WA Democrats move to ban open, concealed carry of a firearm at 5,300+ locations
WA Democrats move to ban open, concealed carry of a firearm at 5,300+ locations
As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates
Where are you getting the idea that Oregon's concealed carry laws are loosening to allow "less ideal" candidates?
Oregon went to a minimally-restrictive "Shall Issue" licensing model back in 1989. "Shall Issue" means that the state imposes no discretionary limits; anyone who has not been explicitly prohibited from owning a gun will receive a license upon request.
And yet, licensed concealed carriers still have a lower rate of criminality than the general population.
The reason, of course, is because of the background check: The "general population" includes convicted felons, whose predilection for violent crime is so high it skews the statistics for the general public. Licensed concealed carriers exclude this group of perpetrators, so their "normal" numbers seem extraordinarily low.
Oregon specifically? I don’t have any bit nationally it will absolutely without question get worse. Right now concealed carry is neigh impossible for anyone in NYC or NJ. If you aren’t LEO you will not have one right now, but the expectation is that will change and as we get more untrained and less ideal people carrying we should see an increase in crimes committed by people with cc permits.
My warning is more about how I wouldn’t rely on old data anymore because the pool of people who can carry concealed has massively increased.
If you aren’t LEO
LEO total crime rate is only half that of general public, and five times that of concealed carriers. For certain acts (domestic violence) they are twice as likely to commit violent crime as the general public.
Opening up NYCs and NJs concealed carry from "LEO-Only" to "Shall Issue" (Meaning: "Background checked members of the general public") would improve the rates among concealed carriers in general.
No, it wouldn't because aside from the police it's pretty much the governor and some mayors. You will be seeing a bunch of people getting guns who previously would have been denied them. I promise you the cc permit carrier rate of crime will substantially increase as more carry concealed.
42 states have Shall Issue licensing. Only 8 states have "May Issue" laws, where the state exercises arbitrary discretion in licensing.
In each and every one of those states, the violent crime rate of licensed carriers is substantially lower than that of the general public. In each and every one of those states, cops have a higher crime rate than carriers.
So no, it's not just "the governor and some mayors". It's the entire country.
For your point to be rational, non-felon laypersons in New York and New Jersey would have to be substantially more criminal than carriers in 42 states.
Your "promises" have no logical basis. Guns simply do not cause crime.
The "governor and mayors" bit was referring to NJ sorry that should have been made clearer.
You know those 8 state that were may issue pre 2022 account for a substantial percentage of the country's population, right? CA is 10% of the US population by itself. That means you are going to see that rate change as more people have concealed firearms. The 2020 RAND study on concealed carry apparently claimed this exact thing.
My point is rational you are just confusing the number of states instead of the total number of people who will suddenly face little to no issues getting a license. NJ/NY wont have to commit more crimes those eight states would merely have to house a large part of the population which they do.
You're right guns do not commit crimes but people do commit more crimes. The more people who own concealed permits the larger amount of people you will have who commit crime and have concealed permits.
This will happen because you are increasing the volume of people who get licenses while reducing the restrictions on how they are obtained
That means you are going to see that rate change as more people have concealed firearms.
That is only true if the people in those 8 states are inherently more violent than the people in the 42.
I've got 100 people in this room. 8 of them are felons, and prohibited from getting a license. Of the remaining 92, 30 get a license, and those 30 commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 100.
Next door, I've got 1000 people. 80 of them are felons. Nobody in this group currently has a license. Tomorrow, 300 of them are going to get one. Tomorrow, those 300 will commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the 1000.
That's why we use the rate, and not the total numbers. The rate does not change because the violent crimes are being committed by the 8 and the 80, not the 92 and the 920.
Concealed carriers do not include the 8 and the 80: they are prohibited from getting licenses. There is no "relaxing of the requirements", and certainly not any that would allow those violent criminals to become licensed.
while reducing the restrictions on how they are obtained
I've addressed the restrictions you're talking about: You claimed that the restrictions are only allowing cops to get licenses. I pointed out that cops are more likely to commit (certain) violent crimes than the general public. The "restrictions" you are talking about are keeping the rates higher because they are keeping the least-likely-to-offend from getting licenses.
When you stop preventing non-violent people from getting licenses, the violent crime rate among licensees will fall, not rise.
There is no reason to think that the people of California will start committing more crimes when non-violent people - concealed carriers - pick up more guns.
Im done. You seem to think every cc person is going to be the equivalent if the next despite we just loosened the standard.
Go look at the RAND 2020 study if you actually have the educational background in social science to read it. It's well done and not surprisingly concludes the more people with guns on them means you will see more crimes committed by people carrying guns.
What "standard" do you think is being loosened for licensure?
Again, Oregon is not a constitutional carry state. They are a shall issue state, and have been since 1989.
For your argument to make sense (and be relevant to this discussion), Oregonians would have to be significantly more likely to commit violent crime than the people of the the 29 "constitutional carry" states that don't even require licensure.
But they aren't.
Nor are the citizens of the 8 "may issue" states particularly dangerous either.
The reality is that the "undesirables will get guns" argument has a long and unsavory history, but no basis in fact.
reread my first sentence and then ask why you replied
This is a public forum. Others are reading along.