Concealed Carry Law- No Link To Crime Increase

Crime - the media loves it, people fear it, and criminals get away with it!
Post Reply
thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Concealed Carry Law- No Link To Crime Increase

Post by thrice » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:03 pm

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1089112.html

Study shows little effect of concealed carry gun laws on crime rate. Results are entirely consistent with common sense. Gun control advocates insist that more gun laws will reduce crime. The reality is that people who are willing to commit crimes aren't in the least concerned about a low level conviction for illegally carrying one. The only people that gun control laws effect are law abiding citizens. Clearly the causal factor is not the availability of weapons- it is the character and mentality of people who are willing to commit criminal behavior. When will apologists stop looking for external factors, and start looking at individual accountability?

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Concealed Carry Law- No Link To Crime Increase

Post by dorajar » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:00 am

thrice wrote:When will apologists stop looking for external factors?
Like the waves of criminals being "shipped" here by Chicago and Detroit? :wink:

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:10 am

Well, Dora, you might get a chuckle out of it. Or you might demand studies and statistics, as another poster here did. The fact is that a huge amount of our crime here is being committed by the very worst dregs of the very worst ghettos in the United States, who have come here to live off the charity of well-meaning Minnesotans and to fleece and victimize the naive. Unfortunately the dam has already burst, and there's no turning back that flood now. The sad thing is that Minnesotans so long congratulated themselves for their marvelous, clean, and orderly state where everyone got along and prospered. The fact is that the moment Minnesota stopped being a homogenous exception to the national demographics, and started facing the same issues of diversity and poverty that everyone else did, the crime and quality of life statistics started slipping right back down into the pack.

You've certainly got a right to your view. But to paraphrase an old saw, a conservative is simply a liberal who's been mugged once too often.

BrewskiBri
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:45 pm

Post by BrewskiBri » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:40 pm

So should the solution be to keep black people from Chicago, Detroit, Gary, etc. out of Minnesota so we can stay "clean, marvelous, and orderly"?

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:32 pm

Absolutely not. Law abiding, working people of any color and place of origin are fine with me. I certainly don't think that you should be allowed to spend your entire life on welfare in one state, and then take the Greyhound to another state with higher benefits, step off the bus, and sign up to collect welfare there. If you are familiar with the pattern at all, welfare moms come to the state, sign up, get an apartment, and then the criminal boyfriend has a roof over his head and a woman to support his basic needs. That is the pattern that has put us where we are today. It is the lifestyle of the vast majority of male felony criminals arrested in Minneapolis, and the home situation that most of them came from.

People who are unfamiliar with the inner city are under the false impression that this pattern is an abberation. Clearly it is not. In far too many Minneapolis and Saint Paul neighborhoods, teen and adult single parenthood is the norm, not the exception. People with higher expectations of life may find it foolish, but to a young woman who sees it all around her, to get an apartment and a paycheck every month simply for having a baby is an entirely acceptable career choice. The men are disposable- they come and go. That is the unfortunate reality.

CraigInTwinCities
Posts: 715
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Contact:

Post by CraigInTwinCities » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:56 pm

Concealed carry usually results in a lower crime rate, not a higher one.

Here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... /14167.ctl

That's U of Chicago Press... hardly a right-wing source. Very academic study.

LadyM
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:59 am

Neither help nor hindrance

Post by LadyM » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:49 pm

Actually, the study found that there was no increase in crime after the new conceal & carry law was passed as many gun control advocates predicted, but there also was no great drop in crime as many NRA and permit to carry folks predicted. Both sides were wrong.


My question is this: Why do you need a handgun in public? Their only purpose is to kill people. If you intend it for protection only, then perhaps you need to look at why you need that much protection. I would guess that many police and military folks might agree with me on this, but the average civilian would be more rattled in a violent crime situation, right? That might just make having a gun on them more of a danger to all than a help to them. At best, they either won't get it out in time, or will be so rattled they can't aim. At worst, they'll aim poorly and hurt someone else by accident, or it may even be used against them.


We need to enforce the laws we already have, and work on preventing crime more than we need to carry guns to protect ourselves.

dorajar
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Neither help nor hindrance

Post by dorajar » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:54 pm

LadyM wrote:Actually, the study found that there was no increase in crime after the new conceal & carry law was passed as many gun control advocates predicted, but there also was no great drop in crime as many NRA and permit to carry folks predicted. Both sides were wrong.


My question is this: Why do you need a handgun in public? Their only purpose is to kill people. If you intend it for protection only, then perhaps you need to look at why you need that much protection. I would guess that many police and military folks might agree with me on this, but the average civilian would be more rattled in a violent crime situation, right? That might just make having a gun on them more of a danger to all than a help to them. At best, they either won't get it out in time, or will be so rattled they can't aim. At worst, they'll aim poorly and hurt someone else by accident, or it may even be used against them.


We need to enforce the laws we already have, and work on preventing crime more than we need to carry guns to protect ourselves.
Amen.

thrice
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:28 am

Post by thrice » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:08 pm

I would generally agree with everything you said too, LadyM. I have had a license to carry for a very long time, and I rarely do. I can't remember an occasion that I've had where it would be appropriate to pull one out or use it.

My point was that the "gun banners" are making a philosophical statement, not a practical proposal. They posit that the availability of guns is the reason we have gun violence. That is absolutely false. Guns are much less LEGALLY available than they ever have been, but the gun violence is greater. That is because we have a large number of people who are of such violence prone, sociopathic personality that are willing to harm and kill their fellow citizens, not because they have access to guns. They've always had access to guns, and far more easily in the past.

The old redneck bumper sticker is corny, but it's true. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Because they just...don't...care... if it's illegal.

The real answer, the hard answer, is to recognize the personal responsiblity of the people doing the killing. You can certainly form theories on the social/familial factors that lead to the formation of such morally degenerate personalities, and work on strategies to address that. But in the mean time, when a person has reached such a point of moral depravity that they are willing to kill you for a couple of dollars and your credit cards, the only answer is to put them in cages where they can't harm anyone but each other. That is the brutal truth that the bleeding hearts don't want to deal with- that nasty old personal responsibility thang. It kinda blows the hell out of that lovely myth that greedy rich people are standing behind the poor with pitchforks, forcing them to go out and do evil things.

Dennis in St Paul
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: St Paul

Re: Neither help nor hindrance

Post by Dennis in St Paul » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:59 pm

LadyM wrote:My question is this: Why do you need a handgun in public? Their only purpose is to kill people. If you intend it for protection only, then perhaps you need to look at why you need that much protection. I would guess that many police and military folks might agree with me on this, but the average civilian would be more rattled in a violent crime situation, right? That might just make having a gun on them more of a danger to all than a help to them. At best, they either won't get it out in time, or will be so rattled they can't aim. At worst, they'll aim poorly and hurt someone else by accident, or it may even be used against them.
Well, I'm in the military (Army National Guard and later Army Reserve) and I don't agree with you.

If I intend a gun for protection, it is because, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Until they arrive, I am on my own. I'd rather fight for my own life, with all means necessary, than die pleading for my life with some sociopath who doesn't have a shred of humanity. As to why I need that gun, it is because criminals have cars. They can drive out of the inner city and go to good neighorhoods. Crime can happen anywhere. If you don't believe me, pay attention to the newspaper and the evening news. Not how many crime stories happen in the suburbs. You never know when you might need a gun.

And, by the way, many civilian gun carriers are better trained than are many police officers. Many civilians also practice more often. This is because, as well as being someone who believes in takin responsibility for my own safety, I am a 'gun guy.' Cops, especially in cities, are by and large, not gun guys. They carry a gun because they have to. They typically only shoot once or twice a year, at their yearly or twice-yearly qualifications. Whereas I have been to the range twice so far this month, and will go at least once more. Many police officers who are involved in shootings miss their target completely. Some never get their gun out in time.

So, when your life is threatened, do you want to wait for the police, who more than likely won't get there until it's too late, or defend yourself? Remember, a woman raped and strangled to death with her pantyhose is not morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet. Especially if that woman is your daughter.

LadyM
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:59 am

Post by LadyM » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:57 am

Dennis: Your point is well stated, but you are not the average citizen in my books.

As for the image of a dead, raped woman or a woman who killed her would-be rapist, nice picture but do you really feel that is an accurate average portrayal? In come ways, carrying a gun gives you a false sense of security and you may take chances that you normally wouldn't. There are some woman who may be just that steady under pressure as you are, and may have the training, but I suspect that many do not and are not.

As a woman, I'd much rather avoid a potentially dangerous situation than waltz into it assuming that I can protect myself. Too often that assumption is wrong and that's all it takes to wind up dead, or worse.

praecorloth
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Post by praecorloth » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:56 pm

LadyM wrote:Dennis: Your point is well stated, but you are not the average citizen in my books.

As for the image of a dead, raped woman or a woman who killed her would-be rapist, nice picture but do you really feel that is an accurate average portrayal? In come ways, carrying a gun gives you a false sense of security and you may take chances that you normally wouldn't. There are some woman who may be just that steady under pressure as you are, and may have the training, but I suspect that many do not and are not.

As a woman, I'd much rather avoid a potentially dangerous situation than waltz into it assuming that I can protect myself. Too often that assumption is wrong and that's all it takes to wind up dead, or worse.
I don't think he said he was the average citizen. He did say that he was military and disagreed with you because you said that you believed law enforcement and military would probably agree with you. He was just stating that he did not agree with you, and then went on to mention that private citizens often have better training than law enforcement officers. (Which I don't necessarily agree with but I see where he's coming from with regards to range time.)

But overall it seems that the issue here is training. Shouldn't some sort of decent training be required to get a conceal and carry? Because when the adrenaline hits, anything can happen. With some training to back you up, you could be that steadfast woman who stopped a horrible crime.

As for avoiding potentially dangerous situations...As previously stated, criminals have cars. You may walk in a park once a week because it's good exercise and the park you've chosen has a really low crime rate. Well it's just that. A low crime rate. Not no crime rate. By walking in that park you are putting yourself in a dangerous situation. By walking outside you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

LadyM
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:59 am

Guns controlled

Post by LadyM » Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:17 pm

Okay, that hit a nerve.

If I live in a city where there is a reasonable probablilty that I will be raped simply walking in the park once a week, I will move. Minneapolis, for the most part, is NOT that awful. It isn't a Disneyesque wonderland of happy, friendly, helpful folks, but neither is it a downtown Detroit nightmare realm. If you feel that you need a gun to keep you safe on a daily basis, I suggest you take a good, hard look at what you're doing and with whom. Also, I would ask your friends, family, and other folks around you if they agree with your assessment of the danger. You might, just might be overreacting.

Last of all, many people need to be reminded that if they draw that weapon and point it at someone they had better be damned good and ready to use it. Guns are not something to have to "scare off" a crook, rapist, etc. Guns are for killing people. If you are not prepared to kill someone, don't get a gun because it may just give you that false sense of security that gets you killed.

praecorloth
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Post by praecorloth » Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:48 pm

I'll grant that most of Minneapolis isn't Detroit level bad. But that doesn't change anything. Is crime to be found in only one or two parts of Minneapolis? A couple places you can easily avoid on a day to day basis? No. Crime happens everywhere. Crime is less likely to happen in some areas, but it still happens. Could be walking in a park, could be doing something else. Gas stations are always a nice cliche for crime scenarios. If crime only happened in a couple of places in Minneapolis, there wouldn't be crime to speak of. If you get a CCW and then strut around north Minneapolis, then that's your own stupidity.

I'll just go off the assumption that you have no CCW. From your posts I gather that you're pretty good at avoiding crime. So what would be the harm in you continuing your crime avoiding ways, and carrying a gun for the small chance that your crime avoiding skillz fail you? Assuming you were prepared to kill of course. I totally agree, if you're not prepared to kill, don't get a CCW.

Dennis in St Paul
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: St Paul

Post by Dennis in St Paul » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:56 pm

LadyM wrote:Dennis: Your point is well stated, but you are not the average citizen in my books.

As for the image of a dead, raped woman or a woman who killed her would-be rapist, nice picture but do you really feel that is an accurate average portrayal? In come ways, carrying a gun gives you a false sense of security and you may take chances that you normally wouldn't. There are some woman who may be just that steady under pressure as you are, and may have the training, but I suspect that many do not and are not.

As a woman, I'd much rather avoid a potentially dangerous situation than waltz into it assuming that I can protect myself. Too often that assumption is wrong and that's all it takes to wind up dead, or worse.
I hope I didn't give you the impression that you, or I, or anyone, should go looking for trouble just because you have a gun. That would be a good way to find it -- trouble. No, I for one am the same person I am when I carry a gun that I am without a gun. I just have a gun on my person, so that if all else (situational awareness, hand to hand combat skills, and so on) fails, I have one final argument. I am not controntational as a normal thing, and I don't change my nature just because I am packing. A person who would do that shouldn't carry a gun (and since he will probably end up in jail, he will lose his right to carry soon enough.)

Your view that you should avoid trouble is sound. Pay attention to your environment, stay off the cell phone when you are getting into and out of your car, etc. But even so, crime can still find you. If it does happen (and I hope such a thing never does happen to you, wouldn't you rather be able to provide for your own safety, rather than rely on a police officer who won't get there in time to help you?

Dennis in St Paul
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: St Paul

Post by Dennis in St Paul » Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:01 pm

As for avoiding potentially dangerous situations...As previously stated, criminals have cars. You may walk in a park once a week because it's good exercise and the park you've chosen has a really low crime rate. Well it's just that. A low crime rate. Not no crime rate. By walking in that park you are putting yourself in a dangerous situation. By walking outside you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation.
Exactly. The gun is your final resort. You use it when all else fails. First is not going to high-crime areas. Second, be ready for trouble wherever you are. Have some means of dealing with that trouble, and I mean something more than a cell phone. Tear gas, something you can hit with, unarmed combat training. And a gun for in case everything else fails.

When criminals are interviewed in prisons, time and again they claim not to be afraid of the justice system. They state that the thing they do fear is armed citizens.

LadyM
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:59 am

Conundrum

Post by LadyM » Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:07 pm

But the riddle persists, gentlemen and ladies: the conceal and carry option available has not decreased crime.

BTW: Does anyone know the requirements for getting a CCW permit? What kind of training is required? Do you have to prove a need?

Dennis in St Paul
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: St Paul

Re: Conundrum

Post by Dennis in St Paul » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:16 pm

BTW: Does anyone know the requirements for getting a CCW permit? What kind of training is required? Do you have to prove a need?[/quote]

You don't have to prove a need. You take a shooting test, learn some fundamentals about conflict avoidance and situational awareness, learn the elements of self-defense. Then you take your proof of training -- you graduation certificate, etc. -- to your local Sheriff's office, along with proof of identity. They will collect everything they need and process you application. They are allowed to take up to 30 days, but, as I recall, when I got my permit, Ramsey County was only taking 15 days.

There is a fee of not more than $100.

The training is pretty basic, and I have since them supplemented it with additional training. I am going to look into taking more training later this year. You can never stop learning, especially when you are dealing with firearms.

You can find a list of accredited instructors on the BCAs website.

praecorloth
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Re: Conundrum

Post by praecorloth » Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:29 pm

Dennis in St Paul wrote: The training is pretty basic, and I have since them supplemented it with additional training. I am going to look into taking more training later this year. You can never stop learning, especially when you are dealing with firearms.
http://www.usshootingacademy.com/index.html

If you're serious about training, this is the place to go. It's pretty out of the way from Minneapolis. Like 700 miles out of the way. However I've not heard complaint 1 come out of that place, but I have heard compliment after compliment from everyone who's attended. Ranging from people just wanting to learn a little self defense to keep the muggers at bay, to police officers who rely on their training every day.
But the riddle persists, gentlemen and ladies: the conceal and carry option available has not decreased crime.
The riddle does persist. And the riddle is: What's the problem?

It's not helping prevent crimes, but it's not causing more crime either. Do you want conceal and carry revoked because gun owners AREN'T being vigilante crime fighters? Is that what you're upset about? Would you prefer large mobs of people roaming the streets in search of law breakers? Personally, I'm rather happy that people with conceal and carry permits have made the distinction between defending one's self, and going out and finding crime to stop (i.e. police work).

Post Reply