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

gizmo wrote:
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.

In the US, you would. However, it would likely just be localized outbursts. I doubt any States would all out secede again, but it is a definate possibility.

I want to share some stats from Florida found here.

IMAGE(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/therealedwin/CyFHsaTwYjyt5Htr5x89QzqWlABWcqFLQ0twL5NxGSp5mdeyW8BbAIYjbg7V/summary.jpg)
IMAGE(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/therealedwin/mET0NpJakVte3JFtOUZam7GsNM0f5IAH7pSmaugIK0UADyKzGImoj9EQLg9w/ch_493.jpg)
IMAGE(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/therealedwin/i0krkz8TDRO8OjMDKhEbgPIhzNPIcCcGYuV8hN0BQPaTGYtiCPcVo1l8gYVh/county.jpg)
IMAGE(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/therealedwin/dfLBlZenow0SyHv1NFAgyQ3o8pV7M3Wv9CDHxDGlChjbq3nVmoxArCcPAFsS/distributed.jpg)
IMAGE(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/therealedwin/R1Kfe0ERsAGuzuOvYWjDEUAzkaBUVeERHn0Fv90h2OPtqonQY90eFN1RFGHN/Licensees_by_Type.jpg)
IMAGE(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/therealedwin/2GWScvFrsqVq1FrJ5QH2MJfPYcGIheX7NhqDfV1SbYi1GTS18TsfVp3qx9je/profile.jpg)

OOOH! Stats!! I like stats.

So, over the course of 22 years in the State of Florida, 1,593,602 licenses have been issued, of that, 4317, or .27% have been revoked due to a crime, and of those crimes commited, 3.87% were with a firearm (or a total of .01% of the 1,593,602 licenses issued). Interesting.

Shoal07 wrote:

OOOH! Stats!! I like stats.

So, over the course of 22 years in the State of Florida, 1,593,602 licenses have been issued, of that, 4317, or .27% have been revoked due to a crime, and of those crimes commited, 3.87% were with a firearm (or a total of .01% of the 1,593,602 licenses issued). Interesting.

Of note, having only 3.87% of the crimes commited by that population being by a firearm is insanely lower than average, which hovers around 60-66%. I believe .27% average crime rate is signifigantly lower than average as well, with an average crime rate nationally being something like .54% (I'd have to check the FBI stats to be sure).

Shoal wrote:

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 suppose in a "all illegal immigrants are criminals because border jumping is a crime" kind of way, that is correct. I'm more interested in the people who commit crimes independently of firearm ownership, and how many of them would be unable to commit crimes if they were unable to legally obtain firearms.

As for Edwin's stats, don't get too excited now, Shoal. After all, it's only relevant in Florida.

Please keep in mind that this is for reported and for solved ones. Many many more go unreported and unsolved.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal wrote:

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 suppose in a "all illegal immigrants are criminals because border jumping is a crime" kind of way, that is correct. I'm more interested in the people who commit crimes independently of firearm ownership, and how many of them would be unable to commit crimes if they were unable to legally obtain firearms.

As for Edwin's stats, don't get too excited now, Shoal. After all, it's only relevant in Florida. ;)

It is only applicable in Florida, and the population is concealed carry permit holders, who are a sample of Floridians (if we were to expand our view.) However, the longer and larger a study the more that can be extrapolated by it. However, I would not say these stats will hold true everywhere. For all I know the conceal carry permit holders in Montana are murdering sons of bitches.

Shoal07 wrote:
gizmo wrote:

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.

In the US, you would. However, it would likely just be localized outbursts. I doubt any States would all out secede again, but it is a definate possibility.

So there would be states that secede from the United States because they couldn't own a gun? That's what pro-gun folks would define as being so central to being American? Not voting, not the peaceful and regular transfer of political power, but guns?

That's what I don't understand about the pro-gun crowd. There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government. That's why that crowd doesn't want lists, doesn't want records of gun sales, because they think the big bad government will use it against them.

But that fantasy about being future freedom fighters ala Red Dawn is countered by reality. As soon as weapons are known to be present, the government will respond with much more force. And since none of those situations tend to turn out well for the gun owners, I'm really puzzled how they can still stick with the idea that guns are required to protect them against an overreaching government. You have a stockpile of weapons, you're going to get an armored vehicle and a SWAT team at your door. Ergo, your guns won't do sh*t against the government so really what's the point?

OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
gizmo wrote:

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.

In the US, you would. However, it would likely just be localized outbursts. I doubt any States would all out secede again, but it is a definate possibility.

So there would be states that secede from the United States because they couldn't own a gun? That's what pro-gun folks would define as being so central to being American? Not voting, not the peaceful and regular transfer of political power, but guns?

That's what I don't understand about the pro-gun crowd. There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government. That's why that crowd doesn't want lists, doesn't want records of gun sales, because they think the big bad government will use it against them.

But that fantasy about being future freedom fighters ala Red Dawn is countered by reality. As soon as weapons are known to be present, the government will respond with much more force. And since none of those situations tend to turn out well for the gun owners, I'm really puzzled how they can still stick with the idea that guns are required to protect them against an overreaching government. You have a stockpile of weapons, you're going to get an armored vehicle and a SWAT team at your door. Ergo, your guns won't do sh*t against the government so really what's the point?

And the Brits had so much more power and organized military than us back in the day too - the revolutionists still one.

BTW, if this is true

There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government.

It's only because our founding fathers said so.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

OG_slinger wrote:

That's what I don't understand about the pro-gun crowd. There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government. That's why that crowd doesn't want lists, doesn't want records of gun sales, because they think the big bad government will use it against them.

You keep saying these things, despite actual gun owners telling you differently, as if you think repeating them will somehow make them true.

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

So there would be states that secede from the United States because they couldn't own a gun? That's what pro-gun folks would define as being so central to being American? Not voting, not the peaceful and regular transfer of political power, but guns?

That's what I don't understand about the pro-gun crowd. There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government. That's why that crowd doesn't want lists, doesn't want records of gun sales, because they think the big bad government will use it against them.

But that fantasy about being future freedom fighters ala Red Dawn is countered by reality. As soon as weapons are known to be present, the government will respond with much more force. And since none of those situations tend to turn out well for the gun owners, I'm really puzzled how they can still stick with the idea that guns are required to protect them against an overreaching government. You have a stockpile of weapons, you're going to get an armored vehicle and a SWAT team at your door. Ergo, your guns won't do sh*t against the government so really what's the point?

And the Brits had so much more power and organized military than us back in the day too - the revolutionists still one.

Yes, but the Brits didn't have an airforce to move that power to where it's needed when it's needed.

Shoal07 wrote:

And the Brits had so much more power and organized military than us back in the day too - the revolutionists still one.

You're right. It was all about those plucky Minute Men and their hunting rifles.

It had nothing to do with the thousands of professional French soldiers that came and fought for us, the military weapons they supplied us with, the mercenaries we hired, the French navy fighting the British navy at the end of their 3,500 wind-powered logistics chain, or the larger struggle for European power and dominance that was taking place at the time.

Shoal07 wrote:

BTW, if this is true

There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government.

It's only because our founding fathers said so.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I've bolded the important bit. Do you understand what he meant by that? That the government's response to the Shay's Rebellion should be to try to explain to the rebels why they were wrong, pardon them if they gave it up, or "pacify" them if they didn't give it up. The next bit make it clear what he meant by pacify.

If you need more proof, just look to the rest of the letter. Here's the bit that came before the famous quote:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.

See, TJ is calling the rebels dumbf*cks. He doesn't support what they're doing outside of some idea that it's showing that they're still engaged in democracy and is reminding the people in power that they are engaged. His true solution is exactly what happened: the rebellion got put down...just like every rebellion since. There hasn't been one time where guns were used successfully to "rebel" so I ask again, what's the point?

OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

And the Brits had so much more power and organized military than us back in the day too - the revolutionists still one.

You're right. It was all about those plucky Minute Men and their hunting rifles.

It had nothing to do with the thousands of professional French soldiers that came and fought for us, the military weapons they supplied us with, the mercenaries we hired, the French navy fighting the British navy at the end of their 3,500 wind-powered logistics chain, or the larger struggle for European power and dominance that was taking place at the time.

Shoal07 wrote:

BTW, if this is true

There's this unspoken understanding that guns are needed because at some point in the future, citizens will need to rise up in a new revolution against our current form of government.

It's only because our founding fathers said so.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I've bolded the important bit. Do you understand what he meant by that? That the government's response to the Shay's Rebellion should be to try to explain to the rebels why they were wrong, pardon them if they gave it up, or "pacify" them if they didn't give it up. The next bit make it clear what he meant by pacify.

If you need more proof, just look to the rest of the letter. Here's the bit that came before the famous quote:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.

See, TJ is calling the rebels dumbf*cks. He doesn't support what they're doing outside of some idea that it's showing that they're still engaged in democracy and is reminding the people in power that they are engaged. His true solution is exactly what happened: the rebellion got put down...just like every rebellion since. There hasn't been one time where guns were used successfully to "rebel" so I ask again, what's the point?

Is revisionist history fun?

Sometimes I wonder what's more awesome, a gigantic multiquote response that takes up an entire page, or a wholesale quotation of a gigantic multiquote response with a snarky, inflammatory, "witty" one liner at the end.

[edit] probably a d-bag that makes fun of both of those guys. Yeah. he's the most awesome.

Seth wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what's more awesome, a gigantic multiquote response that takes up an entire page, or a wholesale quotation of a gigantic multiquote response with a snarky, inflammatory, "witty" one liner at the end.

[edit] probably a d-bag that makes fun of both of those guys. Yeah. he's the most awesome.

LOL

right on

Ergo, your guns won't do sh*t against the government so really what's the point?

When the Iraqis were really determined to get rid of us, they did a pretty damn good job of making our lives miserable. Most of the casualties were from IEDs, but the presence of lots of guns sure slowed down response to incidents, since lone soldiers can't safely go charging into houses. That, in turn, meant more militants escaped.

Most of the vast firepower the US military can deploy is useless when civilians are mixed in with the targets, unless they decide to kill the civilians too.

Malor wrote:
Ergo, your guns won't do sh*t against the government so really what's the point?

When the Iraqis were really determined to get rid of us, they did a pretty damn good job of making our lives miserable. Most of the casualties were from IEDs, but the presence of lots of guns sure slowed down response to incidents, since lone soldiers can't safely go charging into houses. That, in turn, meant more militants escaped.

Most of the vast firepower the US military can deploy is useless when civilians are mixed in with the targets, unless they decide to kill the civilians too.

And the IEDs were mostly formed from the stockpiles of Iraqi artillery shells and bombs that weren't secured after the invasion. A group of modern day rebs might be able to get some fertilizer and fuel oil, but they aren't going to easily get tons of military grade explosives (none of which is mentioned in the 2nd amendment).

Our military already regularly kills civilians. We just don't call it that. We either claim they were all insurgents/terrorists or we say there was "collateral damage".

And, yes, if another state decided to go Johnny Reb all over again I'd hope that our response would make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a weekend trip to the beach.

Shoal. My only issue is how much conjecture goes on with anti-gun proposals. Some hot buttons recently have been gun shows and department stores(K-Mart). But they never back the statement up with and demonstrable problem. It is the same logic as anti-gangster rap, anti-pornography. I may be a gun owner, but we are all reasonable people. And so much of this debate, on both sides, relies on emotion and scare tactics. Some of the news stories I saw made it seem like every gun show was filled with people like the Military Shop owner in "Falling Down." With no substantially demonstrable incident arising from gun sales at trade shows outside of single incidents(tragedies indeed, but preventable?) The vast majority are collectors of vintage guns and sportsmen looking for bulk and cheap ammo. Bowling for Columbine does a good job debunking how "easy" it is for a child to buy a gun at K-mart.

And I will get back to something I said yesterday. If pro-gun and anti-gun could stop the silly dance they have been doing for centuries, and work towards things that we have seen demonstrably reduce crime, life in the US would get a little brighter. Focus on parenting, education, access to higher learning is the highest priority we should have.

And as a sloppy transition to citizen armies. There is another value to having armed citizens-instantly trained soldiers. A major reason we managed to get so many soldiers onto the battlefield in the 30's and 40's was our soldiers already had experience with fire-arms. The best anti aircraft and Bomber defense gunners were those well practiced with skeet and sport shooting.

OG_slinger wrote:

And, yes, if another state decided to go Johnny Reb all over again I'd hope that our response would make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a weekend trip to the beach.

Jesus Christ that's some scary thinking. I don't think you've really thought through what you just wished for.

Malor wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

And, yes, if another state decided to go Johnny Reb all over again I'd hope that our response would make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a weekend trip to the beach.

Jesus Christ that's some scary thinking. I don't think you've really thought through what you just wished for.

Arrgghh, chance to kill red staters, arrrgghh! OG smash! OG smash!

I personally hope that should a state peaceably leave the union, we'd leave them alone, rather than start a war of pride in our own backyard.

Staats wrote:
Malor wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

And, yes, if another state decided to go Johnny Reb all over again I'd hope that our response would make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a weekend trip to the beach.

Jesus Christ that's some scary thinking. I don't think you've really thought through what you just wished for.

Arrgghh, chance to kill red staters, arrrgghh! OG smash! OG smash!

I personally hope that should a state peaceably leave the union, we'd leave them alone, rather than start a war of pride in our own backyard.

I highly doubt we'd just leave them be. Otherwise, Texas would have done so already.

Staats wrote:
Malor wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

And, yes, if another state decided to go Johnny Reb all over again I'd hope that our response would make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a weekend trip to the beach.

Jesus Christ that's some scary thinking. I don't think you've really thought through what you just wished for.

Arrgghh, chance to kill red staters, arrrgghh! OG smash! OG smash!

I personally hope that should a state peaceably leave the union, we'd leave them alone, rather than start a war of pride in our own backyard.

As ridiculous as this comment is, it made me wonder how much better off the USA would be if we'd let the Rebel States secede.

Seth wrote:

As ridiculous as this comment is, it made me wonder how much better off the USA would be if we'd let the Rebel States secede.

An interesting thought. I wonder how WWI and especially WWII, if it happened, would have gone.

EDIT: At first guess, I'd say we'd be looking at "worse off".

The left and the right tend to temper and moderate each other, so that we do not become so liberal we lose our way or so conservative we cannot move forward.

While we may feel that two separate nations would solve a lot of our political conflict, I don't know how good of neighbors we'd be.

Seth wrote:
Staats wrote:
Malor wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

And, yes, if another state decided to go Johnny Reb all over again I'd hope that our response would make Sherman's March to the Sea look like a weekend trip to the beach.

Jesus Christ that's some scary thinking. I don't think you've really thought through what you just wished for.

Arrgghh, chance to kill red staters, arrrgghh! OG smash! OG smash!

I personally hope that should a state peaceably leave the union, we'd leave them alone, rather than start a war of pride in our own backyard.

As ridiculous as this comment is, it made me wonder how much better off the USA would be if we'd let the Rebel States secede.

I think successful secession of the South would have resulted in a geopolitical reality that would have made it impossible to keep the stronger European nations from meddling in American politics. In many ways, the perils that currently befall Latin America today would be ours as well. It would have been the end of American sovereignty.

LouZiffer wrote:
Seth wrote:

As ridiculous as this comment is, it made me wonder how much better off the USA would be if we'd let the Rebel States secede.

An interesting thought. I wonder how WWI and especially WWII, if it happened, would have gone.

EDIT: At first guess, I'd say we'd be looking at "worse off".

Ask Harry Turtledove.

Naw, no way. There's no real way the South could ever mount an existential threat to the North; it simply didn't have the resources or manufacturing. It would have turned into a relatively poor agrarian and textile-based society, while the North became even wealthier than it did as a united country. The economic drag from the slaves would have further damaged the South, to the point that it would be about as dangerous to us as Mexico.

The Civil War was never really in doubt; the big problem was that our fighting tactics were no good for the new weapons of the era, so the attackers in any given conflict almost always got slaughtered. The North had a lot more weapons and manpower, but they were typically on the offensive, so the South did better than it otherwise should have. When the South attacked, they lost almost as badly as the North did, and couldn't afford the losses. It wasn't until we'd ground each other up for a few years that the tactical lessons penetrated, and the vastly superior manufacturing capacity of the North ended the war.

And that was the last time it would have been even vaguely close. Once Detroit got going full swing, there's very little the South could have done to directly threaten us militarily.

As Harry Turtledove pointed out, the two United States armies, together, outmanned and outgunned every other army on the planet combined. On the ground, there were no other players that mattered. Once the North got their ironclad programs going, with their protected harbors in the Great Lakes, there would have been no way for anyone else to seriously project naval power around North America.

Had we allowed a peaceful secession, and had we come to blows later, even with European help, the Northern United States would have won even more resoundingly the longer it took for the conflict to start.

Seth wrote:

As ridiculous as this comment is, it made me wonder how much better off the USA would be if we'd let the Rebel States secede.

Is it ridiculous? You're saying if Texas should vote amongst themselves to leave peaceably today, we should invade?

Staats wrote:
Seth wrote:

As ridiculous as this comment is, it made me wonder how much better off the USA would be if we'd let the Rebel States secede.

Is it ridiculous? You're saying if Texas should vote amongst themselves to leave peaceably today, we should invade?

yes, it is an utterly ridiculous statement.

Do you have any reasons? Or is this a "gut" moment? (No snark intended. If this is your intuition, just say so.)