Are Anti-gun Businesses More Dangerous to Patronize?
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca
Staff
IMHO any business that prohibits me the means to defend myself has to be more dangerous than a place where I am not prohibited from carrying the means to defend myself. To the extent that such prohibition is widely known or becomes widely known by virtue of becoming a national news item -- sure, as soon as the bad guys see a notice of another gun-free, disarmed victim location the odds that the place may be robbed have to increase. The only question is how much do the odds increase.
jrobin3360
New member
To me, they are more dangerous. I'm not a Texan but I do remember the Luby's cafe massacre & I promised myself I will NEVER put myself and/or my family in that kind of situation. I've told the Luby's story to more than one manager/owner. Sometimes they listen and understand, sometimes they don't.
Businesses that have "no weapons allowed" signs posted do not carry the force of the law in my home state but, you can be asked to leave or be charged with trespassing. BTW, I don't OC. I hate to advertise.
Businesses that have "no weapons allowed" signs posted do not carry the force of the law in my home state but, you can be asked to leave or be charged with trespassing. BTW, I don't OC. I hate to advertise.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We don't have to prove they are a result of policy. The question didn't involve any analysis of "Why?", it just asked if victim disarmament zones are more dangerous. I fully acknowledge that the extent to which they might be more dangerous [than locations allowing us to carry], but the "correlation" to which you refer is all we need to determine that places prohibiting carry are more dangerous. That can be determined by simple statistics.Tom Servo said:
The why may be more complex, but wasn't included in the question under discussion.
I think there is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation here. Many mass shootings occur at places with high concentrations of people, and many of those places are no-carry zones. As to whether the attackers chose these places with their no-carry status in mind, some probably did, but others probably did not.
When you are talking about violence in society, it is fortunately rare enough for most places that a prohibition on carry probably does not influence the rate in a very meaningful way.
That said, I'd certainly prefer the option to defend myself with the most effective means!
When you are talking about violence in society, it is fortunately rare enough for most places that a prohibition on carry probably does not influence the rate in a very meaningful way.
That said, I'd certainly prefer the option to defend myself with the most effective means!
I look at it the same as I do a lottery. The odds of winning the Powerball are 0 if you don't buy a ticket, but they're 1 in 175,223,510 if you do.
What are the odds that I will need a gun while eating dinner or shopping? My ability to defend myself is near zero if I'm not armed, but the odds of my having to are pretty astronomical.
What are the odds that I will need a gun while eating dinner or shopping? My ability to defend myself is near zero if I'm not armed, but the odds of my having to are pretty astronomical.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This is a very complex issue and can't be answered by an incident or two.
It would take an intensive evaluation of locations before or after signage, evaluation of neighborhood (so signage in a low risk neighborhood has no effect but it might in a high risk one, for example), the rates of carry and a slew of other factors. One would also have to parse out economically motivated crime vs. crazies.
Certainly, we have incidents in carry friendly areas (and with the carrier screwing up or not screwing up).
As far as the individual - yes, you are probably better off. However, are you better off if you don't know what you are doing (Tacoma Mall, Tyler, WalMart)?
Is there a increase in TGIF shooting? Doesn't tell us much given a host of variables.
It would take an intensive evaluation of locations before or after signage, evaluation of neighborhood (so signage in a low risk neighborhood has no effect but it might in a high risk one, for example), the rates of carry and a slew of other factors. One would also have to parse out economically motivated crime vs. crazies.
Certainly, we have incidents in carry friendly areas (and with the carrier screwing up or not screwing up).
As far as the individual - yes, you are probably better off. However, are you better off if you don't know what you are doing (Tacoma Mall, Tyler, WalMart)?
Is there a increase in TGIF shooting? Doesn't tell us much given a host of variables.
Does it matter? Which business would be more likely to be killed with no real recourse for defending yourself under any circumstance? The one with the "no guns" sign, or the one you carried your pistol into? I see it as more of a philosophical question than a statistical quantity.
Smart people tend to shop in areas where crime is low, so the question is moot. I will say that if two grocery stores are next door in a crime-ridden area, and only one of them is widely known to have armed clerks, two things will be true:
1) The disarmed store will be robbed more often, by all manner of crooks
2) When the second store is occasionally robbed, the thieves are more likely to be violent
But if you think about it, if it is known there are armed folks about generally, robbers are more likely to feel to the need to arm themselves for defense and offense --meaning they may not be that much less likely to be violent in the disarmed store, either.
It's a matter of evolution; you either adapt (and rise meet the arms race) or you are eaten. By letting the government eat everybody, some folks think they can escape this struggle
TCB
Smart people tend to shop in areas where crime is low, so the question is moot. I will say that if two grocery stores are next door in a crime-ridden area, and only one of them is widely known to have armed clerks, two things will be true:
1) The disarmed store will be robbed more often, by all manner of crooks
2) When the second store is occasionally robbed, the thieves are more likely to be violent
But if you think about it, if it is known there are armed folks about generally, robbers are more likely to feel to the need to arm themselves for defense and offense --meaning they may not be that much less likely to be violent in the disarmed store, either.
It's a matter of evolution; you either adapt (and rise meet the arms race) or you are eaten. By letting the government eat everybody, some folks think they can escape this struggle
TCB
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The OP wants to conjecture that the signs attract crime.
However, do they attract more economic crime? They might as more folks who carry deter economic criminals (if that were true - which we do not know yet).
But do they attract more crazy rampages? That's the technical issue. I could see gun free zones attracting stick'em ups but having little effect on crazies. They go places for different reasons and have a quite different view of risk.
That's what I would want to know.
Of course, I am against all such signs unless there is technical reason (MRI shoots you in the leg). I believe SD trumps property rights of places open to the public for business.
However, do they attract more economic crime? They might as more folks who carry deter economic criminals (if that were true - which we do not know yet).
But do they attract more crazy rampages? That's the technical issue. I could see gun free zones attracting stick'em ups but having little effect on crazies. They go places for different reasons and have a quite different view of risk.
That's what I would want to know.
Of course, I am against all such signs unless there is technical reason (MRI shoots you in the leg). I believe SD trumps property rights of places open to the public for business.
Here's a compelling argument that fits both angles; crazies tend to target the places significant enough to us that we feel compelled to "protect" them with feel-good gun ban signage --schools, churches, govt buildings, etc. Each of these are places containing/representing things of great value to us, therefore they get the most attention for protection, as well as "protection." Evil monsters who wish to inflict as much harm on society as they can on the way out, seek out these same places for the same reasons (they are plenty sane enough to know we value schools and children highly, even if they lack any modicum of empathy for their victims)
So the answer is not that gun free zones attract crime, but that significant locations attract both gunmen and gun free zone signage. Which actually makes the concept underpinning the GFZ's all the more ridiculous in practice.
TCB
So the answer is not that gun free zones attract crime, but that significant locations attract both gunmen and gun free zone signage. Which actually makes the concept underpinning the GFZ's all the more ridiculous in practice.
TCB
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Crime statistics are like lottery odds -- interesting from a statistical perspective, but otherwise generally useless. So the odds of being in a bank when it gets held up are 1 in 10,000,000. Pretty good odds ... unless you're there for the one day when it gets robbed.barnbwt said:
Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place? I live in a small, rural/suburban town. We don't have a single bank or grocery store in town. I do most of my shopping and banking and postal business in an adjoining town, which is also pretty small but does have a commercial center. The crime rate there is extremely low, and always has been.
My branch of my bank has been held up twice in eighteen months. Thankfully, I wasn't there either time.
I disagree. The OP wants to know if gun free zones have increased the danger level of violence, not attract violence. Its simple math to me, if your restricted from being able to properly defend yourself in a zone that is open to the public the danger level is increased as you are almost totally defenseless against an armed attacker. The odds of this happening are irrelevant.Glenn E. Meyer said:
Nathan said:
Thank you for the conversation. I'm just wondering if there is a way to clarify what pro-CCW people argue which is that posted zones have higher probability of crime.
Probably hard to prove out. I was wondering if this was a question that John Lott or similar has tried to answer already.
I like the lottery example. I wonder if the issue with determining sign impact is just too small of a factor to determine.
We must acknowledge the theory that criminals don't typically weigh punishment vs crime, but do typical balance chance of being caught/stopped vs success. So, using that logic, I believe when you plan a violent crime/mass shooting, a criminal must consider likelyhood of police/CCW in the area stopping their ability to achieve success. Signs help them understand that when casing.
Probably hard to prove out. I was wondering if this was a question that John Lott or similar has tried to answer already.
I like the lottery example. I wonder if the issue with determining sign impact is just too small of a factor to determine.
We must acknowledge the theory that criminals don't typically weigh punishment vs crime, but do typical balance chance of being caught/stopped vs success. So, using that logic, I believe when you plan a violent crime/mass shooting, a criminal must consider likelyhood of police/CCW in the area stopping their ability to achieve success. Signs help them understand that when casing.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Interesting belief, but does not mimic reality. Only rarely is a mass shooting NOT where the shooter had some sort of conflict or issue with a person or persons of said business. There is no documentation from surviving mass shooters that this is the case.
Acknowledge the theory all you want, but that doesn't mean it is a valid theory. There is no evidence that criminals put any statistically significant stock into the likelihood of being stopped by a CCW based on crime statistics. More importantly, the number of CCW in a given state or area does not drive down crime, nor does gun ownership.
The odds remain the same whether you are there the day it happens or not.
A notion oft-stated but not held up by law in most states. However, it brings up an interesting consideration. If SD trumps property rights in places open to the public for business, then the same trumperage does not not exist for the folks who work in businesses not open to the public? How come their right to defend themselves isn't equally valid?
spacecoast
New member
Probably irrelevant, since neither right trumps their right to fire you for violating a policy, no matter how unreasonable.
In many/most states those signs (for customers) do not carry the force of law. They can ask you to leave but cannot have you arrested simply for exercising your right to carry concealed (with a permit to do so).
Aguila Blanca
Staff
What conflict did the Sandy Hook shooter have with any of the students, teachers or administration of the school?DNS said:
What conflict did the Aurora theater shooter have with any of the patrons of the theater?
What conflict did the shooter at the Ogden, Utah, mall (or was it Salt Lake City?) have with any of the mall patrons he shot?
What conflict did the Luby's Cafeteria have with any of the patrons of Luby's?
What conflict did the Texas tower sniper have with any of the students, faculty, and/or visitors to the UT campus?
What conflict did the Virginia Tech shooter have with any of the people he shot?
What conflict did the Columbine shooters have with any of the students they shot?
What conflict did the Navy Yard shooter have with any of the people he shot?
I think you have it reversed. "Mass" shootings in general do not seem to involve a personal conflict between the shooter and the victims. That's different from "workplace" shootings, in which a disgruntled (ex?) employee comes in, shoots a couple or few targeted individuals, then either leaves or shoots himself.
- Status