How did you come up with that? If a criminal steals your gun, how is that one less?

Because he will not be successful taking my gun but I will take him and his gun of the street in about all of 2 seconds.

You have to remember: Criminals are not competent people, that is why they had to become criminals in the first place.

the majority of criminals are within spitting distance of what some folks call "mildly retarded",.. ergo they will have poor weapon handling and pointing skill.
aiming a gun is not just a function of hand-eye coordination but ofspatial intelligence as well.

Encryptshun wrote:you are probably in a region where the criminals don't care whether they use a knife, a gun, or a friggin rocket launcher <-disconnect-> if you aren't carrying a gun you might get punched and have your wallet and watch stolen. If you are carrying a gun, you're going to get shot and then have your wallet, watch and gun stolen.

If they don't care, they're shooting anyway. And if my attacker is going to shoot, I'd bet my odds of survival go up (even if only marginally) when I, too, have a firearm. Also, don't forget, if they guy across the street has a firearm he may be able to help you out.

Honestly, knowing how many firearms are in a given store/bank/whatever in my area makes me feel a bit safer. I can say with a great level of confidence that my odds of getting shot whilst performing a bank robbery are significantly higher in my area than in Chicago/its suburbs.

Encryptshun wrote:And I gotta say that I disagree that carrying a gun makes you less likely to be the victim of a violent crime -- it just makes you less likely to walk away from one.

If someone pulls a gun on me and I have done nothing illegal that makes me a victim of a violent crime. If I pull out my firearm in accordance with the state code and shoot said person, I am still the victim (who has now defended himself.) Do firearms keep you from being a victim? Not always. Does it keep you from being a victim that is unable to defend yourself? Definitely.

Can firearms be used to deter crime? My friend Matt was approached by a robber at an ATM, while we were in college. When Matt pulled out his 45ACP, the potential robber fled. So I guess it can be a deterrent.

For example -- inner city crime involving discharge of firearms is most often perpitrated by gang members shooting at other gang members. The likelihood that each side is carrying a loaded firearm is very high, yet they still go around shooting. What makes people think, then, that someone with a gun is LESS likely to assault someone if that someone has a gun? If you are in the kind of neighborhood where you feel you are threatened enough that you need to openly carry a firearm, then (1) why are you in that neighborhood in the first place and (2) you are probably in a region where the criminals don't care whether they use a knife, a gun, or a friggin rocket launcher. They are more likely to walk up and shoot you and THEN rob you before running away. Therefore, if you aren't carrying a gun you might get punched and have your wallet and watch stolen. If you are carrying a gun, you're going to get shot and then have your wallet, watch and gun stolen. And now there's one more firearm in the hands of criminals.

Carrying a firearm is not a magic silver bullet that keeps you from being a victim of a crime. I don’t think that is what I, or anyone here have been saying. But I guarantee you, the best way for everyone to be a defenceless victim all the time is to take away their right to carry. While I don’t think that is necessarily the intent of this piece of legislation, it appears to be the intent of your comments. The other thing I find troubling with your comments is that you seem to blame the wrong people for the crime. It is not illegal to be on the wrong side of town at the wrong time. And in the eyes of the law, said person is no less a victim. I do have to say, some people carry large amounts of money for business deposits or work in establishments that are in high crime areas. I don’t have a problem with them open or conceal carrying.

Despite any claims of would-be heroicism by those in favor of conceal and/or conspicuous carry, I would be surprised if anyone would dare draw a firearm if a gun was already leveled at him. I would be surprised, as well, if the assailant let the victim keep the gun.

And Palmer, I don't know where you get your facts, but your assumption that the majority of criminals are of lower-than-average intelligence is untrue. Most criminals are driven to crime by societical factors, not due to some "being dumb makes you a crook" phenomenon. You could make the argument that smart criminals don't get CAUGHT as often, but that's hardly the same thing.

Well then Encryptshun, since you have it all figured out, you are free to go off and stroll around the Chicago metro area denfenseless. I guess I am glad, the border of Ill stops at East Chicago.

I didn't claim to have anything figured out, Bud. I'm just discussing all sides and perspectives of the topic.

Encryptshun wrote:Despite any claims of would-be heroicism by those in favor of conceal and/or conspicuous carry

It certainly has happened. I've read the stories and seen hidden camera footage. Somewhat comically, those who appear most compelled to discharge a firearm typically are less capable of doing so. John Q. Public, the law-abiding gun-carrying citizen, is often far better prepared to use a firearm (given his frequent outings to the range to hone his skills). Think about it, how many times have you seen hidden camera footage of some criminal brandishing a firearm in your area (greater Chicagoland)? How many hands did that individual have on the weapon? Was the palm of their hand holding the weapon facing the ground? I'll give you one thing, if someone has a gun to my head I wont be able to pull a weapon and defend myself easily. However, increase that distance some and I'll feel more confident. At 10, 15, 20 feet it is a different story. Will that thug hit me with a round? I'll bet my first one lands.

Encryptshun wrote:And Palmer, I don't know where you get your facts, but your assumption that the majority of criminals are of lower-than-average intelligence is untrue

I dunno, Chad. If you claim that society has driven these people to crime, I'm guessing that society didn't also offer them some of the benefits of good schooling and such that you and I may have received. You see a lot of gang crime on your news every night. Do you think the perpetrators are really all that intelligent? And on the intelligence side of the argument, would I, seeing as I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and having been put under some extreme financial burden that I can no longer handle, choose to attempt to rob a bank in your area or mine? For that matter, where would you try?

I can agree with you on one thing, though. There are far too many firearms in the hands of criminals in most major cities. However, gun laws are not the answer.

I am well-ready to admit, then, that I must be a coward. Because if some guy is 20 feet or less away from me and the choice I have is to pull a gun and get my wife and/or I killed or to hand over my wallet, cell phone, and watch to a mugger, I'm NOT going to take the chance. And, while I completely respect and admire someone with the balls to go all High Noon, I cannot help but wonder if saying and doing would be two different things when push came to shove.

And (again, maybe this is just me) I don't equate intelligence with education. I've met highly-educated morons who have zero common sense and functional illiterates who were ten times smarter and more capable than me.

Cold_Zero wrote:

IBCoupe wrote: Because it's totally outside the realm of possibility for someone to think that it's loaded and act accordingly?

My question to you would be, in what state or municipality would it be legal to shoot a person for just open carrying a firearm, loaded or unloaded? Remember, intimidation with a firearm (which is what I assume you are trying to get at) is most likely already a crime in California and most likely not covered under this bit of legislation. And I am also sure that California law stipulates that it is a crime regardless of the firearm being loaded or not. Not to mention that deranged and criminals typically don’t obey laws in the first place. So my question still stands, what tragedy would be prevented by this legislation?

In Indiana, we can NOT go around shooting people for carrying firearms. We have to meet a prescribed set of rules for the use of deadly force. This isn’t the wild wild west like Connecticut or California!

Is the only possible scenario in your head, "There's a gun! I'mma shoot 'im?" Really? You can't think of a possible scenario where someone could be surprised by a certain action related to the firearm? Maybe one where tensions are already high? Maybe one where the presence of firearms made tensions higher?

Cold_Zero wrote:

IBCoupe wrote: I think, "The kind of person who'd bring a gun to McDonald's is probably not the most hinged." Further, if I'm a criminal bent on violence, I'd think, "I'm going to shoot him first."

Personally, I do not judge the motives of my fellow Hoosiers when they open or conceal carry. I respect their right to do so under Indiana Code and ask all Hoosiers to respect my rights.
I do kind of find it ironic that you will judge someone (who has done nothing wrong in your example) and have no problems with that. But if I 'judge' someone socially as to their actual behavior, well I am the worse kind of human being. Funny how that works.

Lemme know when you're done with your off-topic rant.

AppleBonker wrote:What is acting accordingly? How does one act in the presence of a loaded firearm? What tragedy falls into "acting accordingly"?

Acting according to one's perception can often result in tragedy. Acting in accordance to a perception that another person poses a danger to you is even more likely to result in tragedy.

Applebonker wrote:It would certainly draw attention to you, no doubt about that. What do you think when you see someone on the street covered in tattoos? Is your stereotype always accurate?

When was the last time the anybody got killed by someone else's tattoo?

Applebonker wrote:TBQH, living in a state that allows open/concealed carry (permit required, of course) has caused me to reevaluate my position. I've seen people openly carrying many times (and concealed more often). It doesn't phase me any more. The guy open carrying is generally going to be lawful. Not only are more people watching what he's doing, but he's lost the element of surprise. Personally, I have no issue and don't think any less of that "person bringing a gun to McDonald's". Plus...

IBCoupe wrote:Further, if I'm a criminal bent on violence, I'd think, "I'm going to shoot him first."

This is almost certainly true. And the guy open carrying buys me a few extra moments to try to escape. Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I choose not to open carry.

I might think less of a person who brings a gun to McDonald's, solely because why the hell would you bring a gun to McDonald's and show everybody? May just be because I don't know anybody who open carries and isn't required to for their job that I can't think of a good reason to do so except to intimidate folks. Need to quick-draw? Expecting a show-down? No, your goal is to send a message to other people: "Look at me; I have a gun."

If there's a need to show someone that you have a gun, I don't see what stops you from revealing the fact that you have a concealed weapon if you feel it necessary to inform others.

Have more confidence in your ability? And I am not sure how I'd react in a situation where I was threatened like that. Thankfully, it has never happened.

While I can admit that I, too, have met some really dumb educated people, it should be noted that the more intelligent amongst us are less likely to commit violent crimes.

AppleBonker wrote:It certainly has happened. I've read the stories and seen hidden camera footage.

Whenever I hear that, Adam, I have to ask, "do you think you've heard stories and seen hidden camera footage because it's a man-bites-dog kind of thing?"

I mean, I've heard stories of people who escape sinking cars, but I don't think that's notable in the face of "If you drive your car off a cliff, you'll drown." The exception that proves the rule, I guess.

Applebonker wrote:I dunno, Chad. If you claim that society has driven these people to crime, I'm guessing that society didn't also offer them some of the benefits of good schooling and such that you and I may have received. You see a lot of gang crime on your news every night. Do you think the perpetrators are really all that intelligent? And on the intelligence side of the argument, would I, seeing as I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and having been put under some extreme financial burden that I can no longer handle, choose to attempt to rob a bank in your area or mine? For that matter, where would you try?

I think Chad was trying to address the presumption that anybody trying to rob Palmer is incompetent, and thus he can be sure that he'll kill any attacker within two seconds. Chad, feel free to correct me, but I don't think you were really going for a statistical analysis of IQ (though I don't know how revealing it would be - probably the intelligence of criminals varies widely, as growing up poor doesn't make you stupid, but it sure does make some options of getting less poor look better).

Applebonker wrote:I can agree with you on one thing, though. There are far too many firearms in the hands of criminals in most major cities. However, gun laws are not the answer.

I'm willing to let cities and States experiment with it, though, and if California wants to give this a try, I say go for it. I don't think it violates the Constitution, and this very thread is evidence that it's not entirely without merit.

IBCoupe wrote:Acting according to one's perception can often result in tragedy. Acting in accordance to a perception that another person poses a danger to you is even more likely to result in tragedy.

Really? So my carrying a weapon means I am more likely to be perceived (by you) as a threat. Well, I guess we should ban lifting weights too, as a big burly dude is far more threatening than someone scrawny. I understand that is not on the same level, but why should I need to change anything I do because YOUR perception is not in line with reality?

IBCoupe wrote:When was the last time the anybody got killed by someone else's tattoo?

Never that I know of. People have been killed by pens, poison, knives, bats, etc. Should we be more worried about those items?

IBCoupe wrote:I might think less of a person who brings a gun to McDonald's, solely because why the hell would you bring a gun to McDonald's and show everybody?

I'm not sure. As I stated (maybe not clearly) I've never carried openly (though I am permitted to if I choose). But, I don't feel it's my place to tell others what the should or shouldn't think.

I could be snarky and say, then, that it should be fine to walk into a McDonald's wearing a vest full of C4. I mean, it's just here for personal protection, right? Just to make sure no one messes with you, right?

I mean, if you're going to make the leap between carrying a firearm and someone who works out, then why not?

IBCoupe wrote:

AppleBonker wrote:It certainly has happened. I've read the stories and seen hidden camera footage.

Whenever I hear that, Adam, I have to ask, "do you think you've heard stories and seen hidden camera footage because it's a man-bites-dog kind of thing?"

I mean, I've heard stories of people who escape sinking cars, but I don't think that's notable in the face of "If you drive your car off a cliff, you'll drown." The exception that proves the rule, I guess.

I suppose. Out of curiosity (not being a d!ck, seriously), if defending yourself with a firearm is the exception to the rule, what is the rule?

I don't think there is any denying that carrying a firearm makes you better able to defend yourself. If that weren't the case, LEOs would have no need for them. I see the other side of the argument, however: that carrying a firearm makes you more likely to escalate a crime to a violent crime. I just don't know that a gun control law is going to have much of an effect in that scenario...

Encryptshun wrote:I could be snarky and say, then, that it should be fine to walk into a McDonald's wearing a vest full of C4. I mean, it's just here for personal protection, right? Just to make sure no one messes with you, right?

I mean, if you're going to make the leap between carrying a firearm and someone who works out, then why not?

Except that vest of C4 is pretty certain to take you down with it (which kind of defeats the "protection" side of the argument)...

AppleBonker wrote:Really? So my carrying a weapon means I am more likely to be perceived (by you) as a threat. Well, I guess we should ban lifting weights too, as a big burly dude is far more threatening than someone scrawny. I understand that is not on the same level, but why should I need to change anything I do because YOUR perception is not in line with reality?

What are you, Stretch Armstrong? How long are your arms? Of course a big burly guy is more imposing than a scrawny guy. Of course any person with a gun on their belt is more imposing than a burly guy. Of course any person with a gun in their hands if more imposing than a person with a gun on their belt. How is an accurate perception of potential threat not in line with reality?

From the limited information available to anyone that sees someone walk in the door with a gun, who in their right mind doesn't at least make a mental note? Or do you suggest that a person with a gun displayed is no more noteworthy walking through those glass doors than someone with no gun? Really?

AppleBonker wrote:Never that I know of. People have been killed by pens, poison, knives, bats, etc. Should we be more worried about those items?

If someone walks in with a bat or a knife displayed? Yeah I might be more worried about that than a person who doesn't have a bat or a knife.

Applebonker wrote:I'm not sure. As I stated (maybe not clearly) I've never carried openly (though I am permitted to if I choose). But, I don't feel it's my place to tell others what the should or shouldn't think.

Sure you do, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to persuade anybody of anything.

AppleBonker wrote:

Encryptshun wrote:I could be snarky and say, then, that it should be fine to walk into a McDonald's wearing a vest full of C4. I mean, it's just here for personal protection, right? Just to make sure no one messes with you, right?

I mean, if you're going to make the leap between carrying a firearm and someone who works out, then why not?

Except that vest of C4 is pretty certain to take you down with it (which kind of defeats the "protection" side of the argument)...

Not if you believe, as I do, that you're probably going to get gacked if you pull a gun on a [fire-]armed would-be assailant... To me, that's pretty much mutually-assured destruction too.

And Isaac, you were correctly interpreting my comments. There have been multiple studies done with the intent of finding a causal connection between intelligence and criminal activity, and there just is no statistical evidence to support the theory. IQ is too ephemeral and criminality is not always static -- laws differ between regions and conflict with cultural norms (which are laws too, just not governmental laws). Also remember that, although the "super genius" myth has been debunked by the FBI, serial killer profiling has determined that more serial killers, especially those who were motivated by compulsion rather than monetary gain and who did not rape their victims, were in the average to above-average IQ range.

AppleBonker wrote:I suppose. Out of curiosity (not being a d***, seriously), if defending yourself with a firearm is the exception to the rule, what is the rule?

EDITED for clarity: If you are mugged and violently resist, you'll probably get hurt. If the mugger has a gun, you'll probably get hurt a lot.

AppleBonker wrote:I don't think there is any denying that carrying a firearm makes you better able to defend yourself. If that weren't the case, LEOs would have no need for them. I see the other side of the argument, however: that carrying a firearm makes you more likely to escalate a crime to a violent crime. I just don't know that a gun control law is going to have much of an effect in that scenario...

I don't think LEO's are an apt comparison. An LEO's existence is filled with a great many more antagonistic, potentially violent confrontations than your typical person's. An LEO with a displayed gun and badge is more likely to inform everyone around them that they've had the proper training and are prepared to use the gun correctly, and are less likely to screw up with it.

As for the gun control law's effect, let's bring it back to Chad's arguments: would you rather have your wallet taken, or be dead and have your wallet taken?

[quote=IBCoupe]Is the only possible scenario in your head, "There's a gun! I'mma shoot 'im?" Really? You can't think of a possible scenario where someone could be surprised by a certain action related to the firearm? Maybe one where tensions are already high? Maybe one where the presence of firearms made tensions higher?[/quote]

please enlighten me isaac. the article cited this legislation was aimed at preventing a tragedy. I merely asked what tragedy needed to be prevented when someone was carrying an unloaded firearm. you're the person who seemed to insinuate someone could be potentially shot for carrying a firearm. What other tragedy is there?

Encryptshun wrote:.

And Palmer, I don't know where you get your facts, but your assumption that the majority of criminals are of lower-than-average intelligence is untrue. Most criminals are driven to crime by societical factors, not due to some "being dumb makes you a crook" phenomenon. .

every single study of the prison population has revealea significantly lower IQ than average.
not just a couple of points.

google it

Folks are less likely to needlessly de-holster their firearm if it has bullets in it. The deholstering of a firearm looks a lot more dangerous than the non-deholstering of a firearm. There's a hypothetical situation where the wrong, potentially dangerous message has been conveyed, potentially resulting in a tragic response.

EDIT:
Here's another, possibly more likely scenario: you're less likely to think your gun is unloaded if you carry it into public, because you're more likely to ensure that it isn't.

PalmerWMD wrote:

Encryptshun wrote:.

And Palmer, I don't know where you get your facts, but your assumption that the majority of criminals are of lower-than-average intelligence is untrue. Most criminals are driven to crime by societical factors, not due to some "being dumb makes you a crook" phenomenon. .

every single study of the prison population has revealea significantly lower IQ than average.
not just a couple of points.

google it

Double-sampling bias. You're surveying criminals who have been caught AND released, setting aside any flaws with IQ measurement.

Encryptshun wrote:Despite any claims of would-be heroicism by those in favor of conceal and/or conspicuous carry, I would be surprised if anyone would dare draw a firearm if a gun was already leveled at him. I would be surprised, as well, if the assailant let the victim keep the gun.

.

And actually since you mention it...

I HAVE disarmed an armed assailant criminal pointing a loaded gun into my face before and it wasnt a big deal, the gun went off too.
criminals are NOT competent people...

theyare not endowed with magical supercpowers that let them easily disarm the aremed citizen like the liberals would have u believe. ( snicker)

PalmerWMD wrote:And actually since you mention it...

I HAVE disarmed an armed assailant criminal pointing a loaded gun into my face before and it wasnt a big deal, the gun went off too.
criminals are NOT competent people...

That one wasn't. You know, you only need to lose once in Russian Roullette, right?

Encryptshyn: Serial Killers are not representaive of crime an crinials. they are exteemely intelligent, more than most of us but theya re not the public threat of violent crime.
serial killers are so rare as to be non significant

IBCoupe wrote:

PalmerWMD wrote:And actually since you mention it...

I HAVE disarmed an armed assailant criminal pointing a loaded gun into my face before and it wasnt a big deal, the gun went off too.
criminals are NOT competent people...

That one wasn't. You know, you only need to lose once in Russian Roullette, right?

When more citenzens are armed and resisting criminals itis the criminals who because of thier more frequent involvement in violent crime ( duh) will be the ones who raw the short straw in russian roulette at much greater rates than any armed citizen.

Armed citizens can shoot.. criminals generally cant hit the broadside of a barn, as anyone who has been involved in crime fighitng in any way will be able to tell you.

Okay, but imagine you're face to face with a criminal. How much violent crime has he committed? How many times has his skill gotten him out of death so that he's now facing you?

Information you don't know should reduce your cockiness.