"More people carrying guns will escalate the violence in the streets"

[X-Rap]

One thing to note is that in most of Sweden we don't have as much robberies and such as in some parts of the US, and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise. Because the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys.

So it is common in Sweden for citizens to just relinquish their possessions on demand?
If that condition is rampant I suggest a change in attitude as well as tactics by the people en mass. Even if it isn't rampant yet the fact that there is this conditioning in the populous lends itself to defenseless violence if the conditions change either economic or social.
I say the innocent need to adjust before the criminal.
If there is a Sheep/Wolf analogy you have described it in Sweden.

 

[1911Tuner]

Many Americans have always carried guns. They just didn't admit to it until recently. The belief that no (otherwise) law abiding, peacefully disposed citizen ever carried a concealed handgun for personal protection in the days before the states passed "Shall Issue" laws is interesting and actually rather naive.

 

[robhof]

robhof

Criminal elements look for the easiest targets and an armed citizen isn't an easy target. I've open carried in some very dangerous places and felt safe and confortable that the bad elements would seek out other targets.

 

[henschman]

Certainly a person may choose not to carry a gun out of fear of escalating the situation to a more violent one... but the option should be with the individual, based on his own circumstances and his own judgment. After all, it is his life in the balance. It is not something that should be broadly prohibited to everyone.

 

[1911Tuner]

Certainly a person may choose not to carry a gun out of fear of escalating the situation to a more violent one... but the option should be with the individual, based on his own circumstances and his own judgment. After all, it is his life in the balance. It is not something that should be broadly prohibited to everyone.

This.

Do you really want to bet your life on receiving mercy from someone who is very likely merciless? Your choice, of course...but don't try to make that choice for anyone but yourself.

There was a time that I could stand toe-to-toe with just about anybody in my weight class and even a bit above...but that was a long time ago.

There was a time that I could do a hundred yards in less than 10 seconds...but that was a long time ago.

There was a time that I could take a pretty sound drubbing and be over it in a matter of days...but that was a long time ago. If I even survived a beat-down, I'd probably never recover from it.

I certainly don't want to escalate a confrontation to the point that shooting is the only solution...but I do want that option in case I'm left with no other acceptable choice.

 

[bikerdoc]

Tuner in post 30 sums up my opinion.

"Dont tread on me" is not just a political statement

 

[GLOOB]

Compared with plain intimidation, threat of violence, and force of numbers, armed robbery carries a bigger sentence, more public/police pressure to find the perpetrators, and a higher likelihood of being shot or ending up as a felony murder.

If you reduce the reward:risk ratio for being a criminal, then there are less criminals.

 

[jon_in_wv]

and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise

Is she saying GROUPS of muggers are going around victimizing people and we are supposed to believe its SAFER than the US? I don't think so.

 

[Byrd666]

axxxel

If I remember correctly in the article I was reading, one of the reasons for the low crime rate in Sweden had a lot to do with the "public's" Military service and history. Per the article, All persons are required to do a two year stint in the Military, and are allowed to "keep" the weapon they served with. Took the latter with a grain of salt, but, were it true, would you try and a rob a body that had knowledge and or ability to use a firearm proficiently. On a consistent basis.

The last I heard, outlaws are just that. Outlaws. If a law abiding citizen, carrying a concealed firearm, can stop a rape, murder, or aggravated robbery, what's the argument against it? Sorry, rhetorical question. Per FBI stats., and quite a few big city crime stats., in states that allow concealed carry, all crime stats are lower, by a good sized count, than when concealed carry by lawful, firearm carrying citizens were not doing so

 

[vamo]

If I remember correctly in the article I was reading, one of the reasons for the low crime rate in Sweden had a lot to do with the "public's" Military service and history. Per the article, All persons are required to do a two year stint in the Military, and are allowed to "keep" the weapon they served with.

believe you're thinking of switzerland, I think Sweden has a decently high rate of ownership for an European country, but is actually pretty restrictive compared to most US states.

 

[Lost Sheep]

believe you're thinking of switzerland, I think Sweden has a decently high rate of ownership for an European country, but is actually pretty restrictive compared to most US states.

Yes, Switzerland. But those military arms are HIGHLY controlled, as is ammunition for them. It is not likely a criminal accosting a targeted victim in a parking lot has a high likelihood of encountering an armed victim.

But the MAIN reason, I think, is the social norms in both those countries. Armed robberies and armed defense is not in the fabric of those societies to the extent that it is in the U.S.

Arming a pacifist society (and I am not using the term pejoratively by any means) or peaceful society is a lot more complex than just allowing the means of defense to be privately wielded. (Refer to my earlier, only partially fanciful post about airplanes). A LOT more complex.

It requires a sea change in the collective soul of the nation.

Lost Sheep

 

[GLOOB]

The problem with these scenarios is this. People are lazy. They won't lug around guns unless they have a good reason to. Just because you legalize guns doesn't mean anymore than 1% of the population will actually strap one on, on any given day.

Right to bear arms is exactly that. You can argue all day how the actual practice will bear out. But in reality it doesn't. In a relatively peaceful, ordered society, it's not worth the bother to lug something around that has less than a 0.0001% chance of being useful on any given day. Having the right is the important part... in case circumstances change.

But firearms do play a fairly significant role in home defense and B&E deterrence in the US.

 

[Neverwinter]

Compared with plain intimidation, threat of violence, and force of numbers, armed robbery carries a bigger sentence, more public/police pressure to find the perpetrators, and a higher likelihood of being shot or ending up as a felony murder.

If you reduce the reward:risk ratio for being a criminal, then there are less criminals.

If this were true, then capital punishment would have a meaningful effect on crime. Except that the numbers do not bear that out.

People are notoriously bad at risk perception, and depending on that is as foolish as depending of the benevolence of a mugger.

 

[nickn10]

If this were true, then capital punishment would have a meaningful effect on crime. Except that the numbers do not bear that out.

People are notoriously bad at risk perception, and depending on that is as foolish as depending of the benevolence of a mugger.

I'm kind of curious; Are there any statistics that indicate that the incidence of robbery/burglary has increased or diminished in the Zimmerman/Trayvon locale since that happened?

 

[jon_in_wv]

I don't know about B&E because sometimes guns are the target of the thief but I can say that I've never even heard of a home invasion robbery in WV. When I lived in Fullerton, CA there were 150 of them in my neighborhood. Thieves are sneaky and only care if you are home of not, ROBBERS don't like the idea of getting shot at and will target vulnerable people. They don't "get a bigger gun".

 

[tomrkba]

"Well maybe it would be a good thing to keep a revolver in my purse when I'm walking through a rough neighbourhood, but if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets!"

Their argument is based upon a fallacy. The criminals have "already escalated" the situation to the maximum possible by using a lethal weapon in the commission of their crime. No further escalation is possible.

The actual argument being made by the politicians (or private citizen) is that they want the government to have full control over law abiding citizens. They merely use the phrase mentioned as a means to create fear in the minds of the listeners. The intent is to evoke images of "Wild West" gunfights in the grocery store. They want you to believe that YOUR children will be shot by a well meaning person. They do not care if the crime victim lives or dies; it is the control over the LAW ABIDING people that matters. The reason is that the law abiding people VOLUNTARILY submit to government authority. Armed law abiding citizens breaks that political paradigm.

I don't know about B&E because sometimes guns are the target of the thief but I can say that I've never even heard of a home invasion robbery in WV.

20 seconds on Google will show you that home invasions do occur in West Virginia.

One example:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/72-...s-pistol-then-shotgun-on-home-invasion-thugs/

 

[Lost Sheep]

If this were true, then capital punishment would have a meaningful effect on crime. Except that the numbers do not bear that out.

People are notoriously bad at risk perception, and depending on that is as foolish as depending of the benevolence of a mugger.

Your two points are well taken.

However, the capital punishment deterrent effect is diminished to almost zero by the uncertainty of it and the delay of it. Immediacy and certainty are essential elements of deterrence.

Your mention of risk assessment is spot on. Remember also, that the citizen assessing the risk of being a victim of a crime is thinking one way. The criminal assessing the risk of a victim turning the tables on him is thinking in another way. The risk assessment sword cuts both ways.

Lost Sheep

 

[Lost Sheep]

Their argument is based upon a fallacy. The criminals have "already escalated" the situation to the maximum possible by using a lethal weapon in the commission of their crime. No further escalation is possible.

The original post was considering a locale where the criminal element has NOT already been using firearms.

Your point about government wanting to keep its citizenry dependent may have some traction, though. Thomas Jefferson put a fine point on it when he said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".

Lost Sheep

 

[230RN]

Someone beat me to quoting Cooper on returning violence, so I'll submit this essay by Marko Kloos:

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Paragraphs 4 and 5 therein seem to be especially suited to your party's question.

Terry, 230RN

 

[jon_in_wv]

20 seconds on Google will show you that home invasions do occur in West Virginia.

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply it never happens.

MY point since you didn't get it WASN'T that they never happen but rather I had never heard of one so its a rare occurrence. It was a major concern where I lived in CA and everyone heard about them. It doesn't happen with the same regularity here, I believe, is because much more people are armed here and they make no bones about their willingness to protect their property.

I hope that was more helpful.

 

[Lost Sheep]

jon_in_wv, tomrkba,

This thread started as a genuine inquiry from Sweden about the efficacy of armed civilians.

When a sincere request for our help opens a thread, it is not in keeping with the high aspirations of The High Road to bicker.

Wandering a little off-subject is understandable, and not always unproductive, but vitriol is pointless and petty. I have read a sampling of your other posts in this forum. You know better.

Actual, hard statistics making your points would be helpful, and if it really only takes 20 seconds to come up with relevant numbers (for instance, home invasions per year per household in comparable neighborhoods -inner city, farm country, suburbs, etc- it is usually the person making the assertion who has the duty to produce the statistics.

Lost Sheep

 

[jon_in_wv]

I'm sorry if my post wasn't up to your lofty standard. I'm glad you took to the time to let me know. I edited my earlier post to make it more "user friendly" so people with tender sensibilities won't be offended. I hope that is helpful to you and less shameful for myself.

Thanks.

Of course I'm sure you will do the same with your post. You know, where you bickered at both of us about bickering.

 

[thezoltar]

Violence may indeed increase but I would submit that it would increase against the bad guys. After a period of time the violence would slow considerably when the bad guys realize they may get hurt in their chosen profession.

 

[tomrkba]

No worries jon! Sorry to come off too strong; it was not intended. I just had a conversation with someone regarding our town and how "safe it is". They had no idea about a murder in the past year and a recent shooting between thugs from DC at a local bar. This person also had no idea that the subdivision had a high rate of car theft!

Back to Sweden:

I am calling it for what it is--gun control is about control and not crime. This applies to all countries, Sweden included. The right to defense is universal and laws that prohibit it are evil. Even England has had to back off persecuting citizens for saving themselves.

It IS fact that governments want unarmed populations (source: the history of government in the entire 20th century. Examples include: Germany 1930's and the subsequent copying of parts of that law into GCA 1968.) An Australian official just admitted their regulations were DESIGNED to be difficult for the law abiding in order to reduce gun ownership. This has been amazingly successful in DC (see Emily Miller's articles on the process, and costs, of acquiring a handgun in DC.). We know the ATF reduced the number of FFL licenses in the 90's with that intent. We also know Jefferson had a far harder line than mere suggestion regarding personal arms.

Solutions:

You must demand your natural rights!

A small minority of law abiding citizens needs to get organized and vocal. Here in Virginia, we have VCDL (vcdl.org). It is a small but effective gun rights organization that has much influence. They focus on legislators and have been instrumental in stopping awful legislation and pushing through pro-rights bills. The OP should contact them for assistance in setting up a similar organization.

 

[j1]

An armed society is a polite society.