121
WA Democrats move to ban open, concealed carry of a firearm at 5,300+ locations
(www.thecentersquare.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
121 points (98.4% liked)
Seattle
1602 readers
117 users here now
A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We already do not allow concealed carry in many places. I think it makes sense to not allow them in parks, public buildings, etc.
This coming from a firearm owner who has had a concealed carry permit in the past.
If they are somehow immune from violent perpetrators, I would agree. For example, if the "public building" has armed security.
Otherwise, we're just creating unarmed victim zones.
From my perspective, it’s zones that are free of hammers looking for nails.
You are calling out the armed civilian argument. Please point me to an armed civilian who has stopped a school shooting.
But in schools, being gun free zones, "civilians" are legally not allowed to be "armed."
There have been "mass shootings" or "active shooter incidents" stopped by armed civilians in places where guns are allowed like churches, parks, malls, etc, even when carrying there is a legal grey area (signs posted but the state doesn't prosecute carrying there).
But of course since guns aren't legally allowed in "schools" (like, federally, at all) you of course won't find any "armed civilians" at all, as the only ones willing to bring in a gun are the shooter themselves (because duh) or the cops (who are allowed by law to do so), not civilians (who are legally prohibited from doing so), for obvious reasons.
Are you suggesting that "school shootings" are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn't be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn't be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn't be stopped?
That muggings shouldn't be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
That is, indeed, a better question.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You're 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Your last sentence is impossible to prove.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
And again your last sentence is yet another claim that you could not prove. It could be the case but it might not be and neither one of us has any way to prove it because the pro-gun lobbies shut down any rational scientific study that might demonstrate that guns are the issue (not claiming guns are the problem but they stifle any research into it).
I am aware of how the CDC was censured for non-scientific propaganda they were peddling in the 90s. I am also aware that the justice department (the appropriate entity for this sort of study) has never been restricted in the way you suggest.
I am also aware that the CDC did conduct a study (during Obama's administration) that largely confirmed pro-gun claims, and has subsequently been suppressed.
Your phrasing is extremely biased. The CDC is prevented from engaging in a lot of research into gun crime period regardless of the potential results.
No politician wants actual evidence in that debate because it is far too profitable for them to leave questions unanswered.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Yes, my language is biased. I am fully cognizant of my biases here. I am also aware of your biases, as I hope you are as well. Let neither of us suffer any pretense of neutrality.
What I don't think that either of us has is malicious intent: I think we are both concerned about protecting ourselves, eachother, and society in general from harm.
Where our respective biases come in is our understanding of harm: the sources and severities.
I think you would say it is more important to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.
I would say that prevention is not (entirely) feasible, and that the individual should be empowered to meet harm with overwhelming force.
No hypocrisy here. Im not taking biased positions on research.
I don't think your psychic powers are as strong as you think nor is your ability to determine my views on guns working at all.
Turns out I was wrong. Good day.
I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked a simple question of you which you don't seem to be able to answer.
Correct. I specifically said that I couldn't answer it. Would you care to address any of the other points I presented?
One stat you'll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Proof?
Every school shooting?
You mean every school, then. And while school shootings top the list for death of children in the US, surprisingly, guns are the tool that school shootings are actually committed with.
You see, knives and explosive aren't allowed in schools either, and yet...
Wow, the point and proof you asked for sailed clear over your head. Guns aren't allowed in schools yet somehow they've still turned into unarmed victim zones, leading to the statistic you cited. Murder is illegal yet kids are getting killed with guns, in schools where neither are allowed.
I wonder what the concern is now though? Has there been a problem I'm not aware of?
Yeah. Guns killing people.
Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the general public. If you want to stop gun crimes, you would be more successful by prohibiting everyone except concealed carriers.
Isn't that the default state? Prohibited concealed carriers except those permitted?
I'm saying that if we are going to try to increase safety by banning people from public buildings and parks on the basis of whether they are carrying a gun, it would be statistically safer to ban non-carriers than carriers.
I'm not suggesting that we actually do this, of course.
Agreed.
The people who apply for permits are the ones who'll obey the law.
I guess that means that permits are not an effective deterrent and that we should just ban guns altogether.
Concealed carriers have a lower rate of criminality because of how selective the process is to get that license. As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates getting that license and thus spiking that number.
Where are you getting the idea that Oregon's concealed carry laws are loosening to allow "less ideal" candidates?
Oregon went to a minimally-restrictive "Shall Issue" licensing model back in 1989. "Shall Issue" means that the state imposes no discretionary limits; anyone who has not been explicitly prohibited from owning a gun will receive a license upon request.
And yet, licensed concealed carriers still have a lower rate of criminality than the general population.
The reason, of course, is because of the background check: The "general population" includes convicted felons, whose predilection for violent crime is so high it skews the statistics for the general public. Licensed concealed carriers exclude this group of perpetrators, so their "normal" numbers seem extraordinarily low.
Oregon specifically? I don’t have any bit nationally it will absolutely without question get worse. Right now concealed carry is neigh impossible for anyone in NYC or NJ. If you aren’t LEO you will not have one right now, but the expectation is that will change and as we get more untrained and less ideal people carrying we should see an increase in crimes committed by people with cc permits.
My warning is more about how I wouldn’t rely on old data anymore because the pool of people who can carry concealed has massively increased.
LEO total crime rate is only half that of general public, and five times that of concealed carriers. For certain acts (domestic violence) they are twice as likely to commit violent crime as the general public.
Opening up NYCs and NJs concealed carry from "LEO-Only" to "Shall Issue" (Meaning: "Background checked members of the general public") would improve the rates among concealed carriers in general.
No, it wouldn't because aside from the police it's pretty much the governor and some mayors. You will be seeing a bunch of people getting guns who previously would have been denied them. I promise you the cc permit carrier rate of crime will substantially increase as more carry concealed.
42 states have Shall Issue licensing. Only 8 states have "May Issue" laws, where the state exercises arbitrary discretion in licensing.
In each and every one of those states, the violent crime rate of licensed carriers is substantially lower than that of the general public. In each and every one of those states, cops have a higher crime rate than carriers.
So no, it's not just "the governor and some mayors". It's the entire country.
For your point to be rational, non-felon laypersons in New York and New Jersey would have to be substantially more criminal than carriers in 42 states.
Your "promises" have no logical basis. Guns simply do not cause crime.
The "governor and mayors" bit was referring to NJ sorry that should have been made clearer.
You know those 8 state that were may issue pre 2022 account for a substantial percentage of the country's population, right? CA is 10% of the US population by itself. That means you are going to see that rate change as more people have concealed firearms. The 2020 RAND study on concealed carry apparently claimed this exact thing.
My point is rational you are just confusing the number of states instead of the total number of people who will suddenly face little to no issues getting a license. NJ/NY wont have to commit more crimes those eight states would merely have to house a large part of the population which they do.
You're right guns do not commit crimes but people do commit more crimes. The more people who own concealed permits the larger amount of people you will have who commit crime and have concealed permits.
This will happen because you are increasing the volume of people who get licenses while reducing the restrictions on how they are obtained
That is only true if the people in those 8 states are inherently more violent than the people in the 42.
I've got 100 people in this room. 8 of them are felons, and prohibited from getting a license. Of the remaining 92, 30 get a license, and those 30 commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 100.
Next door, I've got 1000 people. 80 of them are felons. Nobody in this group currently has a license. Tomorrow, 300 of them are going to get one. Tomorrow, those 300 will commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 1000.
The rate does not change.
That's why we use the rate, and not the total numbers. The rate does not change because the violent crimes are being committed by the 8 and the 80, not the 92 and the 920.
Concealed carriers do not include the 8 and the 80: they are prohibited from getting licenses. There is no "relaxing of the requirements", and certainly not any that would allow those violent criminals to become licensed.
I've addressed the restrictions you're talking about: You claimed that the restrictions are only allowing cops to get licenses. I pointed out that cops are more likely to commit (certain) violent crimes than the general public. The "restrictions" you are talking about are keeping the rates higher because they are keeping the least-likely-to-offend from getting licenses.
When you stop preventing non-violent people from getting licenses, the violent crime rate among licensees will fall, not rise.
There is no reason to think that the people of California will start committing more crimes when non-violent people - concealed carriers - pick up more guns.
Im done. You seem to think every cc person is going to be the equivalent if the next despite we just loosened the standard.
Go look at the RAND 2020 study if you actually have the educational background in social science to read it. It's well done and not surprisingly concludes the more people with guns on them means you will see more crimes committed by people carrying guns.
What "standard" do you think is being loosened for licensure?
Again, Oregon is not a constitutional carry state. They are a shall issue state, and have been since 1989.
For your argument to make sense (and be relevant to this discussion), Oregonians would have to be significantly more likely to commit violent crime than the people of the the 29 "constitutional carry" states that don't even require licensure.
But they aren't.
Nor are the citizens of the 8 "may issue" states particularly dangerous either.
The reality is that the "undesirables will get guns" argument has a long and unsavory history, but no basis in fact.
reread my first sentence and then ask why you replied
This is a public forum. Others are reading along.