• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

So let's talk about the psycho(s) in Pennsylvania who killed four young men. The first victim was said to show up to the farm to buy $8,000 of marijuana, but only had $800 so instead agreed to buy a gun. Why didn't he already have a gun? Because the ridiculous laws in this country prohibit people with criminal records from arming themselves (even though they will anyway). If he had been armed, then he could've stopped Cosmo DiNardo. The bad guy with a gun could've stopped the super-bad guy. Basic logic.
 
SezMe said:
That highlighted word makes mince meat of your point. How many perps of violent crime actually get arrested? All you data shows is that CCW holders are careful not to be arrested.

Ok, ok, that's not fair. But it is fair to point out that arrest records do not reflect actual crime rates.


My bold. You see the problem. One cannot equate arrest rates with crime rates. Period.




For the reason cited above. Your equating crime rate with arrest rate is fallacious.
Click to expand...

Great attempt to grasp at straws. Do you have any data to suggest that crime rates and arrest rates for ccw holders are significantly out of whack?

Thought not.
 
Why is it that we think throwing guns out to the untrained masses is somehow going to make us safer? It's a well-trained, tactically sound, disciplined marksman with knowledge of the lawful use of force with a gun who stops a bad guy with a gun.

How many people know how ridiculously easy it is in most shall issue states to get a permit? In some states, a hunter safety course qualifies. There's a reason when law enforcement and military members learn to handle and employ firearms it takes weeks.
 
Giz said:
Historically, the German police having a monopoly on violence worked out so well.
Click to expand...

It actually did.
It went all a-foul when groups other than the regular (Interior Ministries of the states of the federation) police were given guns. SA, SS (The Gestapo - "secret state police" was not police, it was SS), other party cadres of the NSDAP. Similarly, the infamous StaSi (State Security) and Grenzpolizei (border police) where not run by the Interior Ministry, as the ordinary police was, but by a special ministry.
 
There are thugs who are after your property. Some are just after a rowdy time. Many surely are dealing with drugs - supply-side or demand-side - and do not wish to get interfered with. Some may want to sell drugs to your son. These are the vast majority of criminals, as opposed to those out to murder or imjure you.

It is my perception that practically all these sorts of thugs come mostly unarmed in Europe. Very few guns involved. Why, if they get caught, carrying a gun aggravates their legal trouble. The thing is: They are up against a general non-police population that, too, is essentially unarmed. You see, in their thuggish daily dealings, there is a need to consider what to do should a victim or a passer-by resist. The answer in Europe will often be: Just run, or beat and run.

It's quite different when a significant percentage of the general population is armed. Then you must consider, while committing your burglary, theft, robbery, drug deal, what to do if you encounter a victim or passer-by, and assess the risj they might be able to effectively use a gun against you - whether by just showing it to you (threat) or actual use.
Some would-be-non-violent criminals may decide to not do the crime. Many others will find that their best course of action is to bring a gun, and be prepared to use it, and use it quickly and ruthlessly.

And that, IMO, can be a powerful mechanism by which violent, gun-related crime increases where CCW increases.

That is essentially an arms race, and in that arms race, the thugs will come out on top, on balance, simply because they will be more prepared (they usually choose time and setting of the encounter) and less reined in by ethical qualms.


It would be interesting if research existed that looked at the hypothesis above.
 
BStrong said:
Except statistically, the crime victimization rate of former mayors of major metros is far lass than the criminal victimization rate of just about anyone else and it for sure isn't because the disparity in numbers between the mayors and the genpop.
Click to expand...
But I think this is an apples/oranges comparison. If I understand the statistics, a large portion of gun violence is committed by people known to the victim, but please correct me if I am wrong. If I'm right, then I don't think those who would do harm to Bloomberg are one of his friends or relatives so the comparison breaks down.

BStrong said:
The best security in the world is status and power. Bloomberg has all of it.
Click to expand...
On that we have no disagreement.
 
SezMe said:
What is "sufficient"? One threat? 18 threats? And how are we to measure "credible"?

As an aside, are you stating that you are sufficiently well known that you receive a "sufficient" number of "credible" threats to you and your family that justifies armed protection? Cecile, is that you? :)
Click to expand...

My issues are credible and we're well known enough to the gentlemen who'd like to have us killed. I'm involved in a murder trial. Two of my family provided witness testimony that blew the defendant's insanity plea out of the water. As result of that we've been told that we're not very well thought of in thug land and several of them would like to have a word with us.

I'm concerned about this a bit.
 
SezMe said:
It's your claim that they are alike. You know where that places the burden, right?
Click to expand...

Burden of proof:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"

I don't think that claiming there is a correlation between ccw holders arrest rates and crime rates is a challenge to the perceived status quo... i'd say it is the perceived status quo. If you have evidence that the two are disproportionate, then please present it!

(Remember, to make the OP study "work" you'll need to explain a 13-15% rise in crime as being the work of people who commit 1-2% of offences... so you need to show the arrest rates vs actual crime rates as being out of whack by a factor of 10.)
 
Giz said:
(Remember, to make the OP study "work" you'll need to explain a 13-15% rise in crime as being the work of people who commit 1-2% of offences... so you need to show the arrest rates vs actual crime rates as being out of whack by a factor of 10.)
Click to expand...

Remember, the OP's claim is not that lawful carriers will commit less crime, but that they will prevent more crime: Good guys with guns will stop bad guys with guns. The prediction is that in addition to not committing crimes themselves, they will prevent others from committing more crimes.

One obvious flaw with the OP's thesis is inherent in the claim itself: A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. But this only comes into play if the bad guy starts using his gun. And at that point, the incident gets written up as a violent crime regardless of how it turns out. If a bad guy opens fire, and a good guy shoots him dead before the bad guy hits anyone, that supports the claim that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. But the statistics will still say a violent crime was committed there, even though a good guy with a gun was present.

So I question the premise of the OP, and the usefulness of the cited study. To really understand the effect of good guys with guns on bad guys with guns, we'd have to look at statistics having to do with how many times the two encountered each other, and what the outcomes were.

For the moment, all we can really say is that lawful firearms carriers tend to be statistically less criminal and violent than unlawful carriers. And that by itself is a positive outcome of permitting lawful carry, even if good guys with guns have no other effect on the violent criminal activities of bad guys with guns.
 
theprestige said:
...To really understand the effect of good guys with guns on bad guys with guns, we'd have to look at statistics having to do with how many times the two encountered each other, and what the outcomes were. ...
Click to expand...

No.
The mere fear that there might be good guys with guns might convince bad guys to bring a gun themselves, and/or use it very nervously. Such an effect would drive up violent crime rate, regardless of whether or not a good guy with a gun is encountered.
 
Oystein said:
No.
The mere fear that there might be good guys with guns might convince bad guys to bring a gun themselves, and/or use it very nervously. Such an effect would drive up violent crime rate, regardless of whether or not a good guy with a gun is encountered.
Click to expand...

No.
Criminals in the US are likely to carry because they can and there's little or no incentive for them to stop.
 
AJM8125 said:
No.
Criminals in the US are likely to carry because they can and there's little or no incentive for them to stop.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the extra penalties associated with a criminal act that includes the showing/use of a gun have no deterrent effect? <--Genuine question, not meant to be hostile.
 
AJM8125 said:
No.
Criminals in the US are likely to carry because they can and there's little or no incentive for them to stop.
Click to expand...

Are criminals in the USA a species completely different from criminals in Europe or Australia? Brains wired differently? No soul? Went to schools that teach guns are good?

Oh, the latter seems to make sense.


ETA: I cannot trust your judgement anyway after this example of blind, biased, obvious stupidity, which is so out of character for you:
AJM8125 said:
qayak said:
The fact remains that the states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths.
Click to expand...
Except for that pesky California, which dog gone it, seems to clock in around 2,500 to 3,000 fatalities a year from firearms, no matter what.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Often, the add-on penalties for "armed criminal action" are used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors.
"Cop to the robbery, and we'll drop the ACA charge."

A conviction is obtained, the robber gets less time, everybody happy. But little incentive to avoid being armed.

Armed criminal types tend to be by category, in my experience. We essentially never find folks indulging in petty crime like bicycle theft or thefts from offices or shoplifters going about armed.
However, people who are involved in the drug trade, gang members, robbery suspects, are very frequently armed.
These people live in a violent world, and are not only concerned with intimidating potential victims but being attacked by rival gang members or having "deals" go south or whatever.
It's part of the criminal culture and has been so for a very long time.
 
Bikewer said:
Often, the add-on penalties for "armed criminal action" are used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors.
"Cop to the robbery, and we'll drop the ACA charge."

A conviction is obtained, the robber gets less time, everybody happy. But little incentive to avoid being armed.

Armed criminal types tend to be by category, in my experience. We essentially never find folks indulging in petty crime like bicycle theft or thefts from offices or shoplifters going about armed.
However, people who are involved in the drug trade, gang members, robbery suspects, are very frequently armed.
These people live in a violent world, and are not only concerned with intimidating potential victims but being attacked by rival gang members or having "deals" go south or whatever.
It's part of the criminal culture and has been so for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I know that of the 7 or 8 drug dealers we charged in the grand jury I was on, none of them also had weapons charges, and this would have been outside of any deal by the prosecutor because the prosecutor would want as many charges as possible to threaten them with and by not bringing weapons charges those would be removed by the prosecutor before a deal. So it makes no sense.

So maybe the dealers who carry guns cut a deal before it gets to the grand jury but it does seem to not add up for around where I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom