Shall-Issue laws reduce crime (i.e. concealed carry laws)

Kehama wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Most CCW permits require training classes as well as shooting tests. You also cannot get a hunting license without taking the training classes.

Just as an example, about 10 years ago I decided to get a CCW permit here in Alabama. To get it I had to fill out a one page application and have 3 references sign it. I mailed it in along with a $20 check and a week or two later I had my permit. To renew it all I had to do was send another $20 check every year. As far as I know, as long as I didn't have a criminal records I was good to go. References weren't checked and no classes or tests were required.

Yeah, that's why I bolded the above. As another example, there is no permit needed in Vermont. ANYONE can carry concealed.

edit: anyone who can legally own a firearm that is.

On a whim, I clicked on one of the links posted by Shoal (Plassman & Whitley), and it turned out to go like this: two researches ran a large-scale study that concluded that the favorable rights-to-own legislation INCREASES the violent crime rates, and a third researcher took their results, reviewed them, and announced that YOUR DOING IT WRONG, and your own research actually indicates that the violent crime rates demonstrably DECREASE.

Seth wrote:

Shoal has posted a metric buttload of scholarly papers proving that guns reduce crime here, and OG and Robear have posted a similar amount in a variety of threads proving that guns increase violence. Both sides cannot be correct, can they

Indeed!

At the risk of dragging this discussion into familiar race territory....

I am uncertain about the effect of guns on the level of overall violent crime, but would be willing to bet that a true scientific study would show that gun policy would have effects to overall violent crime that could be measured in the statistical margins. The availbility of firepower does not rate as a root cause of violence. People don't commit violent acts because of guns. They commit them with guns or bats or knives or bricks.

That said, even if it did have a statistically significant effect on violent crime levels, I would still doggedly defend my right to have guns for the purpose of defending myself and others because (and here is where I am likely to piss folks off) the thin veneer of civilization in our society tends to disproportionately protect folks that look like Shoal, Gorilla, and/or Robear than it does folks who look like me. There is no doubt, for instance, in my mind that "law and order" Pete Wilson would have rolled tanks from the California National Guard to stop rioters from burning out a white neighborhood, but he let Koreatown burn for 6 days.

Paleocon wrote:

At the risk of dragging this discussion into familiar race territory....

I am uncertain about the effect of guns on the level of overall violent crime, but would be willing to bet that a true scientific study would show that gun policy would have effects to overall violent crime that could be measured in the statistical margins. The availbility of firepower does not rate as a root cause of violence. People don't commit violent acts because of guns. They commit them with guns or bats or knives or bricks.

That said, even if it did have a statistically significant effect on violent crime levels, I would still doggedly defend my right to have guns for the purpose of defending myself and others because (and here is where I am likely to piss folks off) the thin veneer of civilization in our society tends to disproportionately protect folks that look like Shoal, Gorilla, and/or Robear than it does folks who look like me. There is no doubt, for instance, in my mind that "law and order" Pete Wilson would have rolled tanks from the California National Guard to stop rioters from burning out a white neighborhood, but he let Koreatown burn for 6 days.

Well, we got to save the taxpayers to pay for tank gas.

Ba-dump ching!

The thing is, OG, that guns are heavy and inconvenient. Most people aren't going to routinely carry an AR-15; it's hard to grocery-shop! And a big rifle is certainly better than a pistol, but the difference between a pistol and a rifle is nowhere the near the difference from being unarmed to having the pistol. I did a lot of paintball when I was young, and the guys with the single-shot, woefully inaccurate Splatmasters could be remarkably effective.

In existing states with shall-issue CCW permits, you don't see people toting combat armor and repeating shotguns.

Ultimately, for me, the question comes down to, "Am I willing to give up my right to buy and use a weapon if I need to protect myself?" And the answer to that is "Hell, no!" I can't trust the police to defend me; about all I can do is get them to do is prosecute someone when it's too late. They are, by design, a reactive force. I think that's proper, and I wouldn't want to change that, but I also want the ability to get a weapon if I feel threatened. I've seen it happen to a couple of friends, and if I'm ever in that position, I want to be able to arm myself.

In the final analysis, that's all I really care about. I know perfectly well I won't misuse a weapon, and that I'd treat one carefully and store it safely. I am not willing to give up that right because I imagine that other people may misuse theirs.

Malor wrote:

In the final analysis, that's all I really care about. I know perfectly well I won't misuse a weapon, and that I'd treat one carefully and store it safely. I am not willing to give up that right because I imagine that other people may misuse theirs.

This. And the final sentence applies to sooooo many of the other conversations we're having about rights vs. stupid people as well.

Malor wrote:

The thing is, OG, that guns are heavy and inconvenient. Most people aren't going to routinely carry an AR-15; it's hard to grocery-shop!

Lies!!

IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/3974123845_7d40dae97f.jpg)

Malor wrote:

In the final analysis, that's all I really care about. I know perfectly well I won't misuse a weapon, and that I'd treat one carefully and store it safely. I am not willing to give up that right because I imagine that other people may misuse theirs.

And that's where we disagree, Malor. I don't trust anyone enough to let them carry around loaded weapons because Americans have repeated proven their ability to be outrageously stupid.

I'm sure most people who purchase firearms *know* they won't misuse a weapon...until some jerk hits their car...until they have one too many cocktails after work...until the wife just won't shut her trap.

That's what the stats show. The biggest reason for shooting someone is plain old simple arguments. They aren't hardened criminals or drug dealers. They're average Joes who just happened to lose it.

Most posters here do fall under the responsible gun owner category, but I'd say that you all are a minority. I'd also say that you project your behaviors onto the larger gun owning community and assume they are as conscientious as you are.

But they aren't. They don't get training. They don't properly store their weapons. They don't do any of the things you and others take as common sense when it comes to weapons. What's worse is that pro-gun groups actually fight against those common sense things.

That's the disconnect I just don't understand. The pro-gun crowd know firearms are misused. They know some people should never be let within 10 feet of a gun. They know that certain things should be mandatory when it comes to owning guns. Yet they'll never take that position publicly and, more importantly, they'll never take responsibility for the societal costs of continuing to refuse to do anything about controlling or restricting firearms or, worse, actively blocking efforts to do so.

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

The thing is, OG, that guns are heavy and inconvenient. Most people aren't going to routinely carry an AR-15; it's hard to grocery-shop!

Lies!!

IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/3974123845_7d40dae97f.jpg)

Israel is awesome.

Malor wrote:

Oh, and my particular theory on guns and crime has always been that it's not the guns that are important, it's the imbalance of power. If everyone is armed, you don't have much crime. If nobody is armed, you don't have much crime. But when criminals can be pretty sure that they are armed, and you aren't, crime is safer for them, and more of it happens.

I have no evidence supporting this; this is a wild-assed theory from thin air. But I still suspect it's probably true.

lot of common sense sounds like to me

If everyone is armed, you don't have much crime. If nobody is armed, you don't have much crime.

Eh, I don't buy it. The American frontier didn't lack for crime, or for armed citizenry. Otherwise the militia would not have been necessary. Likewise, there are plenty of modern societies that are loaded with weapons and highly violent.

Mennonites are completely pacifist and suffer from crime at reasonable rates, usually handled within the community. As the NRA is fond of saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". And I think crime stems from societal issues (or personal failings), and that weaponry is orthogonal to the criminal mindset.

Every drug dealer in the 1980's was armed; that didn't make them any more polite to each other.

Robear wrote:
If everyone is armed, you don't have much crime. If nobody is armed, you don't have much crime.

Eh, I don't buy it. The American frontier didn't lack for crime, or for armed citizenry. Otherwise the militia would not have been necessary. Likewise, there are plenty of modern societies that are loaded with weapons and highly violent.

Mennonites are completely pacifist and suffer from crime at reasonable rates, usually handled within the community. As the NRA is fond of saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". And I think crime stems from societal issues (or personal failings), and that weaponry is orthogonal to the criminal mindset.

Every drug dealer in the 1980's was armed; that didn't make them any more polite to each other.

I agree with this. Just as crime is not caused by the existance of guns, it isn't at all solved by them either. Treat the root causes rather than trying to find magic bullets (pun intended). In all of the studies anyone has ever done regarding the root causes of violent crime the single biggest consistently occurring common denominator is the degree of buy-in and connectedness to the community. If your community does not function as a community (eg: creates opportunity, provides a social safety net, and gives members reasons to regard the collective prosperity), you end up with folks disregarding the established rules and creating their own.

Guns or the lack of them only affects outcomes on the margins.

OG_slinger wrote:

That's what the stats show. The biggest reason for shooting someone is plain old simple arguments. They aren't hardened criminals or drug dealers. They're average Joes who just happened to lose it.

What stats? This isn't true at all.

I think the vast majority of gun crime and gun deaths in this country is fallout from the War on Drugs.

Malor wrote:

I think the vast majority of gun crime and gun deaths in this country is fallout from the War on Drugs.

Hmm, now that's an interesting hypothesis that could be researched. How much crime and thus killing is somehow drug related? I imagine a good percentage of it, but how much really? People commiting crime to use drugs, as well as the "war" between dealers, suppliers, and law enforcement.

Interesting.

Would we count the crimes committed for obtainning drugs? Ie robbing gas station for money to get drugs.

Edwin wrote:

Would we count the crimes committed for obtainning drugs? Ie robbing gas station for money to get drugs.

Yes.

While I would like to see this, it just won't be possible to observe now without a study. Crime reporting is pretty good in the US, cause reporting is not. Someone could easily get a PhD with this study however, even if they just look at some of the major cities' precincts and extropolate from there.

Malor wrote:

I think the vast majority of gun crime and gun deaths in this country is fallout from the War on Drugs.

I'm not sure on the numbers, but I would definitely say you have a very good point here.

Shoal07 wrote:
Malor wrote:

I think the vast majority of gun crime and gun deaths in this country is fallout from the War on Drugs.

Hmm, now that's an interesting hypothesis that could be researched. How much crime and thus killing is somehow drug related? I imagine a good percentage of it, but how much really? People commiting crime to use drugs, as well as the "war" between dealers, suppliers, and law enforcement.

Interesting.

don't forget the ones that come from situations in which people are under the influence of drugs.

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

That's what the stats show. The biggest reason for shooting someone is plain old simple arguments. They aren't hardened criminals or drug dealers. They're average Joes who just happened to lose it.

What stats? This isn't true at all.

Well, the FBI says differently.

2,106 firearm homicides over arguments. Add a couple more hundred for the standard arguments over money, property, and love interests. Add them up and you get 24% of all firearm homicides.

As for the other statements that it's all about the War on Drugs, the data doesn't really support it. Drugs are responsible for 13% of firearm homicides:

Gangland killings: 113
Juvenile gang killings: 664
Fights under influence of drugs: 49
Narcotic drug laws: 416

Even if you say all of the robbery related firearm homicides were drug related (a hard thing to admit), you still don't equal the number of people getting shot and killed over a lousy argument.

OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

That's what the stats show. The biggest reason for shooting someone is plain old simple arguments. They aren't hardened criminals or drug dealers. They're average Joes who just happened to lose it.

What stats? This isn't true at all.

Well, the FBI says differently.

2,106 firearm homicides over arguments. Add a couple more hundred for the standard arguments over money, property, and love interests. Add them up and you get 24% of all firearm homicides.

As for the other statements that it's all about the War on Drugs, the data doesn't really support it. Drugs are responsible for 13% of firearm homicides:

Gangland killings: 113
Juvenile gang killings: 664
Fights under influence of drugs: 49
Narcotic drug laws: 416

Even if you say all of the robbery related firearm homicides were drug related (a hard thing to admit), you still don't equal the number of people getting shot and killed over a lousy argument.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the stats. First, the FBI does not collect the right data to make any analogy as to which of these crimes is around drugs (either about or under the influence of). There is some sub-categories that are obviously drug specific, but a robbery to get drug money is not tracked, where as killing over an argument about narcotics is. The academic and political circles have various theories as to why this is, but the bottom line is because they (the FBI) don't want to, or didn't want to at a time, so the system wasn't designed to capture it. The new system should capture this data - at least I hope so.

Next, 24% of all firearm homicides is by far not "The biggest reason for shooting someone" - in fact, it would be 76% not the biggest reason. The vast majority of firearm killings are in conjunction with a felony. There is the odd category of "Other than felony type total" which seems to have almost 50% by itself, but I don't know what falls into that category, and I can't seem to find the definition.

Bah if you restrict weapons then you just restrict the use of the weapon to people who abide by the law. Remember it is not a crime until you are caught!

Pharacon wrote:

Bah if you restrict weapons then you just restrict the use of the weapon to people who abide by the law. Remember it is not a crime until you are caught!

So you're saying, "when guns are illegal only the outlaws will have guns?"

Never heard that one before...

I heard smearing yourself with feces reduces the chances you'll be robbed... Why, you'd have to be crazy not to smear yourself with feces!!!

Be nice to pharacon, he doesn't come in here very often and I miss him.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Pharacon wrote:

Bah if you restrict weapons then you just restrict the use of the weapon to people who abide by the law. Remember it is not a crime until you are caught!

So you're saying, "when guns are illegal only the outlaws will have guns?"

Never heard that one before...

Maybe it's a little cliche, but it is one of the only solidly true statements around here.

If sugar is illegal, only outlaws will have cavities.

KingGorilla wrote:

If sugar is illegal, only outlaws will have cavities.

Holy sh*t, I'm the baddest $%^#%$^ ever!

Also: Not true since more than sugar causes cavities.

Shoal07 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Pharacon wrote:

Bah if you restrict weapons then you just restrict the use of the weapon to people who abide by the law. Remember it is not a crime until you are caught!

So you're saying, "when guns are illegal only the outlaws will have guns?"

Never heard that one before...

Maybe it's a little cliche, but it is one of the only solidly true statements around here.

It's true that people who obtain weapons illegally cannot be stopped by laws prohibiting the sale of weapons. It is not true that "outlaws" are simultaneously involved in every criminal activity and that some angry kid down the street or violent thug looking for a hit necessary has any idea HOW to obtain a weapon illegally. Kind of a rose/flower thing.

Now mind you, I'm against gun control so I'm not arguing a side here, just an idea. It is possible (note that "possible" does not mean "absolutely certain") that if guns were illegal, some people would be unable to get a gun and therefore, unwilling to attempt a violent crime. Others would buy their guns illegally and others would just get a knife (or perhaps a crossbow?) but some would really say, "hell with it" and try to think of another option.

Please don't think of this as playing "Devil's Advocate." I just have trouble accepting something I don't find to be completely (solidly?) true, even if it says what I want it to.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Pharacon wrote:

Bah if you restrict weapons then you just restrict the use of the weapon to people who abide by the law. Remember it is not a crime until you are caught!

So you're saying, "when guns are illegal only the outlaws will have guns?"

Never heard that one before...

Maybe it's a little cliche, but it is one of the only solidly true statements around here.

It's true that people who obtain weapons illegally cannot be stopped by laws prohibiting the sale of weapons. It is not true that "outlaws" are simultaneously involved in every criminal activity and that some angry kid down the street or violent thug looking for a hit necessary has any idea HOW to obtain a weapon illegally. Kind of a rose/flower thing.

Now mind you, I'm against gun control so I'm not arguing a side here, just an idea. It is possible (note that "possible" does not mean "absolutely certain") that if guns were illegal, some people would be unable to get a gun and therefore, unwilling to attempt a violent crime. Others would buy their guns illegally and others would just get a knife (or perhaps a crossbow?) but some would really say, "hell with it" and try to think of another option.

Please don't think of this as playing "Devil's Advocate." I just have trouble accepting something I don't find to be completely (solidly?) true, even if it says what I want it to.

My point was the statement that "if guns are illegal then only outlaws will have guns" is 100% undeniably true. Of course, this is also only true if there's no grandfather law or anything. Which, historically, when a culture goes the way of outlawing guns, they require turn-in for destruction, so the odds of a grandfather law is unlikely.

Shoal07 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Pharacon wrote:

Bah if you restrict weapons then you just restrict the use of the weapon to people who abide by the law. Remember it is not a crime until you are caught!

So you're saying, "when guns are illegal only the outlaws will have guns?"

Never heard that one before...

Maybe it's a little cliche, but it is one of the only solidly true statements around here.

It's true that people who obtain weapons illegally cannot be stopped by laws prohibiting the sale of weapons. It is not true that "outlaws" are simultaneously involved in every criminal activity and that some angry kid down the street or violent thug looking for a hit necessary has any idea HOW to obtain a weapon illegally. Kind of a rose/flower thing.

Now mind you, I'm against gun control so I'm not arguing a side here, just an idea. It is possible (note that "possible" does not mean "absolutely certain") that if guns were illegal, some people would be unable to get a gun and therefore, unwilling to attempt a violent crime. Others would buy their guns illegally and others would just get a knife (or perhaps a crossbow?) but some would really say, "hell with it" and try to think of another option.

Please don't think of this as playing "Devil's Advocate." I just have trouble accepting something I don't find to be completely (solidly?) true, even if it says what I want it to.

My point was the statement that "if guns are illegal then only outlaws will have guns" is 100% undeniably true. Of course, this is also only true if there's no grandfather law or anything. Which, historically, when a culture goes the way of outlawing guns, they require turn-in for destruction, so the odds of a grandfather law is unlikely.

I can only imagine the carnage that telling the gun enthusiast's to turn in their weapons for distruction would set off. You may actually see honest acts of rebellion.