Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Xulld]

So is Australia a safer or more dangerous place because people don't carry guns?

Im pretty sure people do carry guns, and every single instance of gun violence is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Giz]

So is Australia a safer or more dangerous place because people don't carry guns?

It depends on the criminals (how easy it is for them to acquire guns*, and how willing they are to use guns). Not on whether law abiding citizens are carrying their guns outside of their house.

 

[lionking]

Im pretty sure people do carry guns, and every single instance of gun violence is only the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah? Prove it.

Beyond police and security guards, the proportion of people who carry guns would be vanishingly insignificant. I don't feel unsafe wherever I am in Australia.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I've never had much use for carry laws, open or otherwise. If I'm going someplace where I think I might need a gun, the first thing I do is ask myself, "Do I really need to go there?" If the answer is "yes", then I take the gun. If the answer is "no", then I don't go. Whether or not the law approves makes no difference to me.

I'm a "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" kind of guy.

Because of this policy, I hardly ever need to take my gun anywhere except the range.

 

[crimresearch]

So is Australia a safer or more dangerous place because people don't carry guns?

People? Or the people who were there first?

Firearms were first introduced to Australia with European settlement. They were used for hunting, protection of persons and crops, in crime and fighting crime, and in many military engagements. From the landing of the First Fleet on 26 January 1788 there was conflict with aborigines over game, access to fenced land, and spearing of livestock. Firearms were used to protect explorers and settlers from Aboriginal attack. A number of punitive raids and massacres of aborigines were carried out in a series of local conflicts. The history of these conflicts is contentious (see History wars).

From the beginning there were controls on firearms. The firearms issued to convicts (for meat hunting) and settlers (for hunting and protection) were stolen and misused, and this resulted in more controls. In January 1796, David Collins wrote that 'several attempts had been made to ascertain the number of arms in the possession of individuals, as many were feared to be in the hands of those who committed depredations; the crown recalled between two and three hundred stands of arms, but not 50 stands were accounted for'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Firearms_in_Australian_history

 

[crimresearch]

I've never had much use for carry laws, open or otherwise. If I'm going someplace where I think I might need a gun, the first thing I do is ask myself, "Do I really need to go there?" If the answer is "yes", then I take the gun. If the answer is "no", then I don't go. Whether or not the law approves makes no difference to me.

I'm a "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" kind of guy.

Because of this policy, I hardly ever need to take my gun anywhere except the range.

Eminently sensible.

 

[lionking]

People? Or the people who were there first?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Firearms_in_Australian_history

Thanks for the totally irrelevent history lesson. Is that the best you can do?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Eminently sensible.

Thank you.

I've always felt that an unarmed person who is constantly aware of what's going on around him is probably better off than an armed person without a clue. By the time the **** goes down, I'll be three blocks away and still accelerating.

Not that I'm against carrying; if someone is trained and responsible, then more power to them. If they follow the Felterbush System of Constant Vigilance, then they'll probably never even need to draw their weapon.

 

[Quad4_72]

Does anyone on the thread take a parchute with them when they fly?

No, because it is not practical. This was explained earlier. The tired old arguments of "Well do you carry a (Insert impractical item) with you everywhere you go?" is not valid and does not compare to carrying a gun. A gun is relatively cheap, requires minimal training to use, minimal upkeep, and is easy to carry.

So please let's all stop with the silly arguments.

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks for the totally irrelevent history lesson. Is that the best you can do?

Irrelevant to you... not so irrelevant to those affected. Is handwaving away the racist component of gun control politics, the best you can do?

 

[RandFan]

Isn't the New Scientist story better summarized as "gun wielding gangbangers are more likely to get into gunfights than regular folks"?

i.e. the applicability of the study to ordinary concealed carriers is minimal. It would be as logical to say that American tourists should avoid visiting Normandy due to the high chance of getting shot (conflating gun-wielding soldiers experience with that of normal visitors).

Hang on. Let's keep this in context. The discussion is about me being involved in a mass shooting which is less likely than winning the lottery. So, countering with "that's not likely" is simply to make my point. Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

The results of any given cost benefit analysis does not make something rational or irrational, it makes it less or more important. Now if the cost is high and the benefit is low and you choose that over a better option that would be irrational. But the cost is low, the benefit is high. So I do not think you have made a case for the choice being irrational. Unless the study controlled for only concealed carry permit holders, controlling for other groups such as Giz mentioned, then its not a valid set of data. I will read the study here in a bit when I have time.

The risk is so low as to make being concerned about the event irrational.

The fact that you prepare for unlikely events makes your argument from statistics invalid.

Only if one lives in a black and white world. I don't. I can't prepare for every possible disaster. Fires and floods are far more likely than mass shootings so I'm more likely to prepare for them. You might ask me what I would do in the event of a nuclear attack"? Don't know don't give a ****, you?

My argument is not an argument from fear...

Take away the element of fear and it's not an argument. The event is so unlikely as to make preparing for it, IMO, absurd. So, how have you prepared for meteor strikes, thermonuclear attack, etc., etc.. I'm guessing you really don't care, right? This example of yours is simply an ad hoc rationalization to justify your bias. Right?

If you forget/choose to not own a fire extinguisher most likely you loose your home. Hopefully you had insurance. If not you are out resources, not your life.

Interesting that now you are interested in statistics. More people die in fires than are killed in shooting sprees and I would like to save my possessions. It's a prudent course of action.

Begging the question.

Uh, no. Begging the question is when the premise assumes a conclusion. I have no conclusion. But, if the question were fallacious you would also be guilty.

If someone took my gun from me id draw my back up gun and shoot to kill.

Yes, of course the hero never dies. Ad hoc rationalization. Your death at the hand of your own gun is not an impossibility. So long as it is not an impossibility then it is equivalent to your scenario.

 

[RandFan]

Im pretty sure people do carry guns, and every single instance of gun violence is only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm pretty sure it's not. Now what?

 

[Giz]

Hang on. Let's keep this in context. The discussion is about me being involved in a mass shooting which is less likely than winning the lottery. So, countering with "that's not likely" is simply to make my point. Thanks.

You claimed that carrying a gun meant you were more likely to get shot and killed. People have debunked it (as being a specious correlation and not a meaningful causation). If you now wish to disavow your claim that "carrying a gun is not without risk" (and the New Scientist link that went with it) then that's fine. But don't pretend that you didn't bring it into the conversation in the first place.

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

You claimed that carrying a gun meant you were more likely to get shot and killed.

Nope. I claimed there is a risk to carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun isn't without risk.

See the difference? Not without risk =/= "more likely to get shot." That's a straw man of your making. I never claimed any such thing.

If you now wish to disavow your claim that "carrying a gun is not without risk" (and the New Scientist link that went with it) then that's fine. But don't pretend that you didn't bring it into the conversation in the first place.

You admit yourself that there is a risk so this is incoherent.

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

You claimed that carrying a gun meant you were more likely to get shot and killed. People have debunked it (as being a specious correlation and not a meaningful causation). If you now wish to disavow your claim that "carrying a gun is not without risk" (and the New Scientist link that went with it) then that's fine. But don't pretend that you didn't bring it into the conversation in the first place.

Thanks.

BTW: I reject that you have debunked anything. The study makes clear your point. It makes it clear because it is obviously not a propaganda pieces. Good science highlights the weaknesses of a study as well as the strengths. Your pointdoesn't obviate the study. But since that isn't my argument I'm not going to debate that.

 

[Garrette]

This thread is beginning to go to the dogs, but it's not so far down that road that it is irretrievable.

To oversimplify, the two main (recent) positions as exemplified by Xulld and RandFan are:

1. I carry a gun, but I'm okay with those who choose not to.

2. I don't carry a gun, but I'm okay with those who choose to.

But somehow in expressing those positions the meanings get lost or scrambled and each side moves more and more to the following arguments (not positions):

1. You have a fire extinguisher so by the same reasoning you should carry a gun.

2. You carry a gun so by the same reasoning you should carry a parachute in a plane.

It's at this point I generally stop following such threads, but I would be disappointed this time because at the core I find both Xulld and RandFan very reasonable in their arguments; lately, especially RandFan.

 

[RandFan]

This thread is beginning to go to the dogs, but it's not so far down that road that it is irretrievable.

To oversimplify, the two main (recent) positions as exemplified by Xulld and RandFan are:

1. I carry a gun, but I'm okay with those who choose not to.

2. I don't carry a gun, but I'm okay with those who choose to.

But somehow in expressing those positions the meanings get lost or scrambled and each side moves more and more to the following arguments (not positions):

1. You have a fire extinguisher so by the same reasoning you should carry a gun.

2. You carry a gun so by the same reasoning you should carry a parachute in a plane.

It's at this point I generally stop following such threads, but I would be disappointed this time because at the core I find both Xulld and RandFan very reasonable in their arguments; lately, especially RandFan.

Good summary and commentary. I think you make valid points. Thanks.

 

[Giz]

Nope. I claimed there is a risk to carrying a gun.

You claimed that there is a risk and your linked study talks about being X times more likely to be shot and Y times more likely to be killed. I don't think that I am misreprestenting you at all.

See the difference? Not without risk =/= "more likely to get shot." That's a straw man of your making. I never claimed any such thing.

Oh please. Are you saying that you were not intending to imply anything about being more/less likely to be shot? What risk did you have in mind? A pulled muscle from lugging a gun around all day? If you weren't trying to make any kind of claim regarding the risk of being shot/killed, then why post the link?

You admit yourself that there is a risk so this is incoherent.

There's a risk to just about anything. Heck, even sitting around doing nothing could land you with deep vein thrombosis. What you haven't shown is whether carrying would make you more (or less) at risk - assuming sensible, law abiding behavior.

 

[Giz]

BTW: I reject that you have debunked anything. The study makes clear your point. It makes it clear because it is obviously not a propaganda pieces. Good science highlights the weaknesses of a study as well as the strengths. Your pointdoesn't obviate the study. But since that isn't my argument I'm not going to debate that.

Indeed. One might even wonder why you bothered linking to the study at all... link in haste, repent at leisure, eh Randfan?