I’m sure gun people will be pissed at me for this, but wanting to have a concealed gun on you doesn’t really make much sense to me if guns are supposed to be a deterrent. You aren’t deterring anyone with your gun if no one knows you have it. Shouldn’t you want to wear it where everyone can see it so they know not to try anything funny?
There is no such thing as a deterrent that deters people who don’t know about its existence, and if you’re a target by openly carrying the thing you call a deterrent, that doesn’t deter people either.
So maybe the argument that guns are a deterrent should be dropped by the people who want to carry their gun concealed about their person.
Well, I believe the idea is that if you are wanting to start something and you know people are definitely carrying, but you don’t know who or how many is the deterrent.
Let me start by saying I appreciate this hasn’t devolved and does seem to be a civil discussion.
The idea is most citizens are law abiding and if it is illegal to conceal carry or barred by the establishment to carry then only three types of people would be a threat to someone who intends to cause violence. First a law enforcement officer, second another person intended to break the law with a weapon and last would be an individual with the attitude’rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6’. The possibility of those types being in the vicinity is much lower than when everyone can be capable of self defense with a firearm.
There are many more nuances involved: does the person carrying have training? Can the person carrying be more of a danger than the danger their presence prevents? Is the criminal logical/smart enough to know and understand that there is a risk of an armed populace when they enact their crimes? And many more variables that can be put into play that aren’t part of this discussion.
I can understand your points here, but I still don’t understand, and maybe it’s just me, how not knowing who around has a gun makes everyone safer than knowing that you have armed people around in case there’s a problem.
Like someone else said, everyone they know conceals as a deterrent from mugging. I’m no mugger, but I know I’d be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying a gun.
I’d like to see some actual hard data that having legal concealed weapons actually makes people safer than having them out in the open.
Maybe I’m putting too much thought into this, but if I were a mass shooter, I would avoid shooting up the place where I saw someone with a gun in a holster.
Let’s say I’m a mass shooter. I’m going to kill as many people as I can before I’m taken out. I know I’m going to die either way.
Scenario 1: I walk into a mall and I’m going to start shooting, but I see a guy with a gun and I go somewhere else where I know I’ll get a chance to kill more people.
Scenario 2: I walk into a mall and I only suspect someone might have a gun, so I start shooting in the hopes that no one does.
Anyway, there are still mass shootings in states where people can have concealed weapons, so it’s not like that is proof they are a deterrent either.
Also, I wish people wouldn’t just angrily downvote my comments rather than talk to me when I am trying to be as reasonable and non-confrontational about this as I can. Especially when I have admitted that maybe I’m just not understanding this.
I agree. Nukes only work as a deterrent (for example) because the countries that have them “open carry” them. A concealed-program nuke is only good for after the fact revenge on a country that attacks you or an ally/neighbor. Just like a gun.
The study used FBI annual cross-sectional time-series county crime data for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. Although many recent crime studies have used proxies for deterrence, such as police expenditures or general levels of imprisonment, this study used arrest rates by type of crime, and also, for a subset of data, conviction rates and sentence lengths by type of crime. The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of “shall issue” right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.
Okay, and your response to my issues with what you have provided are what? Because, again, that doesn’t actually show me the paper, and the author has used questionable figures and methodology in the past.
The deterrent is the uncertainty of who may and may not have a gun on them. A lot of self defense is making yourself a harder target, the knowledge that a firearm might come into play and the victim may be proficient at using it makes anyone and everyone a harder target. It doesn’t mean desperate criminals won’t still make a move, but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.
I’d say the crime rates in no carry zones vs like… Red bits of Texas would be an indicator. No idea what those are but the number of stories out of Texas like “robber shot by 3 different people during hold-up”… Yeh.
Those stories are curated by the media. That is not good data any more than all the crime reports the media makes is an indication of the crime rate which has been dropping for years.
It’s assumed that no one is armed in California because of all the unjust laws here. No thief is going to hesitate thinking “what if my target has a gun…”
That’s sort of the crux of the issue here- this all seems to be based on assumptions rather than data. And even my merely asking for data has apparently been a step too far for some people judging by the downvotes.
I realize that guns in general are a hotbutton issue, but I really don’t think asking for data on concealed carry being a deterrent to crime is unreasonable when questioning the legality of it…
I literally have asked for data and evidence over and over. Just view the comment thread. Do I need to start showing you screenshots with accompanying links? Because we can start with higher up in this very comment chain:
There’s not good data on anything related to guns and it’s frustrating.
Intuitively it makes sense that if there might be a bear in the woods some people aren’t going to go into the woods because they’re afraid of getting mauled by a bear. It almost certainly has an effect, but quantifying it is going to be hard and subject to bias and the real effect will always be subject to other unrecorded factors (e.g. maybe when they tested one group the bears were hibernating).
I personally don’t think many people who aren’t into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place … which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I’m going to go rob this gas station).
I personally don’t think many people who aren’t into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place … which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I’m going to go rob this gas station).
By saying it’s already uncertain, you’ve immediately made an assumption. Congratulations, you’re just as biased as the rest of us. Nothing you said so far has been supported by evidence.
Everyone I know that carries does so concealed. They don’t care about deterrents or whatever, they’re just taking a precaution they hope to never use. Like being mugged or attacked. Source: Texas.
IMO, a lot of people see the open carrying types to just be people cosplaying badasses. The type that has spent basically 0 time training to use it, outside maybe taking it to a range and firing off a hundred rounds. They see it as a gun to be stolen?
The only time I see open carry that seems to make sense in all of this is shop workers/cashier. I’ve been in stores that have a reputation based on what they sell to get hit by robbers, and the guy working is carrying outside his belt. Like a smoke shop or liquor store for example.
Can’t help you there, again everything I said was my personal feelings on the matter being a Texan having talked to people about it a ton over the years.
The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of “shall issue” right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.
There’s two main reasons. For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed. A common mentality is that people who OC (open carry), do so for the attention, not protection.
And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun could make you the first target, either for attack or for theft of your gun.
For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed.
I don’t know that we should be basing our gun laws around what makes people comfortable. On either side of the equation. They should be based on data that allowing or disallowing something regarding guns is safe for the general public and effective when it comes to crime and self-defense. Or at least that is what I think and I would be open to hearing an argument against that beyond an overly-broad interpretation of the Second Amendment where all gun regulations should be nullified.
And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun just makes you the first target. Concealed carry gives the element of surprise
This is another thing I have seen people claim here several times without data and, at the risk of offending some, I would again like to see some data which actually supports this claim.
If you were going to rob a store and the person ahead of you openly has a gun on their hip, you’re either going to leave, take them out, or steal their weapon.
If your’re the one openly carrying, every person within arms reach could be a threat, and you’ll never know how much OCing actually deterred any action.
If want data, feel free to find some, don’t respond to every argument put into this thread with “I’d like to see some data”
Of course there is a need for data. Just because something sounds logical to you doesn’t mean it is true. Shouldn’t we be making laws on what is true and not what feels true?
If want data, feel free to find some, don’t respond to every argument put into this thread with “I’d like to see some data”
It is not my job to back up other people’s claims. Why do you think I should accept your claim or anyone else’s because you think it’s logical?
I didn’t enter into this conversation to contribute to some well researched discussion that you keep demanding from everyone that doesn’t agree with you. You seemed like you wanted perspective from someone who understood the pro-gun position. I provided it, goodbye.
There is absolutely a need for data. This is why everyone says the pro-gun sides have no arguments. There’s no concrete data you can point to just “much logic”, which means nothing in conversations where facts need to be brought up.
No, you’re more likely to be the first target and have someone attempt to disarm you. No one should know you have a concealed weapon unless they’re trying to kill you. Open carry is idiotic. Showing a gun if you’re not in fear for your life to the point where you’d shoot is brandishing, and it’s a felony.
I carry daily. The only person in real life who even knows I own a gun is my father.
You’re more likely to be targeted first in an attack if you have a visible weapon. Similar to how bank robbers will shoot the guards first if the guards have guns. If you have your weapon concealed you may be able to shoot the attacker before he is aware you have a weapon.
As I keep saying, you and the multiple other people who have made this claim have yet to provide anything to back this up in the way of hard evidence. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense to you that a shooter would shoot the armed civilian first, but, yet again, when has this actually happened?
You wont find that research because no one wants to do that research. Also how would you? It will always be anecdotal. I can only tell you my experience as a former soldier. I would shoot anyone who i saw with a weapon if i were committing a crime with a gun. It’s just common sense.
“Common sense” is the thing that made people think the sun orbited the Earth for thousands of years. Laws should be based on evidence, not “common sense,” which is why it isn’t surprising that most conservatives think “common sense” is behind everything they believe.
Why do so many of you here think we should make or strike down laws based on gut feelings?
Also “no one wants to do the research” is nonsense. The ability to do the research has been blocked for a very long time. The government is literally not legally allowed to do the research.
You and the others here simply want to do what feels right to you regardless of evidence, lack of evidence, or consequences. I’m not talking about any one side on gun issues either. I’m talking about people like you who don’t care whether or not there is evidence about the effectiveness or lack thereof when it comes to any law, but especially gun laws when it comes to America.
This isn’t a religious country, so why do you want your laws to be faith-based?
(To all of you arguing with me: those links you see above? That’s what is called backing up your claims.)
Sorry by common sense i meant my military training common sense would lead me to shoot anyone with a gun if i were committing a crime with a gun.
Squid, we have different views, thats fine but im just trying to explain my point of view. You obviously have me confused with someone else as ive not argued for anything faith based at all. Im not a conservative and you assuming that is probably why youre thinking people are arguing in bad faith. When i said no one wants to do the research that includes the US govt. i gave no justifications as to why no one wants to do research.
No, I’m not assuming you are a conservative. I am saying these “common sense” arguments are faith-based much like a lot of conservative thinking, which is why I am saying it shouldn’t be done.
Doesn’t it strike you as even a little odd that, despite multiple people telling me that a shooter will take out the armed civilian first, not a single person has actually given an example of this? I’m not talking about a statistical survey, I’m talking about even one example.
The only answer I have received so far from anyone that doesn’t rely on “this makes sense to me even though I can’t prove it” is the person who says it isn’t about a deterrent, it’s about feeling safe. And I wish that’s what everyone else had said because at least you don’t need evidence for that sort of claim. On the other hand, it’s a little hard to justify laws based on what makes you feel safe considering that’s a big impetus for the drug war.
Thank you for admitting that evidence and data doesn’t matter to you when it comes to the law, all that matters is your faith-based belief. That was my point.
Man, people must really love you if you twist words like that. The comment was meant in the general sense not the specific argument we’re having about weapons. Im not responding past this because you obviously just want to argue. Good day.
So in the “general sense” people shouldn’t supply evidence for their claims. I see.
Amazing how many people in this thread just twist themselves into pretzels rather than just say they can’t back up their claim and just want the law to reflect what they feel is right.
Although admittedly “no one is going to back up what they say on Lemmy because it doesn’t matter” is a new one. Why even be in a news community if you don’t care about evidence?
Kinda like the “common sense” anti-2a crowd…laws based on emotion not reality…but here is some evidence of why open carry is stupid. It is hard to get a study on why open carry is worse than concealed because there probably isn’t enough data out there to prove it deters a criminal… it’s not like you can go ask them.
Now, after reviewing the first one and before reviewing the others- would it be fair to say that, like the first one and the man talking about the issue in the first video, the problem is not openly carrying, but openly carrying with a holster that would make it easy to steal from?
The other videos comment on why open carry is not a good idea. Open carry while is done by police, do have proper retention holsters. That in itself can cause issues, but open carry does make you a target.
Okay, which of those videos best explains why it is a bad idea even with a retention holster? Because, again, otherwise the argument is not ‘open carry is less safe,’ it’s ‘open carry a certain way is less safe,’ which is something I think no one will argue with you about.
Try this one, dude is targeted for the firearm being valuable. Retention or not, you become a target. That’s the whole issue, visibility of the firearm. To me, open carry does not deter crime, I’d say it’s asking to be targeted. Same with those idiots who drive around with the gun stickers on their trucks… they’re fucking idiots.
Try this one, dude is targeted for the firearm being valuable.
That sounds like an argument for not having valuable things in places where people can easily steal them, not that open carry is inherently less safe.
We’ve also gone from “someone coming in to shoot the place up is going to target the armed civilian first” to “this man was specifically targeted for his valuable gun.” A little disingenuous, don’t you think?
One of my good buddies lives in North Las Vegas and has his CCW. He calls it a crackhead deterrent. I thought he was full of shit until I visited him, now I advocate for moving to a better neighborhood.
You have far more confidence in people than I do. Hoping to never use it (except perhaps in that drunk fight with my neighbour)? I wouldn’t trust anyone who carries guns on the extremely remote probability that it will help them in a shooting/robbery.
I don’t think guns are supposed to be a deterrent. Someone running to mug you isn’t thinking clearly about the possible complications or repercussions.
A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.
Plus if you dress like a cowboy, someone might try to mug you FOR that gun, making you a bigger target.
That’s all pretty heavy, and the odds are low that you’d encounter that situation. So not a lot of people are willing to complicate their lives for it.
A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.
In what world are you living in where someone comes up to you with a gun, in an attempt to kill you and you have time to remove your gun from wherever you’re concealing it, remove the safety and aim it before the person trying to kill you can kill you?
Earth. This happens frequently on Earth. Perhaps it may shock you to find this out, but most criminals and thieves are not trained with firearms, and are not very good at shooting. Unless they’re already aiming at you and intent on murdering you, instead of just robbing you, or scaring you, they’re probably going to miss the first shot or two.
In what world are you living where protecting yourself and your family is not important?
most criminals and thieves are not trained with firearms, and are not very good at shooting.
Neither are plenty of legal gun owners.
While some states require a small amount of education regarding firearms safety before purchase, I can’t think of one that requires marksmanship training or a demonstration of skill as a prerequisite to owning a weapon.
Owning a gun legally doesn’t mean you know how to use it competently.
At least when I got my CPL in Colorado, we had a very basic marksmanship requirement of getting 5 shots in row within a 12in circle at 7 yards. Because we had good instructors, they made us do it 5 times. IMO it’s an absolute joke of a requirement and should be higher, but sadly we still shot more rounds for that class than what’s required by a lot of police departments for a firearms qualification.
I think the issue in the US is that there are so many guns per capita and the population is so anti authority that it will take generations of confiscation before you’ll get a majority of personal firearms out of personal hands.
And in the meantime you’ve removed the right for individuals to have the opportunity to defend themselves in dangerous situations.
I mean I literally said attempt in my comments so…
And basically anything can be a “threat” to your life. But I doubt even an American would agree with shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic.
The deterrent is supposed to be the possibility of armed people. The idea is supposed to be that allowing people to legally carry concealed weapons means that any potential victim might have a gun.
On the other hand, many gun owners who support concealed carry oppose open carry for several reasons.
First off, they don’t want to make them or their gun a target. They don’t want someone trying to steal their gun, and they don’t want to flag themselves as the first target for any kind of attack.
But another huge reason is that they feel like the only reason to carry openly in public is to make a political statement and carry around an implied threat. Most people who carry concealed consider themselves pretty normal people and they aren’t interested in making statements or threatening others. They just carry a gun.
I’ll occasionally carry my target postil concealed just to keep the gun secure while transporting it. It’s usually in a safe at the house, but when I’m going to the range or leaving town I’ll take it with me, and it’s less-likely to get stolen off my hip than it is by having my car window smashed. Keeping it hidden on my person is just another part of firearm safety.
If a person with a gun decides they’re going to start shooting, are they going to shoot the other person with a gun first, or last?
A law like this doesn’t stop criminals so much as it let’s them not worry about being shot at. It doesn’t stop a criminal from having a gun. It stops everyone else from having a gun.
Explain to me how it makes a park safer to not allow concealed weapons in it. I’ll listen to your reasoning. No big wall of text with 50 reasons that would take ages to go over. Just explain to me how a law that stops a law abiding citizen from having a concealed weapon in a park will make it safer.
Ignoring the logic that even an insane person going on a shooting spree would want to shoot the armed people first, exactly how many mass shooting events do you think there are in comparison to smaller event shootings?
I have the answer for you. While there may be a mass shooting 20 to 50 times a year, ruling out suicides and accidents there are about 210 people shot per day.
Aside from you wanting evidence of a completely obvious thing a mass shooter would do, you’re trying to compare something that happens in less than a single percent of all other shootings.
Furthermore, there are almost 12,000 robberies in the US each year using knives, over 200 by choking victims, and over 4,000 per year using blunt weapons like baseball bats. Now you can interpret or swing all those statistics whatever way you’d like, but it would stand to reason that having a visible gun on you would go two ways- either the person doesn’t attack you due to fear of the weapon, or they would beat/stab you without warning or threatening the victim so they couldn’t have a chance to pull their gun out. Having a concealed weapon would give you an option to take the attacker off guard if the situation arose.
exactly how many mass shooting events do you think there are in comparison to smaller event shootings?
I didn’t bring up mass shooters. I just talked about guns as a deterrent. Other people brought up mass shooters.
Furthermore, there are almost 12,000 robberies in the US each year using knives, over 200 by choking victims, and over 4,000 per year using blunt weapons like baseball bats.
What does that have to do with anything?
it would stand to reason that having a visible gun on you would go two ways- either the person doesn’t attack you due to fear of the weapon, or they would beat/stab you without warning or threatening the victim so they couldn’t have a chance to pull their gun out. Having a concealed weapon would give you an option to take the attacker off guard if the situation arose.
Okay, great. Then I’m sure you can back up this reasoning with data on how often this happens vs. how many times attackers are fended off in other ways.
Why is there not data on this? Aren’t all of you who are just saying “it’s logic” or “it stands to reason” curious as to why there is absolutely nothing anyone has presented so far that can back up what you say?
Google tells me concealed carry started in Georgia in 1976. And all of you expect me to believe that in 45 years we do not have any studies that show whether or not concealed carry is effective as a crime deterrent? I’m not even saying no such study exists. I’m saying that if it does exist, none of you even know and most of you don’t care either.
Because, again, we are talking about a law here. Laws, and repeals of laws, should be based on evidence, not guesses, not ‘it stands to reason,’ not ‘it’s logical to think,’ not ‘we hope.’ Evidence. And if California proposed a law requiring every gun owner to, for example, submit their weapon for regular safety inspection, I would sure hope you would demand some evidence to support such a law.
This is what bothers me so much about gun discussions overall, both people who are into guns and people who are against guns- so much resistance to evidence. So much reliance on what you think is reasonable or rational or logical.
If you want guns to be illegal, fine. Show me evidence and data from other countries to support your argument.
If you want concealed carry to be legal in California, fine. Show me evidence and data from other states that shows that it is effective and safe.
He’s right… What he said doesn’t automatically constitute a reference to mass shootings. When I read it, I didn’t think of it in that regard.
That said, he’s pulling the straw man out for you, or moving the goal posts, or whatever its called… He’s not answering your questions and instead turning the argument against you by focusing on something you said wrong. He’s arguing in bad faith.
After the beginning of his reply started off with saying he wasn’t the one who brought up mass shootings, I didn’t bother reading the rest of his post. I wasn’t going to give a guy who can’t believe his own words he wrote my time of reading the rest of his post. Before that post though, I don’t think I moved a goal post anywhere. In fact, all I wanted was a simple response to the question I had asked about how it makes it safer at a park, which I believe no one answered.
Ok so you’re both arguing in bad faith then, got it.
Before that post? No, you didn’t, but I wasn’t referring to that post, was I?
And you’re right, no one answered it. Everyone in this thread needs to understand that the person they’re talking to isn’t going to do the work to change their own minds. You want to change someone’s mind? Put in the work, show references. Show studies. Show articles. We can all argue on logic and suppositions until the cows come home, but when has that ever worked for you to change someone’s mind on such a divisive subject?
I can Google a million articles about people getting shot with their own gun. Can you also do the same and show me something where the law abiding, gun carrying, citizen saved the day at a park? I bet you can. Prove it.
There will always be violence. Guns don’t change that. The only thing they do is make the death toll go up faster. You want to reduce the number of deaths by gun? Reduce the number of guns. And I say that as a law abiding gun owner.
You articles are irrelevant because…pay attention now… THIS LAW DOESNT GET RID OF A SINGLE GUN. Also, look at you as well, completely unable to provide an answer to my simple question, so you have to go off on a mini tirade of other junk to bury that fact away.
Edit to add: and the reason is because you are failing to see the correlation between what I wrote, why restricting guns is a good idea, and how it applies to the law in the OP. Like I said, you’re arguing in bad faith and, at this point, INTENTIONALLY not engaging in the subject and are choosing to twist things around. I don’t know why I expected you to be any different than any of the other gun nuts out there. Scream a little louder next time, it might change my mind.
You’re correct on that point. But you still didn’t answer his question. Don’t argue in bad faith like all the others do. He’s trying to have a constructive discussion with you. You want to change his mind? Then engage with him. Otherwise acting like you just did shows that you have no intention of engaging with the actual topic and are instead trying to put him on the defensive because you know you lost this argument.
The guy never answered the one question I asked about to begin with. Look up there. I wrote it out very plainly and specifically and got no response about how this law will make a park more safe. All of his responses you’re speaking of about the open discussion has not been a discussion of the one question I very specifically asked for. He’s just been trying to shift the discussion over to something else. Amusingly because he has no sound argument on it.
LOL, “I’m willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I’m willing to read.”
For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole ‘then only outlaws will have guns’ is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can’t purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole ‘black market’ gun stores thing is just a false argument.
The idea that a ‘good guy with a gun’ will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the ‘good guy with a gun’ who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.
Guns are inherently unsafe. We’re never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.
All the arguments for ‘private gun ownership makes us safer’ fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.
I wouldn’t argue against all of what you said, but that isn’t this law. It’s not fewer guns, or gun purchase restrictions, or legally owned guns or any of that. This is just a law that bans concealed carry at a few added places. Police can’t search a person without cause. These aren’t security restricted places places where you get checked for weapons before entering. There’s literally no hindrance to go into a park with a concealed firearm aside from “its against the law”. How will this stop the criminal sort from having or using a gun? Do you think a person robbing someone at gunpoint will be like “woah, I can’t rob them with this in the park. That’s extra illegal now”? Or that the criminal sort will stop going to a park with a gun, even though they wouldn’t be able to get caught with it if they leave it concealed and don’t do anything that would cause a cop to be allowed to detain and search them? The law passed doesn’t really do much to make these places safer.
And here’s the other argument we hear all the time. “This bill doesn’t fix everything, so it’s pointless and should be dropped.”
Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can’t know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.
That’s basically what you’re arguing.
Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn’t fix some other issue is just moot.
Shooting a weapon is always a risk. Not allowing weapons takes that risk away.
A concealed gun isn’t going to do shit when the mugger is already holding you at gunpoint.
I’ve never understood why you’d want a gun. The risks of guns being everywhere just seems a lot more obvious than the rare situations where they’d actually be useful.
Guns are far more likely to be used for bad than good, that’s why you want as little as possible guns around…
That’s simply untrue. On several different occasions I’ve avoided getting mugged/carjacked/robbed because I saw someone who looked like they were coming my way with intent and their hand in their pocket or just starting to draw it out, so I pulled out my own and in each case they turned around and walked away, presumably to find an easier target. Same with the multiple times armed junkies broke into my house - they see my gun, and they run rather than proceeding to do whatever the fuck they were going to do. I am a cripple, so I’m not gonna be able to fight - it’s this or nothing. Not just me, but my wife and son as well.
Yes, guns are bad. Yes, less guns is good! Total agreement. Unfortunately, life is not so black and white. In the US we have SO MANY GUNS, and so many available illegally, and cheaply, that any of these gun laws are only stopping law abiding citizens like myself from having a tool to defend ourselves with, as a criminal is going to be carrying wether it’s legal or not for him to as it’s readily available.
Australia and the UK, shit even Canada, are so different in this respect (guns per capita and availability and cheapness of black market guns specifically) that you really can’t compare policy - what works there isn’t necessarily going to work here.
So what’s the answer, you say? Lots of things!
We have a lot of gun laws on the books in regards to background checks/greymarket/gunshow sales/etc that are simply not enforced, or not enforced well. Enforce them! Make the checks more strict, stop letting folks with mental issues buy guns, etc.
Want a gun? You should have to take a mandatory safety course for that specific type of gun (shotgun, revolver, semi auto pistol, etc - just like classes on your drivers license). You should have to pass a test and renew it regularly, similar to CCW permits on most states. Let’s make it so that if you ARE a law abiding citizen carrying a gun, you know how to safely use the kind of gun you carry, can shoot reasonably accurately with it, have been taught your local self defense laws, have been taught trigger discipline, and have been taught how to check your fucking backdrop before you pull the trigger so you don’t put other innocents at risk when defending yourself.
Do something to limit the number of new guns brought into the system. The ones we got are here, can’t really do much about that without people losing their collective shit. But we ought to be able to slow down the numbers of new ones made available to the public, via extra taxes, limits on how many guns a person can purchase in a time period, I don’t know really, this is a hard one, but I think it’s the way we need to do it so we don’t just fuck over the average citizen - gradually.
if someone sees your gun, they can take it with a surprise rock to the head attack.
also if a decent percentage concealed carry, then crazy people will maybe consider that before doing crazy things?
(i don’t agree with that just playing devils advocate)
I know you’re getting blasted with replies. It’s not supposed to be a deterrent. You carry concealed so that you can defend your life with deadly force without having to walk around pretending to be a badass all the time. Carrying a gun doesn’t stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.
Carrying a gun doesn’t stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.
It can cause an attempt on your life if an assailant gets it. Or if you feel suicidal. The most dangerous gun is the one you own. The safest thing is to buy a gun and mail it to Alaska.
I also agree. If you own a gun, the person you’re most likely to shoot with it is yourself (statistically speaking). After yourself, it’s loved ones. A gun is a massive responsibility and you need to take that seriously in order to not fall victim to the patterns that create those statistics.
I totally agree! If there was a tool I could carry around that made me invulnerable I’d carry that instead. A “proper” person who has decided to carry a gun should also be carrying pepper spray and a med kit. You can argue about the utility of a taser, but they’re very uncommon for people to carry. They should also have significant practice with any tool they decide to carry. Oh, and they should practice de-escalating and disengaging from various “bad” situations. The priority should be to do everything you can to avoid using your gun. If you are forced to use it, that’s a bad, rare, and regrettable situation, and you had really better be able to tell yourself you did everything right.
How fragile and distrusting of other people does someone have to be to feel the urge to carry a gun around on their person at all times? Granted America can be a bit (lol) dystopian but to warrant a gun on your hip to go to Trader Joe’s? That’s some scared person behaviour. For a nation that wants to come across as being the confident cowboy there really is a scared child behind it all.
I think there are quite a few scared people carrying guns around in the US, and that’s very unfortunate. In fact, if you’re carrying because you’re afraid, you should reevaluate your situation. It’s just another tool you can carry around, one that you’re very, very unlikely to need.
In fact, if you’re carrying because you’re afraid, you should reevaluate your situation
Tell that to my (former) neighbors in Chicago. It was a poor neighborhood. There was gang activity. Most of the people that lived there have been on the same street for 30+ years. They couldn’t afford to move, and cops DNGAF because the neighborhood was 98% black. What’s to “re-evaluate”? You can’t move, cops sure as fuck aren’t going to save your ass when trouble comes calling, and the violence is real. Even without guns, three young gang members in the alley will fuck you up.
I’ve got five fire extinguishers in my home, but I’ve never had a house fire.
Yeah yeah, I hear you, but there’s a difference between rational fear and irrational fear. You know full well I was talking about folks who live in safe neighborhoods. Even then, you should be practiced enough that you’re not walking around paranoid and anxious all the time. It doesn’t do you any good to shoot at noises in the dark.
Lol showing you’re armed makes you a target. And someone will take it from your hip. There’s videos of people grabbing the gun and just running, so no. You’re absolutely wrong here. A lot of idiots are up voting you too, which is sad.
I was happy to review the evidence someone else gave me, but I am not going to bother with someone who just insults me right out of the gate when I have done my best to be as cordial as I can be. I do not reward Reddit style behavior. It is unlikely I will respond to you again.
oh no, not that. i don’t care to speak to someone who can’t do a simple google search to find what they need. you’re completely useless, then try to put your insecurities onto others to do your work for you. i provided the evidence, now stfu about it.
Fuck the United States. Only place in the world this fucking shit happens regularly , because a bunch of small dick Republicans won’t give up their guns.
They don’t give a shit about guns. But at long as they can keep their voters riled up about it, they won’t have the time to think about real issues like why they’re so poor, why they will go bankrupt if they get really sick, etc etc etc.
Guns is like religion, it’s just another method of control where the target doesn’t even know they’re being controlled
Exactly. And they keep sowing this myth that the guns will be taken away at any point in time, but “you should keep them in case we become tyrannical!” And the definition of what is and isn’t tyranny is always subject to change, but usually if it’s tyranny against people the base doesn’t like, then it’s not tyranny.
DEFINITELY NOT THE PARENTS DEFINITELY NOT THE VOTERS DEFINITELY NOT THE GUY WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER DEFINITELY NOT THE SYSTEM DEFINITELY NOT ME IT’S THE RIGHT!! THE RIGHT WIIIIIING
So we’re just going to keep repeating this exact conversation every single time this happens. Because other countries don’t have systems, or people with fingers.
in multiple separate comments you have demonstrated a total inability to think beyond half a layer of depth. you are out of your element and have a great deal to learn. I truly hope that one day you do.
I bet it’s also Republicans fault that BOTH these kids have been arrested for car burglary too?
If it wasn’t a gun, I guarantee it would have turned violent with any other weapon. Would you be this riled up if you read the same story but it was about a stabbing?
The people in this story are the problem, not the weapon used
Dude I lean center left…it’s not just Republicans that care about gun rights you dumbass. LOT of gun owners also are democrats. Stop trying to one side an issue. Thenissue isn’t guns it’s literally the owners and yea I’ll be damned if I give up my firearms cause you want me to. My guns stay locked up in my safe at all times. My kids know they aren’t toys and can seriously hurt someone. I keep the keys to that safe with me.
Secondly taking away legal and lawful gun owners guns will NOT stop people who don’t follow the law from obtaining guns and doing bad shit with them. Grow the fuck up.
This is another one of those stories (like the “40 beheaded babies!”) that seems awfully suspicious. Please don’t take stories like this at face value.
Organs only remain viable for so many hours after death, so the idea of digging up a mass grave for organs seems sus:
That was exactly my thought. Even corneas will begin to degrade if the body is not refrigerated relatively quickly. Not to mention, organs need to be matched by blood type and potentially even MHC typing.
In the United States, to transplant a heart, the donor must be brain dead. The transplant surgeons will clamp the aorta and pour ice directly into the chest cavity to make sure there is no warm ischemic time. Liver and kidneys are more tolerant, but there’s no way someone killed in a war zone would go on to be an organ donor. The transplant surgeons would have to be following soldiers around with a centrifuge and a PCR machine to be taking kidneys from the dead.
Now they could be recovering the organs for other purposes. Researchers will buy deceased organs, although reputable ones require the appropriate paperwork.
The release of Scheper-Hughes’ recording was in response to an article by Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. The publication featured interviews with Palestinians who alleged that young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip were being killed by the Israeli military and their bodies returned with organs missing. Its content was condemned by many leaders and journalists across the world.
“Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family,” Hiss said.
The Israeli military confirmed that organ harvesting took place, but that it ended in the 1990s.
“While the content Hadid shared is based on facts established following a leak to an Israeli news source in 2009, her post did not include information such as when the allegations were made or how authorities responded.
While there are no reports that such a practice has happened in Gaza or the West Bank, the established history risks being folded into misinformed or misleading claims.”
So, yeah, take it with a pound of salt.
We’ll probably get the full story in a few weeks, but given what we know about organ viability, I don’t see how “organ harvesting” is going to be a thing here. Certainly not for live patients.
Their 'director of strategies' is Maha Hussaini, a Gazan journalist who's previously worked for Middle-East Eye. That's a newspaper which is alleged to have ties to Qatar and a pro-Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas bias.
Their founder and chairman is Ramy Abdu, also a Gazan. He's previously worked for the Council for European Palestinian Relations, which has been alleged to be a lobby group for the Hamas government in Gaza.
Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: “This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer.”
Make a state shitty enough that everyone with a brain leaves and Republicans get two locked in Senators along with the electoral college votes for president.
-Sent from a shitty red state I refuse to give up on
The whammy is when your hell hole state is low cost of living, so you get paid too little to be able to afford to leave. It’s also hard to be competitive when you rank LOL in education. They know if they keep us poor we can’t afford to leave.
It sucks, because I can feel the hostility towards my existence. I can’t safely pursue my career here. I’m done fighting for my state but I can’t get the fuck out.
If you remember when this happened, his parents were in interviews trying to turn it into a “This is how the libs come for your guns!” situation. The kid was also reported to have said he hoped “Biden gets impeached due to my shooting”. He was 15 at the time of the shooting.
This is a prime example of people being radicalized by the rhetoric from right-wingers. The parents first, then they brainwashed this kid into thinking he’d somehow be a hero for doing this. Sad all around.
Everything the right says is projection of past deeds or intent.
The whole grooming thing is just a projection of them doing their best to radicalize their own kids and doing their darnest to infest the school and other systems to further groom and indoctrinate their kids into radical racist pieces of shit.
Kid was basically crying out, saying he had violent thoughts. Dumb parents thought the better idea was to get him a gun and let him shoot at targets “to vent his anger.”
Meanwhile they continue neglecting him, leaving him home alone all the time so the deadbeats can go to the bar and drink all day and night.
Meanwhile the kid is bullied relentlessly at school. I don’t condone what he did but it’s a miserable existence. Unfortunately whether it’s based on personal experiences or genetics the harsh reality is some people turn to either suicide or homicide when there is no other hope left and their world stability had completely shattered for years and no end in sight.
AI is out of the bag for all the good and bad it will do. Nothing will be safe on the internet, and hasn’t been for a long time now. Either we will get government monitored AI results or use AI to combat misuse of AI. Either way isn’t preventative. The next wild west frontier is upon us, and it’s full of bandits in hiding.
He never once told the truth about anything at all. He lied to a reporter about what he had for lunch. He lied about where he got his hair done. He was incapable of even the slightest shred of honesty. He also stole from every pot he could reach into.
There’s a reason it took conservatives a year of nonstop negative, embarassing press coverage before they did anything about it. They didn’t want to oust someone just for being a conservative.
Which is so odd to me. I get that some are trying to play the innocent until proven guilty thing. But the thing is, we know for a fact he has essentially lied about his resume and won an election based on it. Every place I worked, you could be fired if they found out you lied on an application or resume. Why should it be any different with this? So even without a conviction on the legal side of things, they all should have wanted him out based on fabricating his whole life.
Murder has been there since the beginning and making it illegal doesn’t seem to work. Should we just make legal? I think prostitution only plays into women being sexual objects for men.
What even was that persons comparison. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills sometimes. How are sex and murder even slightly related? I’m sure if I was 14 again I’d say something like “they give and take life, they are two sides of the same coin” or something like that that totally misses the fucking point.
^(I’m replying to you because last time replied to one of these people directly I was botted for like a week. )
I think they would like to make an argument that only makes sense in a Christian context (“we are all sinful, and we need to control those sins until we get true salvation, including sexual desire”), but they’re smart enough to know that won’t fly around here. So instead, they have to come up with a contorted argument that still doesn’t work, but they thought it wouldn’t be so easy to dismiss out of hand. They failed, but they tried.
Nah just chill it’s the internet, people suck sometimes and haven’t lived long enough to understand that this has happened before and it will happen again, if you play your cards the same, because this too will pass.
Equal opportunities damn it, men can also be prostitutes! Didn’t you know that women also enjoy sex? It’s quite possible, believe it or not, that women might fancy some sexy time too.
…if you go to Pahrump, NV where prostitution is legal, those women are independent contractors who set their own prices and can turn anyone that they don’t feel comfortable with serving away. Additionally, clients must use protection AND the women have police on a panic button if anyone gets out of hand.
Compare that to the women who prostitute themselves illegally and are subjected to all the dangers of rape, abuse, and murder.
I used to think like you. While I was researching a paper I was writing (arguing against the legalization of prostitution mind you), I ended up at a completely different conclusion. My conclusion did not support my thesis and I wrote it that way.
Open your mind a bit, and see that legalization protects EVERYONE (except prudes I guess)
There are many situations where sex is ethical and acceptable, it is simply when money becomes involved it magically becomes illegal. Private citizens have sex all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. The same is not true for murder.
It’s always downhill, for Israel and Gaza a downhill fireball because when you attempt to victimise the very patriarchy that gives you freedom you shouldn’t decry losing your freedoms, you see what happen to Afghanistan? No civilization just gangs of terrorists. You get what you asked for, paedophiles and cunts run society like a pack of wolves, no seven wonders for you.
I really enjoyed this little tidbit "Pelham paced outside, holding a gun and yelling at police. He eventually went back inside and fired the gun several times. For their own safety, police left the property that night, and let Pelham sleep off his drinking." He shoots at police and they "let him sleep it off", any POC would be dead as a doornail if they so much as thought of the word gun in the presence of cops. But a white male insurrectionist can just sleep it off. This country is truly fucked.
There was that shooter in Maine(?) who [over a six month period] got reported to the local police by his family, his friends and his co-workers. The cops went to his place once, he refused to talk with them, and they just shrugged and walked away.
If the mob were really progressives or antifa, they’d have a machine gun nest firing into the crowd before they ever stepped on the stairs. And that’s not saying POC. Just progressives as a whole.
Can’t let anyone get uppity and let others think they can steal a little from Big Business. If they get away with that it will be chaos and the end of the world. That deserves instant, swift, and harsh punishment.
This dude just help threaten national stability of the country, that’s all. And those cops didn’t want to wear masks anyway.
are still unclear why they were told they couldn’t read from their book or talk about systemic racism to a room full of high school students in Memphis.
Because of New McCarthyism. The right wants to censor us. They want to amplify the voice of racists and bigots, and want to silence anyone they disagree with.
The professor who “discovered” systemic racism was recently barred from research because it turned out he literally made up the stats and rigged his research to present systemic racism as being real.
The dude has been barred from all academia for his incompetence and every single paper he wrote and that used his data as a basis for their own research on the existence of systemic racism was pulled. Whether it does or does not exist matters much less now that we are fully aware that people in positions of power over the research are blatantly lying about their findings.
It means that the premise they’re doing research on needs to be reevaluated. Most new research used his research as a baseline to conduct their own research. It means we need to redo the experiments that were related to the original papers but also it would be ideal to complete each piece of that assholes research over again to get the actual data and then rework all papers based off of the accurate data.
The problem is that thousands of research papers used this man’s data and all of them and the research inspired by them need to be retested with the knowledge of the erroneous data in the core information that formed the hypothesis in the first place.
I think the subject of the post begs the question a little. It’s hardly intellectually honest to insinuate that institutional racism doesn’t exist in broad form because the guy who formalized it fudged the numbers.
It speaks plenty that conservatives won’t allow institutions that they control to even talk about it. If those numbers are so radically false, why stifle the conversation? Especially when the data would then benefit conservative counterpoints.
The truth can be seen in raw data from other sources, like the prison population of the state I live in for instance. How come in Louisiana, black people make up a third of the population but two thirds of the prison population?
Are you going to argue that there’s not enough data to draw the conclusion that black people are incarcerated at a higher rate? The numbers are right there. Are you going to try to justify the (racist) idea that black people just do more crimes? Maybe it’s just that people stuck in lower socioeconomic positions resort to crime more often. So is it that black people tend to not have the same resources other people do to lift themselves up? Possibly due to a generational pattern of poverty?
Or maybe it’s that the police here know that people of a certain color won’t be able to afford to fight back as often. Or that the judges in this shit hole state are ancient racists (with the exception of a couple I know) and don’t believe black people can reform.
That doesn’t sound like institutionalized racism to you?
That reasoning exists independent of the guy who formalized it. It’s pretty asinine to deny the existence of something because of flaws in the way it was studied, regardless of the intent of the person who wrote the paper.
The correlation to jim crowe and red lining is exceptionally clear in regards to criminal behaviour of individuals whose families were impacted by those laws, that’s not in question, how much of an impact it has is definitely in question. i.e. do they commit to these behaviours because of a society that pushed them to do this, or are they using the excuse of an unfortunate past to commit these behaviours? Are individuals in power actually using racist agenda to dictate policy or are they following empirical facts. I would hazard that the latter is emphatically not the case. I do believe many lawmakers use empirical data, but in regards to criminality and racial tension, I’m of the opinion that most lawmakers just throw their personal views and opinions behind their actions as opposed to the research and evidence therein (here, plainly, we see the negative impact that the liar has had because now EVERY research paper is questioned because the vast majority use 1 or more of his papers as referential material.
For the same reason people of jewish heritage claiming the holocaust negatively impacts them when they’re 2-3 generations removed, sure it impacts them in how they were raised by their parents and how their parents were raised by their parents, but beyond that? Extremely doubtful that the event that changed the world only impacts the jewish community, especially when the concentration camps killed scores of people from every background with emphasis on minorities, the mentally disabled and the queer community.
I am not saying to disregard the research as a whole, I’m saying we need to repeat all of the research to verify the findings are accurate and reliable as opposed to just going ‘well I see one bad thing and another bad thing and although they’re clearly correlated, I’m arbitrarily going to note they’re causally related’.
are they using the excuse of an unfortunate past to commit these behaviours?
This reasoning is exceptionally racist to even suggest. The logic that black people on the whole commit a higher rate of crimes enough to reflect statistically because they think it’s ok because of their races’ past, is a conservative talking point and a scare tactic.
It’s like suggesting that, because white people tend to make it further in their careers, is it because society as a whole favors white people to be more capable of higher paying jobs? Or is it because white people actually have higher work ethic? The latter is racist to assert, even if you juxtapose it with the actual reasoning like it’s supposed to be considered just as equally.
I am not saying to disregard the research as a whole
It seems like you’re just brushing on the point but still missing it. Sure, the studies need to be made again with regards to the actual data. But the data is public. The conclusions can be made without published scientific work. Those help, but conservatives sure aren’t quoting published research papers when they say things like “drag harms children” or “a fetus is a baby”.
The point I’m making is that just bringing up that the guy who formalized the concept falsified his findings, is not enough justification to deny the people talking about their personal convictions to an audience willing to listen, and it’s damn sure not enough for an institution to decide to snip and cut certain things such a group might want to talk about in a way that neuters the point.
The Tennessee school/government has an agenda, just as much as they might claim the group in question does. If that researcher hadn’t have been deposed as a liar, they’d be saying the same things and making the same restrictions, just like they did in the years before he was outed as a liar.
That’s fine and dandy. But this is an article about politicking and you’re making a point as if the science invalidates the fact that the politicking is the major motivation.
Whether you like it or not, social science bleeds into politics and vice versa. It’s not really something you can take one without the other.
Social science in particular relies on many wide concepts and general statements. Sometimes, being as correct as possible is beside the point.
In this case, we don’t have to cite a research paper to understand that conservatives are stifling dissenters to their own world view.
Citing “as correct as possible” on a post about politics is questionable at best. Insisting on reconducting the research before denouncing a clearly political action is basically missing the forest for the trees.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.