Would you support "Open Carry" legislation in your state?

by Glander 71 Replies latest social current

• 

  Justitia Themis

  Significantly, even using the lowest estimate, 76,000 violent crimes are prevented by armed citizens each year. Thus, the number of violent crimes thwarted by armed citizens is about four times the annual murder rate.

  Justitia - the answer to your query.

  I'm not sure the statistics actually do answer my question Glander. "Preventing" is different from "thwarting." Of course, if someone attacks you, it is better to have a gun than less deadly protection. That would be a case of thwarting. Preventing a crime from even taking place is a different matter.

  I admit that I haven't read Mr. Kleck's book, but it appears he researched a third issue because he compared the rates of injury an attacked person experienced with their defensive response.

  http://therealgunguys.blogspot.com/2007/03/point-blank-guns-and-violence-in.html

  And, there is the difference between carrying and open carrying.

  Mr. NCO, was it stereotyping or profiling? Stereotypes of large groups is inaccurate but general profiling of small groups is often quite accurate. An example of stereotyping would be to say that Muslims generally support terrorism; an example of profiling would be to say that a man living in Northern Afghanistan is probably a member of the Taliban. The former is highly subject; the latter is not. That, of course, is why the military profiles.

  Yet, a general profile is just that, generic, and will have exceptions. I would say that the open-carry group is very small when compared with gun owners in general, and even smaller when compared to the population. I think my description probably fits the general demographic of that small group of open-carry enthusiast...but again, there will be exceptions.
• 

  tornapart

  LOL Nic!

  I've travelled all over Europe, no probs getting in and out of countries. Friendly border guards, nice smiles, luggage not looked at.

  Went to US once. I felt like a criminal! I'm a middle aged white woman. They were suspiscious of me the whole time, I made a mistake, can't remember what it was and he went all through my luggage looking at me with a beady eye of suspicion. Oh yeah.. I had a stash of cocaine amongst my knickers. Extremely unfriendly. Next passport control. I felt like a bacteria under a microscope. I thought if all Americans were paranoid like this I'd never go back!!

  So much for welcome to our country and hope you have a great time!

  Fortunately the Americans I met during my stay were lovely and I will go back one day (if I can get past the paranoid border guards).
• 

  Lore

  If making gun possession illegal in the states would guarantee that criminals didn't have access to guns, then I'd say: Screw the constitution, make guns illegal.

  Unfortunately that's not how it works. Making guns illegal just ensures that only criminals have guns.

  Even if all gun manufacture is halted in the states, and it's completely illegal to even bring a firearm into the country. Criminals will still import guns illegally.

  What it WOULD accomplish is stopping idiots who THINK they can help by owning a gun, from being stupid and shooting innocent people on accident.
• 

  LongHairGal

  I have something to add to this pro-gun/anti-gun debate: A friend just related a story to me this past week.

  She chased an intruder away and when she called the local police station because she was afraid and wanted them to send a car to cruise down the street and check things out, she was told "they were too busy" (budget cuts and all). So, this is the shape of things to come in this country with the recession/depression we are in. Budget cuts mean police stations are closed and the ones that are open are more "selective" about what calls they answer. What this means? We are in big trouble in a climate of rising crime.

  The worst case scenario if things get worse is that police will not show up at all.

  Living in a "peaceful/civilized" society where citizens don't carry guns means that the average citizen has to count on police to help them and to be a visible presence when necessary.
• 

  BizzyBee

  Astounded at the BTS' quote from "Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners" and looking for something a little less biased, there is this from Wiki:

  Much study has been done of the comparative experience and policies of Canada with its southern neighbour the United States, and this is a topic of intense discussion within Canada.

  Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US. [ 12 ] Since violent crimes are a smaller fraction of all crimes, the difference between the two countries is less than the homicide rate might make it seem, and the overall rates are generally close (see Crime in the United States). [citation needed]

  Furthermore, in recent years, the gap in violent crime rates between the United States and Canada has narrowed due to a precipitous drop in the violent crime rate in the U.S. For example, while the aggravated assault rate declined for most of 1990s in the U.S. and was 324 per 100,000 in 2000, the aggravated assault rate in Canada remained relatively steady throughout and was 143 per 100,000 in 2000. In other areas, the U.S. had a faster decline. For instance, whereas the murder rate in Canada declined by 36% between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. murder rate declined by 44%. [ 13 ] Both Saskatoon and Regina consistently have Violent Crime rates that would place them among the 10 most violent cities in the US, and often individually exceed larger US centres in terms of Total numbers for Aggravated Assaults and Robbery. [citation needed]

  The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82. [ 14 ] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate. [ 15 ]

  By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [ 13 ]

  Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada. [ 16

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

  "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Attributed to Mark Twain.
• 

  James Brown

  Open carry no.

  Concealled yes.

  Concealled to tax paying property owning citizens only.

  If you cant figure out how to own property or pay taxes you should not be considered a citizen

  or allowed to vote.
• 

  NCO

  Justia, you didn't profile, you stereotyped. Were you to actually profile as law enforcement or military profiles, you'd have backed up your profile with verifiable statistics showing how the group you described is the most likely to open carry and engage in the behavior you described.

  Given your example of how the military profiles, let's say I'm deployed on a DSCA (Defense Support to Civilian Authorities) mission following a natural disaster. Say a tornado like I was last year. My platoon is pulling security on a neighborhood that got slammed and is in ruins. We're manning checkpoints at all entrances and running patrols 24 hours to prevent looting.

  I advise my squad leaders to pass on to their soldiers to pay extra attention to the following profile: black, teens-20's, saggy pants, and 24" wheels on their Chevy sedans because they're exactly the type most would think of to loot.

  Did I just profile or did I stereotype?

  They were exactly the "type" most would think of to openly carry a weapon: white, late-30s, John Deere caps, wife-beater t-shirts, gun racks in the truck...

  I see no difference between my hypothetical "profiling" and your stereotyping and both are wrong.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  The military profiles, as does the CIA, the FBI, and even NY police department. In the situation you describe, you would not be specifically told to look for those individuals, but your commanders would place significantly more troops in those areas to guard against looting than they would in a white, middle-class neighborhood. ; )

  However, you are correct; the crux is statistics. Stereotyping is at one end of a continuum, and demographics is at the other end. I'm not interested enough in the open-carry population to research the statistics, however, I am sure that advertisers have. That is why you will find the reading level on advertisements directed at the open-carry population to differ greatly from the reading level, tone, and graphics on advertisements directed towards doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Since you are part of the population, you are, of course, sensitive to what you perceive as an attack on them as a whole. But your sensitivity doesn't change the demographic of the whole. So either the advertisers have incredibly misinterpreted their data (unlikely) or the "stereotype" I presented is generally accurate. And for laughs, you might try a Google images search of "open carry supporters." Seriously, you guys need to stop taking pictures at your picnics and posting them.

  BTW, I intend to refine my "stereotyping" skills after graduation, and my industry has volumns of book written about the subject. We use it daily in "peremptory challenges." We use them, and my industry trains in them, because the are generally accurate. The key is to effectivly spot the exceptions. In that sense, we "profile" because our opinions are not biases that are not open to challenge from contrary facts.

  Therefore, if I ever have a case that needs a jury comprised of people with anti-open-carry leanings, and I have a peremptory left, I will bump any guy sitting there in a wife beater, jeans, and cowboy boots, wearing a John Deere cap. And it will simply be called good lawyering.

  I have enjoyed the conversation, but this will be my last post for ~ two weeks due to exams.
• 

  TD

  That is why you will find the reading level on advertisements directed at the open-carry population to differ greatly from the reading level, tone, and graphics on advertisements directed towards doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.

  I've observed that advertising intended for the population at large is always at an academic level somewhere below that of advertising targeted at degreed professionals. Drawing a conclusion from that where firearms consumers are concerned might be more than is warranted.

  I've noticed the same phenomenon even within firearms advertising, inasmuch as the price tag is a pretty good indicator of the demographic most likely to make such a purpose. (e.g. Unertl scopes are out of the reach of the common man.)
• 

  Low-Key Lysmith

  Concealled to tax paying property owning citizens only.

  If you cant figure out how to own property or pay taxes you should not be considered a citizen

  or allowed to vote.

  That's the most ridiculous load of tripe I've heard all day. So you're saying that people that lease their homes shouldn't be considered citizens or enjoy any of the rights as citizens? I can see the sense in your tax payer argument, but only homeowners should be allowed to protect themselves or VOTE???? what a load of bollocks. You sir, are a jackass.