Starbucks caught in Crossfire between Anti/Pro-Gun sides

[melensdad]

Ok, so I looked at states with the highest rate of death by firearms...
Of the top 10 states with the highest rate of firearms fatalities, 7 are listed as Open Carry "Gold Star" or Friendly states. That doesn't appear to be a good correlation to me.

And that data has NOTHING to do with what Slim was suggesting that police will be shooting good guys. It should also be pointed out that you linked only to firearms deaths, that does not separate out causes like criminals being shot by homeowners, or suicides or anything else to do with lawful citizens who are legally carrying guns.

[Bayou Bum]

Ok, so I looked at states with the highest rate of death by firearms:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...100-000#source

And then at the states that allow open carry:
http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Of the top 10 states with the highest rate of firearms fatalities, 7 are listed as Open Carry "Gold Star" or Friendly states. That doesn't appear to be a good correlation to me.

As mentioned by someone else, those numbers include other causes such as hunting accidents, suicides, etc. But you ignored some of the other statistics available, such as violent crimes committed with guns: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...e-gun-violence
Of those, the lowest rates are states listed as Open Carry "Gold Star" or Friendly states.

“Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” -
L. Neil Smith

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” -
Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

“They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?” - Paul Harvey, 1994

[Hauptman]

Correlation doesn't always reflect causality. Do the incidents occur most often in affluent or poor areas? Are they a result of negligence or crime? Are they as a result of licensed gun carriers or unlicensed weapons? It makes a nice graph, I'll give you that, but it doesn't really prove anything.

I completely agree with that, but remember that I was using that data to counter a previous statement that States that allow open carry are somehow safer, and have fewer gun related deaths. This correlation certainly puts that claim into question.

[Hauptman]

As mentioned by someone else, those numbers include other causes such as hunting accidents, suicides, etc. But you ignored some of the other statistics available, such as violent crimes committed with guns: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...e-gun-violence
Of those, the lowest rates are states listed as Open Carry "Gold Star" or Friendly states.

I'm not ignoring anything, but you certainly appear to be.

Let me state my point again because apparently no one is addressing it.

YES, more people carrying guns will reduce certain crimes, and deaths. Have I not acknowledged this point multiple times now?

BUT there is a trade-off that more people with guns will increase certain crimes and deaths. I'm still waiting to see ANYONE acknowledge this point.

So for all of you so willing to use the former argument to support your case, while ignoring the latter argument, why is that?

I'm more than willing to acknowledge both points, and then go forward trying to quantify the pros and cons objectively. Otherwise we're back to "I want my gun" on one side, and "I'm scared of the gun nuts" on the other.

[melensdad]

YES, more people carrying guns will reduce certain crimes, and deaths. Have I not acknowledged this point multiple times now?

BUT there is a trade-off that more people with guns will increase certain crimes and deaths. I'm still waiting to see ANYONE acknowledge this point. . .

Do you have evidence of that? You did not show any trend data showing data population increases and cross referencing that with gun ownership or gun carry data (realize many of the most liberal gun carry states only have 8 to 15 years of history with legal carry). And which crimes and types of deaths do you suppose will increase and which will decrease and where is your data to back up the claims?

[JackOfHearts]

Putting more guns out there will increase instances of gun-related incidents. Just as having more cars creates more car accidents, and more planes in the air causes more plane crashes. It's a quantitative effect rather than a causal one, but all the same, one that can be improved by increased education and training.

I'm not ignoring anything, but you certainly appear to be.

Let me state my point again because apparently no one is addressing it.

YES, more people carrying guns will reduce certain crimes, and deaths. Have I not acknowledged this point multiple times now?

BUT there is a trade-off that more people with guns will increase certain crimes and deaths. I'm still waiting to see ANYONE acknowledge this point.

So for all of you so willing to use the former argument to support your case, while ignoring the latter argument, why is that?

As I have said, yes, it will increase instances. BUT this is just a quantitative effect, like how having more people fencing will result in a higher increase in someone getting a blade through their face from using a bad mask. That doesn't mean people should stop fencing altogether, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should stop using masks, or a certain type of mask unless it's proven to be a complete design failure. Rather, it means we should learn to maintain and care for our equipment, and quell any fears about our sport being dangerous by countering fear with knowledge.
Failures do happen. As do accidents and injuries, even assaults and fatalities. Life lesson: Crap happens. And as I said before, the only real way to be even remotely prepared is by education and discussion. The bad guys have guns. If a regular person is willing to carry one, they should learn all they can to prevent any wayward incidents from occurring. But they can, and will happen. Just not in every case, and less so should the gun carrier be properly trained and educated. That's the point I'm trying to drive home. They're going to happen regardless of what anyone wishes. That's life.

[melensdad]

I completely agree with that, but remember that I was using that data to counter a previous statement that States that allow open carry are somehow safer, and have fewer gun related deaths. This correlation certainly puts that claim into question.

Or are you stating the claim in different terms? And have you correlated your shown data to crime rates over time? Seems to me all you did was show a snapshot in time by state. What are the trends for each of these states, what are the trends for other states, and most importantly, what happened to the crime rates 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after each of these states passed 'carry' laws.

[Philistine]

I don't see it as apples and oranges; increased access to guns results in more shootings. So letting more people carry them around town may increase shooting around town. I may be wrong, but it's not a stretch of the imagination.

It's certainly intuitive--but AFAICT, it does not seem to be borne out by the experience of those states which have loosened restrictions on carrying firearms.

A weakening of gun restrictions likely will increase gun ownership which will increase gun related deaths and injuries. I don't deny that guns will decrease deaths in some circumstances, but I'd at least like an acknowledgement that guns will increase deaths in other circumstances.

I think a general increase in gun ownership would be likely to result in a concomitant increase in gun deaths--at least those from suicide and accidents.

Then we can start the discussion of comparing the two phenomena, and the relative pros and cons.

That's the problem, though. Qualitative measures of either are difficult, and oftentimes what data there is isn't necessarily intuitive.

--Philistine

[Slim]

Why is it that this scenario is always brought up in response to concealed/open carry, and yet never seems to actually materialize? People have been carrying weapons in public for decades, and yet I can't recall any wild west shootouts involving permit carrying gun owners. Can you find some examples?

Of course not. This is a good example of irrational, hysterical fear.

[Slim]

I'm not ignoring anything, but you certainly appear to be.

Let me state my point again because apparently no one is addressing it.

YES, more people carrying guns will reduce certain crimes, and deaths. Have I not acknowledged this point multiple times now?

BUT there is a trade-off that more people with guns will increase certain crimes and deaths. I'm still waiting to see ANYONE acknowledge this point.

So for all of you so willing to use the former argument to support your case, while ignoring the latter argument, why is that?

I'm more than willing to acknowledge both points, and then go forward trying to quantify the pros and cons objectively. Otherwise we're back to "I want my gun" on one side, and "I'm scared of the gun nuts" on the other.

Because you have no point. You're trying to counter something that can be proven with data with something that cant. What you also fail to do is distinguish those illegally carrying a firearm from those law abiding citizens who choose to carry.

"People with guns"...more hysterical phases by those ignorant about firearms.


And can you stop your constant whining about being ignored? Boo f'ing hoo.

[BenTheEMOP]

There's no guarantee of safety even with trained people openly carrying guns, as four cops in Seattle found out.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html

No accounting for crazy.

Cops do sometimes shoot the good guys,as Tony Arambula in Phoenix found out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-fam...ory?id=8756441

They shot him a lot.

An oldie, in 1990, a detective responding to a burglarly call was shot at by a homeowner. He was in plain clothes, but still, mistaken identity.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5578,3186357

As far as Starbucks goes, isn't it a property rights issue?

But this is a fencing board, and I think that really what we should be debating is the open carry of swords.

But I guess that whole Montague and Capulet thing has just filled people full of fear of men in doublets and tights.

[JackOfHearts]

But this is a fencing board, and I think that really what we should be debating is the open carry of swords.

But I guess that whole Montague and Capulet thing has just filled people full of fear of men in doublets and tights.

Quite frankly, I would carry a small sword or rapier should if it were legal. Unless of course tights were mandatory. I could pull off a doublet.

[I_luv_saber]

Hauptman,
I understand your point that as gun ownership increases, so will gun-related deaths. Providing they rise in proportion, this is logical. If we have X amount of gunowners with Y amount of, oh let's just say accidental deaths only in order to simplify, then logically if X were to increase Y would probably increase too somewhat. So you are essentially asking "Are the crimes that are reduced by increased gun ownership possibly outweighed by the loss of human life in the logical increase of, say accidents?"

Melensdad, if I am understanding Hauptman correctly, the decrease in crime you point to in open carry states is not relevant to his point that there would logically be an increase in deaths not related to crime, such as accidental gunshots or other things that can happen to law abiding, if not irresponsible, gun owners. Like Jack pointed out, if we suddenly had a million more fencers we'd have an increase in accidents, likely somewhat in proportion - this is only logical.

This is certainly, I think, a fair question. But I think the deaths related to accidents, kids getting a hold of guns, etc, can be vastly reduced with a more robust education program. I think it's a bit irresponsible for us to hold that guns are important to us as a society, without including that in society's education. Now, I don't think we should require licensing exactly... but I do think that if society as a whole is going to say gun ownership is OK, society as a whole needs to be doing more to ensure that people are being responsible with that right. There needs to be more public education regarding this. At the very least, something needs to be taught academically in schools, I think.

[Hauptman]

Hauptman,
I understand your point that as gun ownership increases, so will gun-related deaths. Providing they rise in proportion, this is logical. If we have X amount of gunowners with Y amount of, oh let's just say accidental deaths only in order to simplify, then logically if X were to increase Y would probably increase too somewhat. So you are essentially asking "Are the crimes that are reduced by increased gun ownership possibly outweighed by the loss of human life in the logical increase of, say accidents?"

Melensdad, if I am understanding Hauptman correctly, the decrease in crime you point to in open carry states is not relevant to his point that there would logically be an increase in deaths not related to crime, such as accidental gunshots or other things that can happen to law abiding, if not irresponsible, gun owners. Like Jack pointed out, if we suddenly had a million more fencers we'd have an increase in accidents, likely somewhat in proportion - this is only logical.

This is certainly, I think, a fair question. But I think the deaths related to accidents, kids getting a hold of guns, etc, can be vastly reduced with a more robust education program. I think it's a bit irresponsible for us to hold that guns are important to us as a society, without including that in society's education. Now, I don't think we should require licensing exactly... but I do think that if society as a whole is going to say gun ownership is OK, society as a whole needs to be doing more to ensure that people are being responsible with that right. There needs to be more public education regarding this. At the very least, something needs to be taught academically in schools, I think.

Thank you for a reasonable reply.

To all those who claim I've done nothing to support my argument, I have repeatedly linked statistics that support my position. They are as reasonable as any you have shown to support yours. And yet you can't even admit to the possibility of my position; you have absolutely no interest in truly examining the issue.

We live in the most violent society in the developed world with more of our people in prison, and more gun deaths than anywhere else. And the answer? More guns.

Every correlation shows that in this society, where there are more guns, there are more deaths from guns whether legal or not. Yet somehow I've got it backwards, and less gun restrictions actually save more lives.

Ok, I guess we're done here.

[Inquartata]

The problem comes when a robbery actually is in progress and five to ten customers all start pulling guns out and start shooting in random directions not knowing who the real bad guys are.

Heh. Or when one of them suddenly shoots long metal talons out of his fists and slashes them all into ribbons. It's almost as likely...

The number of people with carry licenses in any state is too small to make it statistically likely that there would be even two of them in a store, unless maybe they are man and wife.

Or the police show up on the 911 call for an armed robbery in progress, see guys with drawn firearms and blow them away, whether a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. I'm not saying that the scenario of "civilian saves the day" can't happen, but it could get pretty messy.

When I took my ( at the time ) required training classes for my CCW, the instructor advised that we get badges. These are widely available, look like "real" badges but say something like "security officer" or "store detective" on them. The idea is that when those police officers show up, they see a badge hanging around your neck or in your hand, and their level of stress goes down immediately, making accidents much less likely.

Now, they may arrest you for impersonating an officer, but it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six in this situation, too.

What's your point, Inq? I think we all agree that there is a difference between a person and a person's behavior, right?

You can't get into certain restaurants if you don't meet a certain standard of dress either. No shorts, no tank tops, no bathing suits, etc...... is "no guns" significantly different?

I think we should let the market forces determine this issue.

I'm not arguing their right to do it. I'm just pointing out that that particular justification for doing it is...not a real good one.

But we also know that more guns in circulation leads to more accidental shootings, and more guns being used in confrontations that might otherwise have been violent but not nearly as lethal. The statistics seem to show that when there are more guns in households there are more accidental shootings, suicide attempts by shooting, and more domestic violence ending in a shooting; all of which are more lethal because a gun was involved.

I'll just say this about the statistical argument: Find one of John Lott's books. He's already done all of the analysis of the numbers.

It's certainly intuitive--but AFAICT, it does not seem to be borne out by the experience of those states which have loosened restrictions on carrying firearms.

The gun control lobby thrives on such arguments. ( It could teach the RNC a thing or two about the use of fear as a tactic. )

Another such which we have heard recently in Arizona is "Horrors! Letting CCW holders carry weapons into bars and restaurants which serve alcohol will take us back to the Wild West, with gunfights in saloons and big increases in gun killings!" Never mind that this has been allowed in a number of other states for years without any such disastrous effects. ( And sure enough, I haven't read of a single one here yet since the law allowing it was passed. )

Now the legislature is considering letting people carry concealed weapons without a license, and it's the same thing: "Omigawd, we'll have shootouts everywhere, gun killings will surely skyrocket!" This despite the fact that this has always been allowed in Vermont, not exactly famed as a hotspot of murder and mayhem...

[Inquartata]

And I have to ask for examples of this type of event. I'm not saying it hasn't happened where a police officer shot an armed civilian who stopped a robbery but I've never seen such an example.

Please cite some so we can see that this could be a real concern.

This comes fairly close, I think:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...otsue0318.html

But then, it might have happened if the guy had had a machete instead of a gun, too...

[melensdad]

As far as Starbucks goes, isn't it a property rights issue?

Yes, exactly and they have chosen to allow guns in their shops.

Melensdad, if I am understanding Hauptman correctly, the decrease in crime you point to in open carry states is not relevant to his point that there would logically be an increase in deaths not related to crime, such as accidental gunshots or other things that can happen to law abiding, if not irresponsible, gun owners. Like Jack pointed out, if we suddenly had a million more fencers we'd have an increase in accidents, likely somewhat in proportion - this is only logical.

But overall statistics show crimes going down and accidents are also at an all time low. Despite growth in both the number of guns (more guns in each household) and the number of gun owners (in absolute numbers).

[melensdad]

Find one of John Lott's books. He's already done all of the analysis of the numbers.

I would also point out that while John Lott's work has been dismissed by Donohue and Ayres as flawed; Donohue and Ayres work was disputed by Moody-Marvell, who showed that Lott's work was not only correct, but that Donohue and Ayres own data showed that the original Lott and Mustard study holds up over longer time spans. Moody-Marvell also showed that if Donohue and Ayres own data was taken out for longer time spans then their work also showed decreases in crime.

I point this out only because people who tend to refute Lott typically point to Donohue and Ayres 2003 study to discredit the Lott/Mustard work. But the latest work, published in 2009, the Lott/Mustard data has been shown to be correct.

[Philistine]

{snip}
To all those who claim I've done nothing to support my argument, I have repeatedly linked statistics that support my position. They are as reasonable as any you have shown to support yours. And yet you can't even admit to the possibility of my position; you have absolutely no interest in truly examining the issue.

I'm not sure, though, that the statistics support the argument you're making. AIUI--you've posted statistics showing the relative ranking of states' gun deaths (undifferentiated between murder/suicide/accident) and the ranking of how "free" they are on allowing the carrying of weapons.

Your argument that increased carrying will cause increased shooting deaths by those carrying outside of where they would have the guns otherwise (e.g. the home/hunting/target shooting) doesn't seem to follow from these statistics.

My understanding of the current state of the statistics is that (as pointed out by Melensdad) is that there are some studies which say concealed carry reduces murder rates (I'm somewhat skeptical of them)--but that there are no reputable studies at all that show an increase in violent crime associated with an increase in concealed carry permits being issued.

We live in the most violent society in the developed world with more of our people in prison, and more gun deaths than anywhere else.

I think your definition of the "developed world" is overly restrictive--certainly gun homicides are higher in such places as Mexico and Brazil, plus a number of other countries that are normally considered "developed."

And the answer? More guns.

Well--as you say, we live in a violent society. Criminals often have guns, knives or other weapons. Certainly arming oneself in response is not necessarily a completely irrational response?

Every correlation shows that in this society, where there are more guns, there are more deaths from guns whether legal or not. Yet somehow I've got it backwards, and less gun restrictions actually save more lives.

Every correlation? Certainly the fact that the cities with the highest gun homicide rates often have the most restrictive laws cuts the other way. Now, there are other factors at play--urbanization, poverty, etc.--but it's a huge data point going the other way--as is the low gun homicide rate in places with lax gun laws which are more sparsely populated.

Personally, I think what drives a lot of the comparison is the inclusion of gun suicides in with "gun deaths." I would agree that states with high gun ownership will likely have significantly higher gun suicide rates, and vice-versa. But that's because (at least my intuition is) gun suicides are mainly done with legal guns. (Explaining why, for example, DC has a very low gun suicide rate but very high gun homicide rate and Wyoming is the opposite).

It wouldn't surprise me to see that gun ownership increases the absolute suicide rate (e.g. there are at least some people who wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have access to a gun), though I question whether the effect is particularly significant; and in any event is--I think--besides the point to this argument.

--Philistine

[Emfuser]

Thank you for a reasonable reply.

To all those who claim I've done nothing to support my argument, I have repeatedly linked statistics that support my position. They are as reasonable as any you have shown to support yours. And yet you can't even admit to the possibility of my position; you have absolutely no interest in truly examining the issue.

We live in the most violent society in the developed world with more of our people in prison, and more gun deaths than anywhere else. And the answer? More guns.

Every correlation shows that in this society, where there are more guns, there are more deaths from guns whether legal or not. Yet somehow I've got it backwards, and less gun restrictions actually save more lives.

Ok, I guess we're done here.

What you, and every group pushing for gun control has failed to do over the years is demonstrate that gun control laws actually have a causal link to reductions in crime committed with a firearm. It has never been done. "Correlation does not equal causation" does not even begin to describe how weak your conclusions are.

Trying to draw correlations from raw data means very little without substantiative examination of causal factors. To that point you will find that the Brady campaign, George Soros, and all of his worldly anti-gun ilk have never been able to prove this idea that gun control actually works. Even the best of academic studies that set out to prove exactly that eventually came up with the same conclusion: gun control laws do not demonstrably cause a reduction in crime committed with firearms.

The sad fact is that gun control only takes arms away from law abiding citizens, which is morally reprehensible, in my opinion.