http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ootings-illinois-database-2018-htmlstory.html More than 265,000 Illinois residents have a concealed carry license, about 2 percent of the state's adult population. But the state does not keep records on when these license holders fire their weapons, how often they do it, or if they wound or kill someone. The Tribune combed through police files, court records and news reports to compile its own list. We found 38 shootings and one threatening incident. —————————— Quality reporting. Illinois was the last state to enact concealed carry, and has a reputation (overblown) as a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws. Here we see that most of these reports did not result in criminal charges against the CCL holder.
so very rarely does a concealed carry permit holder initiate a crime (armed robbery, aggravated assault, homicide, rape, etc) and in actuality the permit holders use their weapons defensively or to deter crime/physical violence. So people are against legal (I say again legal) concealed carry why exactly?
People aren’t comfortable with the idea that any random person they encounter may or may not be packing a gun? At least the CCL holders are background checked and trained.
exactly my point - unless all citizens are being frisked 24/7 (that would go over well) we never really know who might be carrying & who isn't. Guarantee the armed robbers/carjackers/drug dealers/crazy folk aren't background checked & trained yet by-and-large they are the ones committing 99 percent of the gun violence. But that rarely bothers the gun control advocates. They are too busy being livid over the "paranoid conservative Trumptards" who might be carrying.
I mean, unless people are under the impression that every single human being there is always obeys the law, and random person they encounter may or may not be packing a gun whether concealed carry is legal or not. Here's a hint: The people that are up to no good don't care about concealed carry laws and the people that aren't up to no good are no danger to anyone even if they happen to have a gun on their person.
By which logic all laws should be abolished. In reality, the world is not divided into perfect angels and complete devils. Outlawing murder does decrease murder, even though a committed murderer will disregard the law. Outlawing gay marriage does decrease gay marriage, even though moral people will want to recognize gay marriages despite the law.
I find it difficult to believe that you either understand or even agree with the nonsense that you wrote. Go back and think about it some more and then come try again.
At the core of it all, I don't believe the average CCW holder has the threat assessment skills to introduce deadly force and will more oft than not, escalate a situation.
Then don't believe it - but most US concealed carriers are above the average level of responsibility of the average citizen. Factor in Canada is none-too-friendly on handguns (which are to be honest the easiest type of weapons to conceal) and you live in an urban area with a low violent crime rate (by US standards) and you never served in the military, so you aren't expected to have the hard-wired experience with weapons many US residents have.
experience, by definition, cannot be hardwired. never serving in the military (although, 4 years of cadets included a fair amount of small arms training) is irrelevant to the topic. Ever consider the possiblity that we've had laws restricting handguns for nearly a century MIGHT have something to do with our lower violent crime rates?
possibly - but Canadians in general are more law abiding and less holy-shit impulsively violent than the US population as a whole. But then again, zip codes matter. In other words certain US neighborhoods (like mine) have an insane level of gun ownership (a large percentage are hand guns) yet the level of violent crime is below the national average. On the other side of the freeway not as many people own as many guns per home, but the ones that do shoot the fuck out of each other. Here's a map. Caveat the huge area lower left (south of I-20 AKA the freeway) is Fort Gordon the military post. It has few people because it's mostly wooded area - thousands of acres of woods - animals & trees don't commit crimes. The people that live there are extremely vetted because they are military or military families. So for all intents & purposes it doesn't apply for comparing crime statistics. But notice north of the freeway it's safer, south of the freeway it's less safe. The "safe" areas in the far south on the map are farms. Again, farmers & crops don't commit too many crimes. Demographics play a huge part in the crime statistics of course - welcome to the US. The second map (scroll down) is a little more detailed showing roads as a point of reference. I live in the upper left portion of that map. BTW don't get distracted by the story of the woman killing a bobcat with her bare hands, but that is pretty fucking cool! https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/augusta/crime http://www.augustachronicle.com/special/99999999/richmond-county-crime-map-and-database
again... why do you think that is? the less holy shit impulsively violent part? I don't disagree... we don't have the convenience of instant killing. If you go at someone or they come at you, it's going to get primitive but probably not lethal. if you look up our national crime averages, you'll find the highest rates in places like Thunder Bay where there's a greater concentration of guns of all types, most of'em legal. Even Toronto neighbourhoods like Oakwood or Malvern are statistically safer despite the concentration of illegal handguns. South of the southernmost freeway here is Lake Ontario, but it's blocked by a wall of condo towers. interestingly enough,thsoe are most of the type of idiots likely to pull a gun out at an after hours live. people don't shit in their own yards
people do indeed shit in their own yards where I live meaning they shoot each other up because it's basic math: people tend to associate with people they relate to and live near, thus are more likely to commit impulsive (or even premeditated) violent crimes in certain neighborhoods. Thus shootings at barbecues, birthday parties, school disputes gone too far, etc. Even a potentially violent crime/gun crime like armed robbery is rarely a case of "let's drive into a rich neighborhood and rob one of their convenience stores!" because it's harder to blend in/get away if the robbery goes south on them. The robbery is the easy part, the aftermath not so much. Also even to recon a store (or residence) in an unfamiliar neighborhood is harder without raising suspicion. So no matter how you slice it, most violent crimes occur in the vicinity of the criminal or hot tempered. More criminals living in an area, more crime. Works every time!
Wow... you'd be really bad at crime if you were targeting local convenience stores. Too easy to be recognized, even if you had the sense to wear a mask they still might recognize the car (which also adds the complication of partners). Like you say, even casing the place once makes you stand out in the surveillance video. Some place you've been into 30 times this last year, though? Why even bother with the mask if your posture and gait can give you away as being a potential match within proximity? Worse in an established neighbourhood like mine, because everybody knows everybody... When a store gets hit around here, someone is going to recognize you and/or hear about it through the grape vine. Besides, we're not talking about higher crime (although, for all the guns and ground standing, your average crime rates are miles above ours). The topic is that impulsive (not "or premeditated"-you don't so much move the goal posts here as expect me to be moving to opposite ends of the field at the same time.) violence and how what might end in a beat down here is potentially a shoot out there. No matter, a random guy with a gun isn't likely to be much help unless he's in the convenience store while it's being robbed (The subject is CCW, remember?). Armed robbery example is also irrelevant because I've never taken a position against having a gun (YMMV on types) on one's property-only in public. I'd think you could split that hair of home defense vs mobile offensive/intervention purposes (being a military and all)? Again, maybe there's a correlation between our not walking around with pistols in our pockets and the lack of birthday party massacres.
