CCW to the rescue myth

The idea that a concealed carry person is a hero is completely at odds with what statistics show. CCWs are more likely, by far, to carry out a mass shooting than stop one. Far from a hero, a CCW is a risk. No doubt killings by concealed carriers will increase if more people start to carry around guns.

 

How do you measure the number of mass shootings that didn't happen as the result of CCW?

Why are you against citizens being allowed to defend themselves?

 

If CCW prevented mass shootings the US would have none.

 

Don't worry. In many locations across the nation, right now, there are countless good guys with guns preventing mass shootings. Just ask any Second Amendment fanatic.

 

That anyone characterizes the average CCW carrier as some sort of hero-wannabe is completely at odds with reality. It is just a strawman the anti-constitution crowd use to ridicule and belittle. The vast majority of CCW carriers, myself included, carry for SELF defense. Generally I will exploit any opportunity to cover in place, or escape the situation as a first option. I do not carry to protect you, I carry to protect me. Most CCW carriers are probably the same.

 

Love this bit

 

There are a lot of calls on this forum and elsewhere to increase the number of weapons carried to reduce mass shootings. The NRA itself has called for this so it's not at odds with reality.

This phrase itself is a strawman.

People who are so frightened they feel they have to carry a gun, and don't live in Mogadishu, are another problem altogether. But this OP isn't about them.

 

This is not logical. It doesn't even make sense.

If exercise prevented heart disease people with gym memberships would not die of heart attacks.
If seat belts prevent death...
If condoms prevent STD transmission...
etc...

So why are you against citizens being allowed to defend themselves?

 

You are claiming that CCW prevents mass shootings. If it did the US wouldn't lead the world in them.

 

Of course. Someone with the ability to defend themselves would be an asset in close proximity to a shooter. How can it be claimed otherwise?

I disagree. The desire to enact unconstitutional laws is anti-constitutional because you would have to shred the constitution to do it.

This phrase itself is just another strawman the anti-constitution crowd use to ridicule and belittle.

I have never been a problem to anyone, nor will I ever be. Until we, as a society, decide to focus on the REAL PROBLEM, we will get nowhere. We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a violence problem. If we address the violence in a meaningful, zero-tolerance way, then an armed populace will be no problem, at all.

 

Read the article. People carrying guns don't stop mass shootings, they carry them out.

 

No one with a CCW is supposed to be a hero. Defending one life or the life of another is not the pure definition of hero. Also, since states started issuing them.
Crime and mainly murder, is down. That is a fact.

 

Myth? What's mythical are no gun zone signs.

 

And only drunk people with a clean driving record can cause accidents.

 

Even in gun free zones?

 

People legally carrying guns generally adhere to the laws. To include laws against carrying where mass shootings almost ALWAYS take place; gun-free zones.

Until we, as a society, decide to focus on the REAL PROBLEM, we will get nowhere. We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a violence problem. If we address the violent in a meaningful, zero-tolerance way, then an armed populace will be no problem, at all.

 

Too easy, because it's not true. If no gun zone signs prevented mass shootings the US would have none.
Police Officers have open carry and I don't recall any of them ever preventing a mass shooting.
Your focus is too narrow. Many violent crimes have been stopped by CCW, but none prevented, because you can't pull a gun on someone just because you suspect a violent crime is about to happen.

 

All countries have violence. What sets the US apart from similar countries is only one thing: proliferation of firearms. You have the highest firearms count, you have the highest firearms murder rate, you have the highest mass shootings rate.

 

The police frequently prevent mass shootings. Only a couple of days ago police prevented a school shooting

 

I made no claim.

I asked two questions:

How do you measure the number of mass shootings that didn't happen as the result of CCW?

Why are you against citizens being allowed to defend themselves?

You have answered neither.

 

But not the highest violent crime rate. Australia and England have proven that when you ban guns, violent crime increases. Besides, your source is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

"Among developed countries … the U.S. isn’t anywhere close to having the highest homicide rate. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the arbiter of which countries are considered industrialized, ranks Russia and Brazil far ahead of the U.S., with homicide rates that are respectively 2 1/2 to five times higher than ours. Our rate was tied with Chile’s, and just slightly above the average for developed countries."

PunditFact reached out to Lott for more information about his claim. Lott cited data gathered by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

According to the report (which includes statistics for 2011, the latest available year), the United States has a homicide rate of 5.2 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Comparatively, Russia has a homicide rate of 12.8 murders, and Brazil has a rate of 25.5 murders.

With these numbers, Russia’s rate comes out to be 2.46 times greater than that of the United States, and Brazil’s murder rate comes out to be 4.90 times larger than that of the United States.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...vocate-refutes-obamas-statement-cites-murder/

 

BS. They were tipped off. Do you think they would have come up with that on their own? Of course not. The shooting was not imminent nor can you say it wasn't just a highschooler's fantasy.

 

Citation please.
I don't see why someone who does NOT have CCW would decide against NOT taking that gun to school, or wherever.

 

How many of the mass shooters, if any, had a CCW license? Most of the time the weapons used were obtained illegally. CCW license holders don't need to obtain guns illegally.
You're confusing people who conceal guns with CCW licensed people.

 

That link didn't show a single Mass killer who had a CCW permit. Please show me the evidence of that.

Also, I would argue that most of the time, a CCW permit holder's self defense value is in deterrence, not in actual shooting. A CCW permit holder reduces violence, not by actual violence, but by threat of violence.

Here's an example of a CCW permit holder who stopped a potential mass shooting.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/