• sudo22@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it’ll stop criminals.

    • Poob
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, I wasn’t commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.

      • sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No offense but that is extremely paranoid. I love in a not so great part of a major city and have never really felt unsafe enough to feel the need to carry. Hell, even my step dad, who was a police officer and has been shot at, does not feel the need to carry. I guess I could see if you live somewhere super dangerous like St Louis or Wichita but it seems a bit silly otherwise.

          Also, shouldn’t your partner be the one carrying of they are the less safe of the two of you?

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see it as paranoid. I totally agree with you its unlikely I’ll ever need it, but it costs me nothing to concealed carry where I can. Worst case my pants are slightly less comfortable, best case I save a life.

            My partner is disabled and is of a very small stature which means I’m a far faster and more accurate shot so I carry when its the 2 of us. If theyre alone they carry a lower power pistol so they can handle using it.

            • SeaJ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just to let you know, there is a near zero percent chance that it will save any life at all. And no, worst case is not that your pants are slightly less comfortable. Bad case would be you accidentally leaving it somewhere (lots of cases where people remove it while in the sitter and forget about it). Worst case would be you using it when it absolutely, positively is not necessary which again, there is a near zero percent chance it would be needed. If you are fine with all of that, that is okay but don’t be under the impression that there are zero downsides outside of uncomfortable pants.

              • sudo22@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No youre right, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

                I keep a very close eye on defensive gun legality and cases (Armed Attorneys is a great Youtube channel to start with if you’re interested). You’re right there are many things that can go wrong. I do my best to stay educated on the pitfalls others run into, I pay for carry insurance as well to help with legal fees if I ever do need to use it.

                • SeaJ@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Good on you, mate. I wish more gun owners were similar.

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I’ll never need them.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public.

      Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they’re properly vetted through laws that aren’t dogshit.

      But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?

      Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.

      There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a “responsible gun owner” who didn’t secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.

      Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.

      And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.

      Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.

      The gun laws are a failure.

      • sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don’t have the time right now I’m sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no “well regulated” does not mean legal regulations)

        I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don’t commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won’t bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.

        Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There’s no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who’s needs are actually met don’t need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.

        • SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders. There’s something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don’t kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it’s a whole lot easier to just say “guns bad”.

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders.

            Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you’ve finished building all of that, you can have them back?

          After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn’t fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.

            • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about “defensive gun use” without any form of validation whatsoever?

              Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?

              70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.

              The pro-gun community has spent 20 years insisting that they (and they alone) have the answers yet the problem continues to spiral further out of control. The number of guns used in crimes that were bought through “gun show loopholes” is on the rise, but the pro-gun community still opposes background checks for private sales.

              So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.

              • sudo22@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You literally asked what if we took all he guns away and I gave a counterpoint why i think that would be bad. If you doubt my sources (which is impressive since i hadn’t provided any yet) say so instead of jumping to insults. If you want to start ad hominem attacks, just reply to yourself cause I’m not interested in continuing the conversation.

                • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So your answer to “What if we took your guns away?” is “Because guns in America are used defensively”?

                  Lie better.

                  • sudo22@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Hey if being such an asshole to someone who’s done nothing to you make you feel good, have fun. Not letting people provide evidence and going strait to being rude is a great way to think you’re always right.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero

        The US isn’t far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.

        Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit “United States”, counting the number of countries along the way that you’d be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.

          Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.

          I’m sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they’re not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.

          Anyway, we’ve identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you’d actually want to live in.

          Takes a while huh? You’d think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.

          Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

          Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn’t obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a horrible selection bias though. That is basically saying “this group of people with no violent crimes in their records has a lower violent crime rate than the general public which does.” Of course they do.

      • sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. You’re right, these people are vetted by the state and authorized because they passed BG checks and firearms proficiency tests. Which is why a law targeting this group is dumb (beyond just being unconstitutional).

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Definitely should have been in your initial point since I have often seen that point used by gun nuts as if they are some paragon of lawfulness. Permitted concealed carry owners are definitely not the ones committing violent crime in New Mexico. Can’t really say the same for quite a few other states that allow permitless concealed carry though.