Either way, if the civilians are effective, we should still see the incidents that do run upon an armed civilian end in fewer deaths. I'm not sure that's the case, from the quick reading I've done.
Claims you've never actually heard spoken
Either way, if the civilians are effective, we should still see the incidents that do run upon an armed civilian end in fewer deaths. I'm not sure that's the case, from the quick reading I've done.
There was a study recently published in PLOS One that talked about a "contagion effect" for mass killings: they found that in the 13 days following a highly-publicized mass killing, the odds of another mass killing rose alarmingly.
In addition (and tangential to your point):
So in those polities where you'd expect there to be higher odds of a mass killer encountering a good guy with a gun, we're not seeing any kind of deterrent effect accompanying that arsenal's existence.
I'd have to find the article I found about the 9 instances to see their detail.
I do suspect that the bad guy will always get a leg up and a few shots in before anybody on the planet could possibly stop him. Simply because unless I am parked in my car, see the bad guy walk from his car into the nail salon with 50 guns strapped on him, I'm not in position to start shooting first. And other than calling 911, I'm not sure what the best strategy would be. With a pistol, shooting a well armed guy across a parking lot seems risky (missing, return fire from a rifle, etc). Or do I get out, try to sneak up on him and cap him from close range?
So any first responder is responding to the attack that just started. Which means some folks are going to get hurt. Active shooter situations win initiative basically and get their surprise round.
There's also the usual excuse that attacks happen in no-gun zones like schools. Nobody in a school is supposed to have a gun. Which makes it easier to get your murder spree on before anybody with a gun can get to you (generally cops).
While I am for having the right to have a gun (I have some), I don't see them as being useful/applicable all the time. Bad guys will break into my house when I'm not home, so I can't shoot them then*. A home invasion will happen while I am going potty or watching TV and don't have a gun handy. Half the places don't allow guns, so my gun gets left in the car when something crazy happens (which is actually pretty rare anyway). Having had a friend who almost got carjacked at a stop light, probably the most likely time/place to keep a gun handy and have it be useful is in the car for when roadside crime happens or for entering/exiting the vehicle for parking lot robbery. It's why my wife got her CHL because employees where she worked were getting robbed in the parking lot.
*this happened to me last year.
Not arguing with the math, but deterrent effect seemed to be debunked as I learned in sociology 101 a zillion years ago.
so death penalty laws, didn't stop crime.
By extension, the fact that more civilians have a gun in Houston than in NYC, doesn't stop bad guys from doing crime. (though I have no idea what the crime rates between the 2 cities are)
I recall from hearing an NPR article about corporate embezzlement crime, that the biggest factor single accountants were tempted to commit crime had was that they were the only one watching the books. They saw little chance of getting caught, so they did it.
My assumption then is that crime in general is motivated by the idea that they are not likely to get caught. Since my house now has an alarm and cameras, which increase the chance of a crook getting caught, they'll go hit somebody else's easier house.
I am not a fan of the Open Carry idea (though in TX it requires a CHL and it does simplify some issues about perfect concealment in our hot weather), but I imagine proponents might think that if every other person has a gun on their hip, the bad guys will see their chances of getting caught/shot are higher and go somewhere else.
Pretty much.
While they may have a point, to me, the power and value of "Open Carry" depends too much on white privilege.
Q: what do you call a bunch of white guys carrying guns openly on the streets of Texas?
A: Open Carry advocates
Q: what do you call a black guy carrying a gun openly in an Ohio Wal-Mart?
A: The Deceased
I carry no firearms- not even fake ones: I don't need panicky white people thinking i'm a threat.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Yeah, this whole open carry issue is really starting to get disturbing. I can't imagine African-Americans or Arab-Americans getting away with the same stuff those white guys are getting away with. I'd love to see someone actually confront the issue by trying, but they would have to be extremely brave people because I can't imagine them not getting a SWAT team called on them.
If they survived, though, it would make one heck of a civil-rights lawsuit.
Film a bunch of the open-carry people doing what they do, and not being called on it.
Do that same thing, film it. Get dragged in. Have the ACLU on speed-dial....
Considering the number of blacks who have been killed carrying toy/bb guns- the guy in Wal-Mart was carrying one he was intending to buy, after all- I just don't think I'd volunteer to be a part of that social experiment.
The last gun-like object I owned was a squirt gun that looked like a Colt 1911. It was actually battery powered, and made a bit of a "crack" when it fired. Then a buddy borrowed it and blacked out the orange tip. That was in 1987.
I've only touched 2 firearms since then, both belonging to others, handled in the privacy of my own home. I'm simply not going to give someone good odds of making a bad mistake.
I've only touched 2 firearms since then, both belonging to others, handled in the privacy of my own home. I'm simply not going to give someone good odds of making a bad mistake.
Similar Threads
