Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (Union: violent crime, assault)

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Yeah, that's not how things work. You can't just make things up and assume connections, especially when studies have consistently shown that more guns do not deter crime, and if anything, actually increase it.

Studies cant be biased or in error?

If a study contradicts basic common sense then Im sticking with basic common sense. I.E...police and armed gaurds carry guns as a deterrant. Enough said.

[KathrynAragon]

OK so let me tell you what I personally experienced:

A few years ago, I was driving alone in my car out in the middle of nowhere, and some guys in a pickup truck were in front of me and kept going slower and slower till they stopped and got out of the pickup truck and headed toward my car, clearly with no good intentions. All I did was hold up my gun. I didn't point it at them or threaten them in any way, I just held up my gun. They said something that rhymes with HIT, and ran back to their truck and jumped in and pealed off. Mission accomplished.

Basically the same thing happened to my dad, when he was about 50 years old though. All he did was show his gun, he didn't have to point it at the potential perps, or threaten them with it, they just took off.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Studies cant be biased or in error?

If a study contradicts basic common sense then Im sticking with basic common sense. I.E...police and armed gaurds carry guns as a deterrant. Enough said.

Sure, you can have studies that have bad data- a bad data in, bad data out kind of thing- or the parameters are too limited, etc. But we're talking individual studies, not all studies. When studies of all types consistently show the same outcome, it's not logical to keep assuming some kind of error or bias. All different studies would obviously not all have the same errors, so they wouldn't all be reaching the same conclusions if that were the case.

"Common sense" is often factually wrong. For example, generations of mothers told their kids that cold weather causes illnesses like the flu or common cold, and most people still believe this is true and consider it common sense. Instead, people tend to spend more time around each other in enclosed spaces during colder weather, making it easier for existing viruses to spread, but the temperature itself has nothing to do with it. The irony is you might actually be safer from colds by keeping your windows open during winter and thereby ensuring a well-ventilated house.

And no, I would argue police and armed guards do not carry guns as a deterrant. If they did, why are they involved in so many shootings? Guns are there for after crimes or threats have already manifested, very rarely to prevent them altogether. And there are police forces in the world that do not regularly carry guns the way US police do.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

OK so let me tell you what I personally experienced:

A few years ago, I was driving alone in my car out in the middle of nowhere, and some guys in a pickup truck were in front of me and kept going slower and slower till they stopped and got out of the pickup truck and headed toward my car, clearly with no good intentions. All I did was hold up my gun. I didn't point it at them or threaten them in any way, I just held up my gun. They said something that rhymes with HIT, and ran back to their truck and jumped in and pealed off. Mission accomplished.

Basically the same thing happened to my dad, when he was about 50 years old though. All he did was show his gun, he didn't have to point it at the potential perps, or threaten them with it, they just took off.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. There are plenty of people who can't offer anecdotes at all because they were killed in shootouts that escalated from the presence of guns.

[leadfoot4]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

It doesnt take a study to understand that immediate consequence to crime by an armed victim is a deterrent.

Bingo!!

It's amazing how the criminal element will think twice about robbing somewhen, when they know there's a strong possibly that their intended victim will be shooting back at them....

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by leadfoot4

Bingo!!

It's amazing how the criminal element will think twice about robbing somewhen, when they know there's a strong possibly that their intended victim will be shooting back at them....

Yes indeed!

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by cheech14

"Common sense" is often factually wrong.

As are so called common sense gun laws.

If you want to study, check out how almost every tyranaical government in the last 100 years or so confiscated guns before genociding the population. But guns arent a deterrant.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Anecdotes aren't evidence. There are plenty of people who can't offer anecdotes at all because they were killed in shootouts that escalated from the presence of guns.

Whatever you say, dear. Meanwhile, I am alive and well, thankfully, and my dad lived well for many, many years afterward, and died of an autoimmune disorder, nothing to do with guns.

[JR_C]

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just glad that crime didn't increase, generally.

If we're talking about common sense, common sense tells me that more guns would equal more shooting. So, I don't buy that lower gun crime is linked to constitutional carry.

[SickofJersey]

I'm not one to research this subject, I just have one opinion...

Whether it deters crime or not, I will always believe that law abiding citizens deserve the right to defend themselves if their or their families life is threatened.

Until criminals don't have guns I will continue to carry mine.