355
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
355 points (100.0% liked)
News
23268 readers
2299 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Everyone I know that carries does so concealed. They don't care about deterrents or whatever, they're just taking a precaution they hope to never use. Like being mugged or attacked. Source: Texas.
Wouldn't you be less likely to be mugged or attacked if the potential mugger or attacker saw you had a gun? This is sort of what I'm saying...
IMO, a lot of people see the open carrying types to just be people cosplaying badasses. The type that has spent basically 0 time training to use it, outside maybe taking it to a range and firing off a hundred rounds. They see it as a gun to be stolen?
The only time I see open carry that seems to make sense in all of this is shop workers/cashier. I've been in stores that have a reputation based on what they sell to get hit by robbers, and the guy working is carrying outside his belt. Like a smoke shop or liquor store for example.
I'd like to see some actual data to support this. Much like I'd like to see some data that concealed carry actually has a negative effect on crime.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/does-allowing-law-abiding-citizens-carry-concealed-handguns-save
I cannot read that beyond the abstract, so I have no idea what to take away from that or what the actual evidence is.
Furthermore, the author of that piece appears to have a lot of issues with his research if his Wikipedia page is of any indication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
That's on me, I thought the damn .gov site would hold the whole thing lol
Can't help you there, again everything I said was my personal feelings on the matter being a Texan having talked to people about it a ton over the years.
I don't know that we should be basing our gun laws around what makes people comfortable. On either side of the equation. They should be based on data that allowing or disallowing something regarding guns is safe for the general public and effective when it comes to crime and self-defense. Or at least that is what I think and I would be open to hearing an argument against that beyond an overly-broad interpretation of the Second Amendment where all gun regulations should be nullified.
This is another thing I have seen people claim here several times without data and, at the risk of offending some, I would again like to see some data which actually supports this claim.
Of course there is a need for data. Just because something sounds logical to you doesn't mean it is true. Shouldn't we be making laws on what is true and not what feels true?
It is not my job to back up other people's claims. Why do you think I should accept your claim or anyone else's because you think it's logical?
That would make sense if there were facts that we all agreed on…..
Logic is as subjective as you allow the premises you are working from be. Which is why logic is different than fact.
There is absolutely a need for data. This is why everyone says the pro-gun sides have no arguments. There’s no concrete data you can point to just “much logic”, which means nothing in conversations where facts need to be brought up.
You’re more likely to be targeted first in an attack if you have a visible weapon. Similar to how bank robbers will shoot the guards first if the guards have guns. If you have your weapon concealed you may be able to shoot the attacker before he is aware you have a weapon.
As I keep saying, you and the multiple other people who have made this claim have yet to provide anything to back this up in the way of hard evidence. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you that a shooter would shoot the armed civilian first, but, yet again, when has this actually happened?
You wont find that research because no one wants to do that research. Also how would you? It will always be anecdotal. I can only tell you my experience as a former soldier. I would shoot anyone who i saw with a weapon if i were committing a crime with a gun. It’s just common sense.
"Common sense" is the thing that made people think the sun orbited the Earth for thousands of years. Laws should be based on evidence, not "common sense," which is why it isn't surprising that most conservatives think "common sense" is behind everything they believe.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/sources-of-guidance-on-right-and-wrong/common-sense/party-affiliation/republican-lean-rep/
Why do so many of you here think we should make or strike down laws based on gut feelings?
Also "no one wants to do the research" is nonsense. The ability to do the research has been blocked for a very long time. The government is literally not legally allowed to do the research.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
You and the others here simply want to do what feels right to you regardless of evidence, lack of evidence, or consequences. I'm not talking about any one side on gun issues either. I'm talking about people like you who don't care whether or not there is evidence about the effectiveness or lack thereof when it comes to any law, but especially gun laws when it comes to America.
This isn't a religious country, so why do you want your laws to be faith-based?
(To all of you arguing with me: those links you see above? That's what is called backing up your claims.)
Sorry by common sense i meant my military training common sense would lead me to shoot anyone with a gun if i were committing a crime with a gun.
Squid, we have different views, thats fine but im just trying to explain my point of view. You obviously have me confused with someone else as ive not argued for anything faith based at all. Im not a conservative and you assuming that is probably why youre thinking people are arguing in bad faith. When i said no one wants to do the research that includes the US govt. i gave no justifications as to why no one wants to do research.
No, I'm not assuming you are a conservative. I am saying these "common sense" arguments are faith-based much like a lot of conservative thinking, which is why I am saying it shouldn't be done.
Doesn't it strike you as even a little odd that, despite multiple people telling me that a shooter will take out the armed civilian first, not a single person has actually given an example of this? I'm not talking about a statistical survey, I'm talking about even one example.
The only answer I have received so far from anyone that doesn't rely on "this makes sense to me even though I can't prove it" is the person who says it isn't about a deterrent, it's about feeling safe. And I wish that's what everyone else had said because at least you don't need evidence for that sort of claim. On the other hand, it's a little hard to justify laws based on what makes you feel safe considering that's a big impetus for the drug war.
Most people arent going to research a social media comment to justify a belief that doesnt matter. So no, i dont find it even a little odd.
Thank you for admitting that evidence and data doesn't matter to you when it comes to the law, all that matters is your faith-based belief. That was my point.
Man, people must really love you if you twist words like that. The comment was meant in the general sense not the specific argument we’re having about weapons. Im not responding past this because you obviously just want to argue. Good day.
So in the "general sense" people shouldn't supply evidence for their claims. I see.
Amazing how many people in this thread just twist themselves into pretzels rather than just say they can't back up their claim and just want the law to reflect what they feel is right.
Although admittedly "no one is going to back up what they say on Lemmy because it doesn't matter" is a new one. Why even be in a news community if you don't care about evidence?
Kinda like the "common sense" anti-2a crowd...laws based on emotion not reality...but here is some evidence of why open carry is stupid. It is hard to get a study on why open carry is worse than concealed because there probably isn't enough data out there to prove it deters a criminal... it's not like you can go ask them.
https://youtu.be/fjoF8b5XVow?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/wPEaX4HwWyc?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/idgT9HBiJiM?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/XFvU2sdM0DY?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/lVsKnE0AP6c?feature=shared
Okay. Finally. Some evidence.
Now, after reviewing the first one and before reviewing the others- would it be fair to say that, like the first one and the man talking about the issue in the first video, the problem is not openly carrying, but openly carrying with a holster that would make it easy to steal from?
Because that is a different argument.
The other videos comment on why open carry is not a good idea. Open carry while is done by police, do have proper retention holsters. That in itself can cause issues, but open carry does make you a target.
Okay, which of those videos best explains why it is a bad idea even with a retention holster? Because, again, otherwise the argument is not 'open carry is less safe,' it's 'open carry a certain way is less safe,' which is something I think no one will argue with you about.
https://youtu.be/idgT9HBiJiM?feature=shared
Try this one, dude is targeted for the firearm being valuable. Retention or not, you become a target. That's the whole issue, visibility of the firearm. To me, open carry does not deter crime, I'd say it's asking to be targeted. Same with those idiots who drive around with the gun stickers on their trucks... they're fucking idiots.
That sounds like an argument for not having valuable things in places where people can easily steal them, not that open carry is inherently less safe.
We've also gone from "someone coming in to shoot the place up is going to target the armed civilian first" to "this man was specifically targeted for his valuable gun." A little disingenuous, don't you think?
No, you're more likely to be the first target and have someone attempt to disarm you. No one should know you have a concealed weapon unless they're trying to kill you. Open carry is idiotic. Showing a gun if you're not in fear for your life to the point where you'd shoot is brandishing, and it's a felony.
I carry daily. The only person in real life who even knows I own a gun is my father.
You have far more confidence in people than I do. Hoping to never use it (except perhaps in that drunk fight with my neighbour)? I wouldn’t trust anyone who carries guns on the extremely remote probability that it will help them in a shooting/robbery.
If you're drunk and carrying a gun you're doing it very wrong.
I don’t disagree. Unfortunately your state of mind is not mentioned in 2A.
One of my good buddies lives in North Las Vegas and has his CCW. He calls it a crackhead deterrent. I thought he was full of shit until I visited him, now I advocate for moving to a better neighborhood.