Starbucks caught in Crossfire between Anti/Pro-Gun sides

[fencerchica]

So you then advocate openly carrying guns as the article about Starbucks describes but that the Brady Campaign seems to believe will lead to violence?

I think carrying a weapon to Starbucks is in exceptionally poor taste, but I don't think it should be illegal unless Starbucks desires to establish that as a policy for its stores, in a similar vein as "no shirt, no shoes" etc. Or unless the weapon in question is illegal for other reasons, such as being a fully automatic weapon, an unregistered handgun, etc.

[melensdad]

I think carrying a weapon to Starbucks is in exceptionally poor taste, but I don't think it should be illegal unless Starbucks desires to establish that as a policy for its stores, in a similar vein as "no shirt, no shoes" etc.

So you and I are in agreement.

[fencerchica]

So you and I are in agreement.

Looks like it.

[erooMynohtnA]

I think carrying a weapon to Starbucks is in exceptionally poor taste, but I don't think it should be illegal unless Starbucks desires to establish that as a policy for its stores, in a similar vein as "no shirt, no shoes" etc. Or unless the weapon in question is illegal for other reasons, such as being a fully automatic weapon, an unregistered handgun, etc.

I think this is what everyone in this thread thinks, but would rather spout rhetoric than admit it.

[telkanuru]

OK so you make claims that have no basis in fact. Then when asked for proof of your lies you cry like a whinny baby.

Apparently you didn't read what I linked you, but that's ok. Some of us just have to wear helmets to go outside, and they shouldn't be ashamed of that.

Here is the proof that proves you lied, enjoy the reading:

... using National Crime Victimization Study data, that victims who have and use guns have both lower losses and lesser injury rates from violent crime.

It seems you haven't bothered to read your own sources, so I guess I'll do that for you, too.

victim's choice of having a gun is not independent of the criminal's choice

You carry, the criminal moves on to someone else. Everyone carries, criminals say, "Gosh, you're too clever for me" and go home. Next time the 80 year old granny gets mugged instead of you, feel proud of yourself.

Oh, and another study showing the same fact:

among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% inury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.

Yeah, I can't read a source that looks like a myspace page from hell.

Some more relevant extracurricular reading.

[Bayou Bum]

You carry, the criminal moves on to someone else. Everyone carries, criminals say, "Gosh, you're too clever for me" and go home. Next time the 80 year old granny gets mugged instead of you, feel proud of yourself.

I thought the government was supposed to take care of you! I see your point though, as you said; the police can't even defend themselves and are as likely to shoot you as the criminal. Don't worry about granny, there will always be plenty of unarmed liberals that make easy targets!

Yeah, I can't read a source that looks like a myspace page from hell.

I'm sorry that government education isn't working out for you!

[Philistine]

{snip}
It seems you haven't bothered to read your own sources, so I guess I'll do that for you, too.

An assertion was made: "a gun does increase your odds of surviving a crime." to which you replied "No it doesn't."

Cites were posted which support this--no cites were posted supporting your position at all, and you now seem to have shifted your position to someone carrying a gun means that now criminals are going to attack someone else (which does also support the position that you denied.

You carry, the criminal moves on to someone else. Everyone carries, criminals say, "Gosh, you're too clever for me" and go home. Next time the 80 year old granny gets mugged instead of you, feel proud of yourself.

Well--2 points. First, the abstract (I couldn't find a non-pay version of the article) suggests that in actuality the ultimate effect of more people carrying guns is to have fewer muggings and fewer criminals carrying guns. (I'm not sure what the reasoning is).

But more importanly, how far do you go in this argument? Are you really arguing that taking steps to make yourself less appealing to a mugger are wrong because you are encouraging the mugger to attack someone else?

Yeah, I can't read a source that looks like a myspace page from hell.{snip}

Just curious--do you stand by your earlier statement that carrying a gun does not lessen the likelihood of injury from a criminal, and if so--on what do you base it?

--Philistine

[Bayou Bum]

On Topic

[Inquartata]

Little do the criminals know, the neighbor is really a militia member and gun dealer...

Or in other words, http://itsatrap.ytmnd.com/

[I_luv_saber]

On Topic

That's one of the worst shop jobs I've ever seen.

[melensdad]

Apparently you didn't read what I linked you...

I did, but found it a feeble attempt by a small mind to evade his responsibilities to stand up and prove his statement to be true.

It seems you haven't bothered to read your own sources, so I guess I'll do that for you, too.

Yes, and you clearly don't get it because you further prove me right.

You carry, the criminal moves on to someone else. Everyone carries, criminals say, "Gosh, you're too clever for me" and go home. Next time the 80 year old granny gets mugged instead of you, feel proud of yourself.

So you are making the case that its better to be robbed, injured and/or killed so that the robber is not stopped, and then can continue on his path before he eventually gets to that 80 year old granny who is also on his list of targets.

Yeah, I can't read a source that looks like a myspace page from hell.

Well you really should return to school to brush up on your skills, but honestly since that was a secondary source you only had to read the first source that proved you wrong. But it is interesting that rather than admitting you lied with your statement you continue to deny evidence that proves you a liar and you further just cast aspersions on factual sources showing your error.

Some more relevant extracurricular reading.

And this would be to show that which you are guilty of exhibiting?

[keith]

Why do you limit it to MURDER?

...because that was the contention? I answered the question BB asked.

Why not look at overall crime? Murders occur by many means. Further violent crimes can utilize many different tools like knives, bats and guns.

Not sure what you mean. I posted stats for all murders, not fire arm murders.

Unless you are arguing that carrying a gun protects your property even when you are not in the vicinity of that property? Neat trick.

How about crimes per capita?
UK 85.5517 per 1,000 people
US 80.0645 per 1,000 people

Again, how does me having a gun stop someone nicking my car when I am not in it?

Edit: Or;

Somewhere north of 30% of American adults own a gun.

Total crime rate is 6% lower in America than the UK.

All crime in America could be eliminated if 500% of American adults owned guns.

That works.

How about crimes PREVENTED by firearms? Have you considered how often those occur? Again, using the data from LOTT and MUSTARD of the University of Chicago, they estimate that up to 2 MILLION times per year guns are used by law abiding citizens to prevent crimes. Most often when guns are used there is no shot fired and no injury to criminal or victim occurs but the crime itself is thwarted.

You need to take a breath.

The only arguments I am making are;

Gun ownership rates seem to have nothing to do with murder rates (by international comparison).

Property crimes that occur when the property is unattended have no bearing on 'gun ownership preventing crime'.

Any benefit of increased gun ownership preventing crime is balanced by increased risks. In the same way that any pleasurable activity is balanced by associated risks.

Americans have a totally ****ed up attitude to firearms.

[keith]

Oh and do you all really think it is just coincidence that America's violent crime rate started to fall 16-17 years after Roe vs Wade?

[Palisadeur]

Just wondering if any non-Americans out there find the situation discussed in this thread to be as Kafkaesque as I do....

Sure do.

[jeff]

Some Americans, too.

[keith]

An assertion was made: "a gun does increase your odds of surviving a crime." to which you replied "No it doesn't."

Cites were posted which support this--no cites were posted supporting your position at all....

In defense of poor Telk, his statement "No it doesn't" is actually supported by the Southwick article (and also one by Gleck in Criminology). Those articles make no statement concerning surviving a crime, BB made the wrong assertion, perhaps he should read the article next time.


As a side note it seems that while statistical models are invalid for climatologists they are valid for criminologists.

[telkanuru]

An assertion was made: "a gun does increase your odds of surviving a crime." to which you replied "No it doesn't."

Really, I was just looking for basis for claims. The [Citation Needed] thing was getting a bit tired, I feel. It also amuses me slightly to see certain posters go off their meds, so to speak.

Cites were posted which support this--no cites were posted supporting your position at all, and you now seem to have shifted your position to someone carrying a gun means that now criminals are going to attack someone else (which does also support the position that you denied.

Unannounced tangent, my apologies. I was assaulting the logic of the argument. If (a priori) carrying a gun makes you safer than not carrying a gun, and you therefore conclude that everyone should carry a gun, then your line of reasoning seems to suggest that once everyone has a gun, no crime will be committed, or at the very least crime will experience an across the board drop. This point is not supported by any of the studies, and I do not agree with the conclusion.

Furthermore, if you assert that those with criminal intent pass over tougher targets for weaker ones, why aren't we advocating massive body-building clinics? Surely I can find a study that says criminals are less likely to mug the totally ripped 6'3" guy than the hyperbolic 80 year old granny. That is, these studies fail to establish that guns are a significantly (or even marginally) better deterrent than a monthly gym membership.

[I_luv_saber]

This is starting to sound like Inq's attempt to debunk using logic long after sound evidence has been presented in the global warming thread...

[Inquartata]

As a side note it seems that while statistical models are invalid for climatologists they are valid for criminologists.

In this case they are not "models". They do not assemble variables and employ computers to develop predictions about what happens if the variables are changed thus and so.

Even if they were to do this, the variables are far less numerous, less complex and much better understood than those involving a dynamic global climatic system, don't you think?

Furthermore, if you assert that those with criminal intent pass over tougher targets for weaker ones, why aren't we advocating massive body-building clinics? Surely I can find a study that says criminals are less likely to mug the totally ripped 6'3" guy than the hyperbolic 80 year old granny. That is, these studies fail to establish that guns are a significantly (or even marginally) better deterrent than a monthly gym membership.

The reductio ad absurdum is a slippery tool.

[keith]

In this case they are not "models". They do not assemble variables and employ computers to develop predictions about what happens if the variables are changed thus and so.

Uhm yes they are. A statistical analysis of past behaviour used to
justify conclusion of future action. What's different?

Unless of course you are arguing that these studies should no more be used to inform firearm regulation than climate models should be used to inform regulation of green house gases. Don't think that's your point though.

Even if they were to do this, the variables are far less numerous, less complex and much better understood than those involving a dynamic global climatic system, don't you think?

Not at all even simple models still have underlying assumptions. You may agree with them in this case but the conclusion is still statistical. Either the approach is valid or it is not.

I suspect that you are no more familiar with modeling/statistical approach used here than those used by climate scientists. Yet you cheerfully accept these conclusions will dismissing the other. I wonder why? Well actually I don't