|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Open Carry Guy....ROBBED! (10/10/2014 3:31:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It seems more likely that they aren't taking pleasure in it, but pointing out that robberies could be reduced overall, and, perhaps, deterred if there were guns in the right hands. But, I'm sure you'll never, ever interpret things that way.
What do we consider the 'right hands'? There are plenty of videos and evidence showing police officers violating laws and doing some pretty hellish things to people. Just as there are plenty of examples of citizens whom were 'honest and law abiding Americans' moments before the crime. Over time, government police officers have had more and more regulations, restrictions, and processes to learn and understand as if they might take a quiz on it that day. And society is pretty harsh on those that break the law in such a dramatic way. Yet, when non-law enforcement does the same, its a short blurb in the news. No mass riots, no mass protests, nothing.
The founding fathers didn't know shit about the human mind and how it operates. In those days, devil possession was the more likely problem, then schizophrenia. Should those that have firearms, be required to pass a physical, mental, and emotional health exam every year, like police are required? That when the individual starts behaving in an odd way, or after some traumatic event, we have a trained psychologist sit down and get a 'mental and emotional health assessment'? Just like we do with police officers?
Many cops have hellish jobs. These jobs sometimes require them to take a human life. That there are physical, mental and emotional health exams, is a damn good thing because that shit needs to be caught early, so as to return the officer back to good physical, mental, and emotional functioning.
quote:
We should give firearms to the 'right hands'. It sounds great, doesn't it? Its when we apply reality, knowledge, and understanding, do we start having a hard time with 'who should have access to those arms'.
To a degree, I agree. We shouldn't give guns to anyone. We should provide LEO's with their firearms, but after they earn them. Private citizens still have to pass background checks, and there are mental health exceptions to who can own a firearm.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
No. Again, you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Open Carrying will make you a target if there is going to be a crime committed. If you're going to commit a crime, you're going to limit the risks, right? Someone openly carrying is going to be a known risk. So, the known risks will be taken care of either during or prior to the crime. Someone else in the area of the crime is an unknown risk if it's a Concealed Carry area. You don't know if that person has a gun or not, so you don't know if that person is a risk or not. The potential is there, and that potential can limit criminal activity.
Actually, I do believe I've pointed out (and BamaD can confirm this) that I do not see 'open carry' as deterring crime when the individual is not part of law enforcement. There has not been enough evidence to show that 'open carry' specifically and without much question, reduces crime. Does 'concealable carry' reduce crime? It takes some very careful study. Eliminating the variable from say chemistry, is MUCH easier, than removing them from criminology. Made worst, when the folks backing the study are part of the firearms industry. Its like saying 'smoking is not harmful' when the study was backed by one or more tobacco companies. There is credibility factors taken into account, not just the credibility of the evidence and study's conclusions.
This country I think we can all agree on, has the most firearms per person on Planet Earth. If firearms (open/concealable carry) deter crime, wouldn't that be noticeable from an objective stand point? I'm not talking just the arm, but the wielder of that arm. Police officers deter crimes of every type. And they are very often armed. How many mass shootings have been stopped thanks to the 'open/concealable' carry individuals to date? If there are many examples, we can say "Ok, there might be something to this". But that is not what is being observed right now.
Part of the reason many mass shootings have not been stopped by concealed carry, is because most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, where it's not legal for private citizens to conceal carry.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How many mass shootings didn't happen at all because of the risk of someone concealed carrying?
You would have to supply the burden of evidence on this one. While a question, its basically a hidden statement. Got that evidence handy?
You completely miss the point. We have no idea if there is zero or 100 mass shootings didn't happen, regardless of the reason they didn't happen, because they didn't happen.
Now, I could say that, so far this month, there haven't been any mass shootings in Ohio, where it's legal to both open carry and conceal carry. But, if I were to ascribe this data to the open/conceal carry laws, I'd be as hard pressed to prove that causation as I would be to prove it wasn't the causation.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
While it's very true he had the means to defend himself on his person, he wasn't in position to use those means. Had he been concealed carrying, he may not have been robbed at all.
Now we are playing 'What ifs', DS. That's not the point of the thread. From the evidence understood, what do we arrive at as the 'conclusion' of all this? The guy was robbed? Did he make it up? What is curious to me is the 'religious' nature people take to firearms. That having one instantly protects them from all possible harm. Yet, a story like this comes along, that shatters the belief; like pictures from space showing the Earth is not flat but round. And then those of this 'religious' viewpoint make all sorts of bullshit up to 'justify' their position. And what is their position? They would....NEVER...be in that situation. Its based on a belief, not evidence. Could they land themselves in the same situation? Of course they could. Would they admit it, if it happened?
The point of this thread was to prove that carrying a firearm does not make one safer. It was loud and clear. In the case presented in the article, open carrying a firearm actually was the reason for the crime. This guy was not safer for carrying a firearm. What you won't acknowledge is that open carrying and concealed carrying are not the same. You seem to be implying this guy wasn't robbed of his gun because he had a gun. If he had been concealed carrying, it's more likely he wouldn't have been robbed of his gun because the thief wouldn't have known he had a gun to rob.
I think you're intelligent enough to see the difference. I don't think you're non-partisan enough for it to matter.
|
|
|
|
