• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Does "Right to Carry" deter crime?

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I'm quite aware of the difference SS, thanks.

@ Pro: I'm not sure why you're claiming victory already. Perhaps you're preparing yourself for a downfall? :lol:

Gun crimes are insane in high density areas like sprawling metropolises because government doesn't know how to handle gun problems. The streets are flooded with gangs and the gangs are armed with illegal weaponry and the only way they can stop any amount of guns from reaching the streets is by making it that much more difficult to own them. So you see the problem here. Crime goes up, gun control gets tighter. It's obviously the wrong thing to do as it doesn't work, but they don't know how else to fight it and honestly, I don't blame them.

I may sound like a broken record here, but I think the quickest way to slow down gun crime is to stop the war on drugs. Think about it. Gangs and other criminals have guns to carry out their crimes/defend their territory, correct? Now these gangs are also businesses, they sell drugs and guns. They wouldn't need guns if they weren't selling drugs because they wouldn't have something to fight over. Now does that mean legalize all drugs? Well, no. Personally, I don't see a problem with all drugs being legal and regulated, but we could at least start with the harmless shit like marijuana (harmless when you compare it to all the foods we eat, the preservatives, fats, and that's on top of cigarettes and alcohol). You need a War on Illegal Firearms, not drugs. Then as part of that, you work on legalizing and regulating some of the drugs these people fight over.

Another step is increased border security because the number 2 illegal import aside from drugs is guns because the people selling those drugs are going to want protection. But this would be part of the "war on illegal guns" although I'm pretty sure calling everything a war is pretty dumb by now.
 

Daemonic

Registered Member
I'm quite aware of the difference SS, thanks.

@ Pro: I'm not sure why you're claiming victory already. Perhaps you're preparing yourself for a downfall? :lol:

Gun crimes are insane in high density areas like sprawling metropolises because government doesn't know how to handle gun problems. The streets are flooded with gangs and the gangs are armed with illegal weaponry and the only way they can stop any amount of guns from reaching the streets is by making it that much more difficult to own them. So you see the problem here. Crime goes up, gun control gets tighter. It's obviously the wrong thing to do as it doesn't work, but they don't know how else to fight it and honestly, I don't blame them.

I may sound like a broken record here, but I think the quickest way to slow down gun crime is to stop the war on drugs. Think about it. Gangs and other criminals have guns to carry out their crimes/defend their territory, correct? Now these gangs are also businesses, they sell drugs and guns. They wouldn't need guns if they weren't selling drugs because they wouldn't have something to fight over. Now does that mean legalize all drugs? Well, no. Personally, I don't see a problem with all drugs being legal and regulated, but we could at least start with the harmless shit like marijuana (harmless when you compare it to all the foods we eat, the preservatives, fats, and that's on top of cigarettes and alcohol). You need a War on Illegal Firearms, not drugs. Then as part of that, you work on legalizing and regulating some of the drugs these people fight over.

Another step is increased border security because the number 2 illegal import aside from drugs is guns because the people selling those drugs are going to want protection. But this would be part of the "war on illegal guns" although I'm pretty sure calling everything a war is pretty dumb by now.
Yeah, like I mentioned earlier about having lived near a bad area. Having even been in the bad areas a few times I gotta say when it comes to gang infested areas carrying wont mean shit or change it. I'm sure some of this view has to do with the fact I had been a victim of gang violence. I can tell you having a gun would not matter when a top dog in the area has about 40 - 50 boys (rough guess) from my bad experience, that he can tell to do whatever, even kill for him. They also tend to travel in packs when up to trouble.

I don't think legalizing all drugs is a solution but crime is often drug related because they are illegal. I thing legalizing pot, mushrooms, and other less severe drugs could help. At the same time I also don't think any drug should be "criminalized". It's just the dealers of hard drugs that should be punished in my opinion. My reason for not wanting hard drugs to be legal but still not criminalized is because I've seen what it can do to people. They can make a good person into a criminal. That's why I say treat it like an illness though, because tossing them in prison makes it worse.

I guess this goes back to what I said earlier, it depends on the area for how well carrying would help if at all. I mean, don't actually do this but as an example, walk into one of the worst ghettos around you open carrying..... Specifically make sure it consist of gangs that discriminate against other races than whatever you are......

See what happens.....

I wouldn't do it....

I guess open carrying would work best for communities that want to keep that trash from taking over. For example, I dated a person that lived in red neck town, nice people if they know you, but if they saw anyone suspicious driving around that looked like trouble people would sit out front with shot guns to scare them off. Open carrying could work to keep the low life from taking over good communities.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Cons: great, now we can debate your statements:

but I don't think it's enough of a difference to say that open carry would be a good idea in a place like say, Detroit. Although, plenty of thugs open carry whether it's against the law or not.
So, have you ever been to Detroit? I live in the Detroit metro area and I work in Detroit, Flint, & Pontiac so I know what I'm "talking" about. Plenty of thugs do NOT open carry in any of these areas. This is specifically why I defined "open carry" so that you might understand what I'm talking about. These thugs you reference are not walking around with pistols holstered to their sides (like you might see Pro doing) they do not legally own a registered pistol. They illegally carry concealed pistols that they have illegally obtained.

The point is, crime rates tend to be lower in places with tighter communities. If I could find statistics on that, you'd bet I'd post them. But, all I have is my opinion and well, statistics are like polls. They tend to be unreliable and they change hourly and whether or not you want to believe it they're all going to have bias.
So when statistics are given before and after the implementation of shall issue/right to carry laws for the same area then your argument falls apart. Funny how statistics are great if they support your argument but unreliable and biased when they don't.
 

Sim

Registered Member
As Cons said, the number of crimes per capita in different regions alone doesn't say much, because that number does not just depend on the variable "gun laws". Many other factors play a role. To really isolate this variable, we would have to compare the crime rates in a region with restrictive laws to the same region in a parallel universe with lenient laws.

Personally, I do believe carrying guns may indeed deter some crimes. But I also believe that on the other side, it also increases the chance of escalating incidents in a manner that makes fatal injuries more likely, it may encourage a certain number of crimes that wouldn't be committed if access to guns was more difficult, and it increases the number of gun-related accidents.

I don't know how big these different effects are respectively, if the deterring effect is larger or the opposite effect, which is why I am not sure what's the better course of action, lenient laws or restrictive laws. Both scenarios have arguments in their favor, and finding out which is closer to the truth is a matter of research (which is difficult, because there are strong lobbies on both sides and independent research is difficult, because of the political interests behind it).

If I'm supposed to make an estimation, I'd say it relies on the respective region and its culture: In a region where people have a strong "gun culture", very restrictive laws would do more damage than good, because even if private ownership was banned, guns would still be easily accessible on the black market and thus the positive effects of prohibition would be gone. In other regions, though, where private gun ownership is the exception and people are not very much into guns anyways, it may be worth the effort.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Gun crimes are insane in high density areas like sprawling metropolises because government doesn't know how to handle gun problems.
Guns are not the problem, violent crime is the problem. Government doesn't handle violent criminals very well.

The streets are flooded with gangs and the gangs are armed with illegal weaponry and the only way they can stop any amount of guns from reaching the streets is by making it that much more difficult to own them.
Or they could control the criminal gangs, make punishment swift and sure, not be so lenient with violent offenders by plea bargaining to lesser offenses, giving them multiple chances after many convictions, letting violent criminals out of prison early, not put them back in prison at the first sign of recidivism, etc.

So you see the problem here. Crime goes up, gun control gets tighter. It's obviously the wrong thing to do as it doesn't work, but they don't know how else to fight it and honestly, I don't blame them.
I do. The failed logic of taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in order to deter crime/criminals is ridiculous.

I may sound like a broken record here, but I think the quickest way to slow down gun crime is to stop the war on drugs. Think about it. Gangs and other criminals have guns to carry out their crimes/defend their territory, correct? Now these gangs are also businesses, they sell drugs and guns. They wouldn't need guns if they weren't selling drugs because they wouldn't have something to fight over. Now does that mean legalize all drugs? Well, no. Personally, I don't see a problem with all drugs being legal and regulated, but we could at least start with the harmless shit like marijuana (harmless when you compare it to all the foods we eat, the preservatives, fats, and that's on top of cigarettes and alcohol). You need a War on Illegal Firearms, not drugs. Then as part of that, you work on legalizing and regulating some of the drugs these people fight over.
oversimplification. There are many other crimes that don't involve drugs and gangs fight each other for many other reasons than drug territories.

Another step is increased border security because the number 2 illegal import aside from drugs is guns because the people selling those drugs are going to want protection. But this would be part of the "war on illegal guns" although I'm pretty sure calling everything a war is pretty dumb by now.
Well I'm all for securing our borders. But again this is an oversimplification of the problem. We don't need to imports illegal guns, there are many other easier ways to obtain a gun illegally.
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
First of all, let me say that I am not against carrying guns in any way. But I do not think there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates. Like Cons said, I think crime is determined by several factors: poverty, education, culture, law enforcement, local government, etc.

Most of the violent crime in Chicago is gang related. Guns do not deter gangs from going after other gangs. Criminals are generally pretty stupid. There's a reason they have to commit these crimes, after all. If they were smart, they wouldn't have to rob people for money, or do any of the other things they do.

I understand your rural vs urban argument... but look at Camden, NJ which is just across the river from Philadelphia. Camden, NJ has the highest violent crime of rate of any city or town in the whole nation, which is also located in NJ which some of the strictest gun laws in the country as well. Their violent crime rate per capita is almost 1 in 10 residents. In Philly, right across the river in the same metro area, which is in Pennsylvania which has relaxed gun laws... the violent crime rate per capita is about 1 in 20 residents. That is almost half the crime rate per capita and Philly has a huge population compared to Camden.

The difference again... citizens in Philly can legally carry and arm themselves, while citizens in Camden can not and if they can it is very difficult. They are both very urban not rural redneck areas.
You failed to mention that Camden is also the poorest city (65,000 or larger) in the United States, with more than half of its residents living below the poverty line, which probably has a lot more to do with the crime than the gun laws. Also, just because Camden is right near Philly doesn't mean a whole lot. You'll see pockets of high crime within a city that has the same gun laws throughout.

Memphis has some of the worst crime in the country, yet I think Tennessee has pretty lax gun laws. You'll find dangerous cities and safe cities regardless of the gun laws. I just don't think there is any correlation.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
So, have you ever been to Detroit? I live in the Detroit metro area and I work in Detroit, Flint, & Pontiac so I know what I'm "talking" about. Plenty of thugs do NOT open carry in any of these areas. This is specifically why I defined "open carry" so that you might understand what I'm talking about. These thugs you reference are not walking around with pistols holstered to their sides (like you might see Pro doing) they do not legally own a registered pistol. They illegally carry concealed pistols that they have illegally obtained.
I was being hyperbolic, I thought that was fairly clear yet you spent a whole paragraph debating like, four words. :lol:

So when statistics are given before and after the implementation of shall issue/right to carry laws for the same area then your argument falls apart. Funny how statistics are great if they support your argument but unreliable and biased when they don't.


Guns are not the problem, violent crime is the problem. Government doesn't handle violent criminals very well.
No.



It's a tad bit outdated but as you can clearly see, the problem is the amount of illegal firearms. I'm not sure why you think I blamed all guns, I made it quite clear I was talking about illegal weaponry. Even if you redid this chart today, I doubt there would be much difference. It's extremely easy to acquire an illegal firearm in this country and it's making the legal gun owners suffer.

Or they could control the criminal gangs, make punishment swift and sure, not be so lenient with violent offenders by plea bargaining to lesser offenses, giving them multiple chances after many convictions, letting violent criminals out of prison early, not put them back in prison at the first sign of recidivism, etc.
Have you ever seen a prison? There tends to be a lot of black and hispanic faces in the crowd. They throw a lot of gangs away but that doesn't stop them from growing or replacing. The only way to stop such a criminal industry is to eliminate demand or their product. We do plenty of punishing in this country, we don't give enough help, that's the problem. Beating them harder isn't going to solve anything and it gets proven time and time again. Our prison systems just create more criminals.

I do. The failed logic of taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in order to deter crime/criminals is ridiculous.
Of course it is, but it's the best thing they've come up with which is why I don't understand why many legal gun owners would make natural allies with the government in fighting the sales of illegal firearms. Of course, there's probably a good chunk of gun owners that have at least one or two 'special' or 'private' stock items of their choosing and it's one of the reasons why this partnership would never happen. Every one of the dozen or so people I know who owns a gun has at least one gun that isn't legal in some way.

oversimplification. There are many other crimes that don't involve drugs and gangs fight each other for many other reasons than drug territories.
Oversimplification? Did you even read it? What's wrong with the logic? Crimes are about three things: emotion, materials, or power. A gun is great and easy way to accomplish almost any single crime and they're not hard to get so even for a criminal, that's simple math. Drugs are what people want, the business is what criminals want, the guns allow the businesses to run and compete and thus, the smugglers win on both sides. Eliminating this bullshit war on drugs and going after the borders and these gun/drug runners is how you would put a big dent in crime rates.

Well I'm all for securing our borders. But again this is an oversimplification of the problem. We don't need to imports illegal guns, there are many other easier ways to obtain a gun illegally.
Not really. If you put a foot down on this gun traffic, you'll see crime rates drop considerably in a decade or two, I guarantee it. Sure, people will resort to other weapons but without the most essential tool and having to play fair to get their weaponry, crime will drop.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
pro2A;896381I understand your rural vs urban argument... but look at Camden said:
the[/I] highest violent crime of rate of any city or town in the whole nation, which is also located in NJ which some of the strictest gun laws in the country as well. Their violent crime rate per capita is almost 1 in 10 residents. In Philly, right across the river in the same metro area, which is in Pennsylvania which has relaxed gun laws... the violent crime rate per capita is about 1 in 20 residents. That is almost half the crime rate per capita and Philly has a huge population compared to Camden.

The difference again... citizens in Philly can legally carry and arm themselves, while citizens in Camden can not and if they can it is very difficult. They are both very urban not rural redneck areas.
1- Correlation does not imply causation.
2-Maryland also has Baltimore, former murder capitol of the world and a city with a horrific drug problem.
3-Open carry does not eliminate the cause of crime.

Let me get a little deeper into 3. The motivations of crime still exist, guns or not. There is still desperate poverty and conflict. Almost all the murders in the places with stricter gun laws could not have been prevented if the victim had a gun rather than mace, a taser or nothing at all.

If someone wanted to mug you, they wouldn't just walk up and say "excuse me, may I trouble you for your wallet and valuables?" Nor would they take into account the local gun laws as it would be an extremely small chance the victim would be armed. If they saw a gun on your hip, it's just another thing to steal and sell/use.
 
Last edited:
Top