks etc. This, however, will not stop the bad/sick people from getting guns and killing people. I say go for it, if it alleviates your anxiety. But don't expect real change. Good folks don't need more rules to behave well, and bad folks don't give a crap about rules however strict.

That's great to hear, but people have been trying for years to get those simple controls passed. The NRA and Conservative politicians consistently block them, and demonize people who try to pass them. Why is that? Why won't responsible gun owners stand up in support of those basic controls, which would make gun ownership safer for everyone?

Suppose I am a responsible gun owner. What is it that you want me to do about NRA and the politicians? I have a day job. I have a family. You won't see me at any rallies. This is just rhetoric, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about the pro-gun people get on the side on those who want more restrictions and ask Congress to fund gun research. Then maybe we will have better studies that are more up to date. And we can use those studies to determine the which hypothesis is correct. I can't imagine why anyone wold take issue with that unless, of course, you are worried about the outcome.

Please no more studies. Enough. Fat lesbians were the last straw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they should make it a law that gun owners have to join an actual militia. Since gun advocates are always clamoring about the 2nd Amendment which states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", then they should be required to join a militia and put in 20 hours a week training, patrolling, participating in exercises, and volunteering as security at local businesses. If you don't meet your volunteer hours requirements you lose your gun.

Yes, an organized armed force opposed to current policy is the dream of every sane government in the world.