Do you ever see anyone open carrying? (Washington: crime, buying)

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by motoracer51

Believe it or not, open carry is illegal in Texas.

Is it really? I was down there for business and saw plenty of shiny revolvers. It was my first time in Texas and it really struck me.

Is there some permit you can get to open carry or something (or is this more recent; I was there several years ago)?

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by rmcewan

You have statistics that show more armed robberies at malls and schools than at liquor stores or gas stations? By all means, share.

Who said anything about robberies? I was talking strictly violent crime where a gun is used and yes there are decades of statistics and studies to prove it.

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

Source
James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, New York: Aldine

74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.

57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

Source
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report

On a state level.

Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate.

Source
FBI, “Crime in the United States”,

At the town level.

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

Source
Dr. Gary Kleck, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force”, Social Problems

So tell me again how banning firearms from a business, school, town, or state doesn't make them a bigger target for violent crime?

I'm not talking robberies here Professor.

[sgthoskins]

This usually works wonders...

http://la.metblogs.com/archives/imag...unfreezone.jpg

Moderator cut: Posting copyrighted images is prohibited in the Terms of Service. Please post a link to the image instead.

[rmcewan]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Who said anything about robberies? I was talking strictly violent crime where a gun is used and yes there are decades of statistics and studies to prove it.

If you rob my store by sticking a gun in my face, it is a violent crime, regardless of whether you pull the trigger or not.

I am not attacking your idea that weapons bans at various places affect crime. I am questioning why you think the problem is at schools and malls rather than at liquor stores, gas stations, and banks (e.g. where large cash can be confidently expected).

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Then why are schools, colleges, and shopping malls targeted?

Are we talking about for crime in general or for massacres?

[BF66389]

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

The key here is "knew" and "they thought"; the places we have mentioned are huge targets for crime regardless. Were they talking gun ranges? Obviously in that case they would "know" or "think"; or were they talking schools (where even if legal) one would not "know" or "think".

74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.
57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

First- I agree completely with the first scenario, it makes total sense, but line of logic is already in play- many malls/schools have an armed security/police presence; but they aren't everywhere and neither are gun-owners.
Second- Again, immediate threat vs. delayed threat (police), makes sense they would fear immediate more.
I am not arguing that criminals are not afraid of guns; I am arguing that the legality of guns doesn't increase/decrease crime.

Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate.
I just moved from there. DC is FILLED with the poor and desperate (stats are deceiving because there are many VERY wealth residents). Arlington (where I lived) had some poor but most residents were doing very well. The desperate of DC simply commit more crimes than the relatively content of Arlington.

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.
I believe firearms for home defense can be a very effective deterrant, especially in areas where the would-be burgler is not necessarily armed as well. A locked home generally required sufficient noise to break-into that would alert the occupants to the burgler's presence; in such a case the occupants are at an advantage over the criminal knowing both the layout of the home and the ideal location to "intercept" the criminal- more than likely from an advantageous position.

But that has little to do with schools/malls, etc.

I also do not think that banning guns prevents criminals from having guns or affects violent crime in any way. I do not believe in removing 2nd ammendment rights in any way. I just don't feel that banning guns makes the locations in question more of a target than they already were...

I do believe that gun owners should use a different approach to "defend" the 2nd ammendment; and I try to do that whenever possible.

[BF66389]

I am becoming convinced that we are arguing the same points:

1) Schools, Malls, Colleges, Liquor Stores, etc- are all targets of violent crime
2) The 2nd Ammendment is important

We are just all defending those statements from different directions...

The directions:
- SgtHoskins is worried about the threat to gun rights and is using traditional statistics to show why guns are good to protect those rights
- I am saying the statistics are flawed, but the end goal (protecting gun rights) is good and we should try a different route to make the public agree that 2nd ammendment rights are important
- RMC is agreeing with both of us, but his focus is that guns are not part of the equation in these cases but hasn't defined his view on gun rights yet.

[BF66389]

I'd also like to say that I really like how this debate is going; it's not "you're stupid and wrong" then "no, you're stupid and wrong"; instead its "here's my argument", "here is my argument", "here is my argument"...so much better...

[Be Free]

The things that BF pointed out are another part of why I'm hesitant to open carry. Aside from the chance that someone might grab the gun, wearing it openly is probably going to make you the first victim if you stumble onto a robbery or something. I'd like to have one when I'm in the woods though and probably will open carry there (after hunting season).

The only reason I even consider it is because I think a right unused is a right lost. Those Free Staters are trying to get people used to seeing good citizens with guns (which is a good thing), but they have a couple of members that repeatedly make a scene with the cops and aren't at all polite about reminding them of our right to carry. Naturally, those are the ones who get all the media attention. I'm afraid those few are going to turn so many people off, it'll have the opposite effect they're hoping for. They're not all like that, though, some of them are lawyers and doctors and one is a pilot, I think. Good, normal people who value liberty mostly. And they're sure going to a lot of trouble and expense to try to keep NH free.

Just seems like I ought to do my part to help. While we can still have hand guns.

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by rmcewan

Are we talking about for crime in general or for massacres?

My point was "gun free zones" open up those areas to a greater chance of violent crime occurring. This could be anything from murder, assault, or rape.

Obviously robberies are going to occur where money or high value goods are stored. 7-11 bans employees from carrying a gun during work for protection. Guess what store has one of the highest percentages of robberies in the country? It's not rocket science.

[rmcewan]

Originally Posted by BF66389

I am becoming convinced that we are arguing the same points:

1) Schools, Malls, Colleges, Liquor Stores, etc- are all targets of violent crime
2) The 2nd Ammendment is important

We are just all defending those statements from different directions...

The directions:
- SgtHoskins is worried about the threat to gun rights and is using traditional statistics to show why guns are good to protect those rights
- I am saying the statistics are flawed, but the end goal (protecting gun rights) is good and we should try a different route to make the public agree that 2nd ammendment rights are important
- RMC is agreeing with both of us, but his focus is that guns are not part of the equation in these cases but hasn't defined his view on gun rights yet.

What would we do without you BF?
For the record, I very much support the 2nd Ammendment, responsible gun use and ownership et. al. And, if open or concealed carry is permitted, then that is fine. If a person bars you from carrying a weapon on their property, then that should be respected.

Where I part ways with the NRA is on some issues of gun control. E.g. cheap, small, inaccurate, massed produced overseas, easily converted to fully-auto, drive-by type weapons. Sorry - i don't see a serious, hobbyiest, or home-defence use for these. But the NRA fights tooth and nail agaisnt every piece of legislation (or so it seems to me, but let's not get hung up on this though, it's just an example).

I also think laws like that of the Georgia town to be laughable. They are unenforceable without infringing upon other rights (unwarranted search) and amount to every head of household being drafted into a sort of town militia.
Even in time of war, a pacifist has the right to refuse to take up arms and provide other service instead (I'm no pacifist). In the end, a homeowner has to make the decision of whether to confront or retreat. Forcing them to own a weapon is not going to force them to use it.