• 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

Ziggurat said:
Do you have any actual evidence to support this? Plenty of stuff which is claimed as "common sense" turns out to be false.
Click to expand...

What is this, some kind of skeptics site? Hoplophobes are having an emotional moment here!
 
Hm .. amount of accidental shootings in US seem very high, but then when no training is required, it will be.
I see two quite different 'use of the gun' .. one is against general crime .. some wants to mug you, maybe rape you, but is not after your life as primary goal .. the second is terrorism .. some is after your life as primary goal.
These two are way different, and people often mix them together.
First one is way more common .. and just showing your gun will typically be sufficient to defend yourself. Not necessarily to lower the crime rate though, as the thug might just attack someone else 5 minutes later.
The second one is very rare, and even chance somebody armed will be nearby is low. Even lower is the chance he will be willing to intervene. And then there are more and more popular cases where shooting just wont do you much good, like suing car to plow through crowd.
I think nobody can expect much reduction in terrorism attacks with concealed carry. Even general crime might be impacted just a little. Still if I get mugged, or in the middle of mass shooting .. I will be damn sorry I don't have a gun. I wouldn't care about crime rate of a country .. I would care about surviving and defending my family, if nobody else.
I wonder, besides general crime stats .. how much less often are gun owners victims of crime ?
 
qayak said:
Funny you didn't ask about the numbers used when the argument was in support of CC.
Click to expand...

Are you under some sort of impression that I'm in favour of CC? Should I obsessively read every post on the forum and call absolutely every single one on their inaccuracies lest you find me guilty of hypocrisy? Or are you just miffed that someone dared to call you on your "common sense" comment, something that usually doesn't fly here?

And the point was made that there are no numbers so neither side is supported.
Click to expand...

Then don't make such silly claims.
 
casebro said:
The OP used the false dichotomy that there are only two relevant stats, both stats were in places where violence went down. There ought to be two more data points- where crime stayed the same, and where it went up. What were the changes in the CCW rates where crime went up?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see this data as well.

States where the conceal-carry laws are extremely tight - what were the crime rates then - hopefully before and after the tougher laws went into effect.
 
"The Stanford team found precisely the opposite: "Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws," they write, "violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law."

So far I've run through the Vice article, went to the Trace (anti-gun violence advocate) website who worked with Vice on the article, but the closest I've got to the actual paper is this:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510

I'm very interested to see how somebody came up with the percentages in the above quote.
 
C_Felix said:
I'd like to see this data as well.

States where the conceal-carry laws are extremely tight - what were the crime rates then - hopefully before and after the tougher laws went into effect.
Click to expand...

A further test for causation should be: how many offences were committed by CCW holders?

If the crime rate goes up 10.00%, but only 0.05% of crime involves a CCW holder, then it's obviously something else that is causing crime to rise.
 
In the four decades that the modern, militant gun rights movement has been around....<snip>
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

That plus all the hypotheticals and the fact that the article was produced in partnership with The Trace, a Michael Bloomberg publication, tells me all I need to know.

For those of you who don't know, Mr. Bloomberg is vehemently opposed to concealed carry. Except when it comes to his personal safety, that is. Then it's ok to surround himself with the concealed firearms carried by his private security team. 24/7.

Yup.
 
You are aware that the NRA lobbied hard so that the CDC and other agencies were banned from collecting data on gun deaths.
 
Bikewer said:
We have a LOT of shootings here in St. Louis. Hardly a weekend goes by without a dozen or so people getting shot. These are all gang/drug related and almost all confined to a very small area of the city.
Click to expand...

I find that remarkable and sad at the same time. St Louis is a city with a population of about 315,000, similar to Christchurch here in NZ, (about 380,000.) Christchurch has a drug and gang problem too; more P-Labs very km2 than any other city in NZ, and gangs like Black Power, Bandidos, King Cobras, Mongrel Mob etc, the usual groups of scumbags and thugs that infest any medium sized city.

In 13 years of living in that city (1986 to 1998) I can recall perhaps a dozen incidences of gun violence, about one per year. Even when Christchurch was later known as the murder capital of New Zealand (it was nicknamed "Crimechurch") the rate of murders was still very low compared with other similar sized cities in the USA, .
 
Btw. I can't find percentage of gun owners per state .. most statistics show guns per capita .. which is something quite different, and IMHO not so relevant .. anyone knows ?
 
Giz said:
Historically, the German police having a monopoly on violence worked out so well.
Click to expand...

Since we're Godwinning the thread anyway... The rise of Nazi Germany came about because the German police *didn't* have a monopoly on violence. Hitler's SA goons started out as thugs deployed by the party to disrupt rival political rallies and events. The Nazi party rose to power on the back of such political violence, outside of any legitimate police authority or government control.

Incidentally, this is why I find the political violence of the "antifa" crowd so depressingly ironic. Their use of violence to suppress and intimidate political speech they don't like is literally a fascist tactic.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Hell they successfully blocked the ATF from using computers.
Click to expand...

To establish a database of firearms owners.

ATF would love to blame their record keeping deficiencies on the NRA.

Unfortunately for ATF (more accurately at the time, the ATTU Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit) they have never been very good at record keeping and they really dropped the ball with the NFA registrations that were submitted during the 30 day amnesty in '68.

Individuals registered their previously unregistered MG's etc w/o penalty and w/o the $200.00 transfer tax. Owners received their registration(s) and tax stamps and went their merry way.

Years later, folks with papered guns were accused of being in possession of unregistered MG's or other NFA weapons or devices. If they had their paperwork in hand they were generally OK, but not always.

This became a huge issue in the licensed NFA dealer community, because in compliance inspections ATF examiners were alleging that dealers were in possession of these unregistered weapons when they didn't just have official ATF registrations and tax stamps in hand, they had original or copies of the original 1968 registration paperwork.

How'd this happen?

It has since come to light that in at least two time periods, the 1968 amnesty and the run up to the May 19th, 1986 cut off date for registration of transferable MG's, ATF clerical employees destroyed existing NFA registration paperwork in an effort to cut down on their workload, below is the Office of Inspector General report from 1998:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/IG_report_NFA_registry.txt

The response from Eric Larson, who has spearheaded the investigation into deficiencies with the NFRTR:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/IG_report_response2.txt

Lo and behold, the Chief of the ATF NFA branch sticks both feet in his mouth, on video go to 1:17:



ATF is underfunded, but they were underfunded long before any question of 2nd Amendment rights were involved, and they've also been the victim of their own employees not taking proper care to perform their responsibilities, and that is no fault of the NRA either.

Give them funding, give them all Apple computers, it's not going to change the institutional mentality there.
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
So, it's fairly obvious that "good guys with guns" do indeed succeed in protecting themselves or others or in stopping criminal activity, and on a fairly ongoing basis.
Click to expand...
No-one ever claimed that it never happens. The fact that it does happen doesn't change the conclusion that the rate of gun violence would be lower without RTC laws.
 
arthwollipot said:
. The fact that it does happen doesn't change the conclusion that the rate of gun violence would be lower without RTC laws.
Click to expand...

No, that's self evident garbage as the crimes aren't being committed by ccw holders.
 
Art:
You are invited to take off your blinkers and read "the armed citizen" columns that are extracted from local news reports. Unlike the fear mongering of "oh, dear, another murderer" this collection of un screamed incidents (published monthly in the NRA's rag) points to three things that happen: armed citizen scares off cook; armed citizen gets control of situation until cops come; armed citizen shoots crook. (sometimes lethal, sometimes not).

I've been getting that rag for about 10 years now. In paper form. There are between 12 and 15 of these reports, citing which city's news report it comes from, that paint a very different picture form the nonsense you spout.

There are people out there preventing crime and in some cases helping the cops apprehend people who are out there screwing with their fellow citizens.

Take off your blinders. To the people, it matters to have the choice not to be a victim. Having that choice matters. Some people don't prefer that option.

Your confirmation bias is sad. GO read the last ten years of that column. That's 10 x 12 and 12 ~ 1400+ incidents that may inform you, if you can be bothered to take the effort.
Skeptic? Not. Willfully ignorant.
======================================
(The rest of the monthly offering in the NRA rag is political noise, which I have no time for; occasionally interesting historical articles that relate a particular fire arm to a time in history, often to do with military campaigns or hunting; advertisements for a whole lot of stuff (mostly ignore); and the occasional "collectors corner" article where one can find out about well preserved firearms that are very old.

There are also a variety benchmark tests for weapons and ammo that I no longer care about, as I've got all of the firearms I need at the moment.
I've cut out enough reviews for 9mms such that if I do want to buy one last one, I know what to choose from. Odds are, I won't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom