CCW Where Not Needed?

[Dan_Eastvale]

Blue, liberal, BLM, ANTIFA infested states no automatic carry..Red states... Constitutional carry..
States with less crime allow carry..
Why?

[mshill]

I do find it ironic, however, most red states seem to believe in personal responsibility and as such the criminals are held accountable instead of the .gov and leftists making excuses for why they do what they do. Along with the belief in personal responsibility comes the concept that you are responsible for guaranteeing the safety of your person and your family. The two go hand in hand. The blue states have been seen to coddle the criminals and punish the law abiding. I don't think it was always this way. Just as of late the DNC has followed extremists off the cliff.

[BC9696]

It's counties, not states. I am in Calif. and carry...plenty of red counties.

[Uncivil Engineer]

It's counties, not states. I am in Calif. and carry...plenty of red counties.

Your argument doesn't address what are blue counties in States that are constitutional carry or shall issue. There you have urban blue counties with conceal carry and certainly no more risk than other cities. Phoenix and other cities can't up in the latest supreme court cases where conceal carry was more available but didn't have the crime of Chicago or other blue urban centers.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Colt]

“An armed society is a polite society.”

[johncage]

blue states create a favorable environment for criminals, and since criminals use guns to commit crimes,the blue states figure the gun is the problem, not their soft on crime policies

[k1dude]

Red states believe in the Constitution, individual liberty, self determination, self defense, and trust in the people.

Blue states despise the Constitution, want the state to control everyone, believe in the state over the individual, don't believe in self defense, and do not trust the people.

[divingin]

Has to do with gun crime, IMO. Places with a lot of gun crime have a higher propensity to believe that more/stricter laws will reduce gun crime. Missing the whole point about criminals not following the law. Note that many of these are also the places releasing convicted murderers back into public because they don't want to offend them by locking them up.

[B yond]

Instead of "states with less crime allow carry" it's "states that allow carry have less crime."

Those states tend to be tougher on crime, and have more gun owners willing to defend themselves, their families, their neighbors, their communities, and their properties.

Criminals are often criminals because they think it's easier than working for a living. If the hazards of their chosen profession make it harder than working, they're probably going to work instead.

[rlewpolar]

CCW Where Not Needed?

It's counties, not states. I am in Calif. and carry...plenty of red counties.

San Francisco is a great example. Has become a crime-ridden sewer and yet the chances of obtaining a CCW as a resident is literally zero. I live in Sacramento and am allowed to carry in SF (and every other county and city in CA) because it was issued to me in my county. My friends who live in SF absolutely do not feel safe and are not able to arm up even if they wanted too. Living in the burbs, I feel relatively safe and yet carrying 100% of the time. Ironic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[heidad01]

It is the other way around.

Places where a good number of people carry are not a favorable environment gor criminals. They know that and that is what keeps the crime lower.

Where almost no one has a gun to defend themseves is prime target for crime. Criminals know that and that is why more guns in the hands of good folks will reduce crime.
Guns are not a problem. The criminal who use guns are the problem.

Also, prosecution of criminals and keeping the good people safe is not in the liberals' agenda.
They want votes from any criminal they can get one from plus their families!!

[SharedShots]

If more people having guns would prevent or limit crime then that means cities where lots of criminals have guns wouldn't see them hunting each other and killing each other.

People become criminals without regard if others have guns or not. Most criminals become what they are because the behavior they engage in isn't punished properly or the laws aren't enforced or the society they are in just doesn't care. It's not about who does or doesn't have guns.

Once you go down the road of saying that people having guns make people safe then you are also saying that all people are criminals save for those in areas where there are guns.

Would you turn into a criminal if no one where you lived had guns? So then its something else at work that makes one person a criminal and another not and it's not guns.

Is having guns are the primary reason one place is safer and a better place to be than another and not the tolerance and/or ambivalence toward crime by the society and the people elected to provide leadership?

Hello? Any idea how many people carry guns in Oakland? Plenty. You don't think the criminals know lots of people carry guns. Does knowing opposing gangs have guns stop gangs from shooting and killing each other? Hell no. BG #1 has a gun. He wants to go after and kill BG #2. Does BG #1 not kill BG #2 because BG #2 has a gun? No. The criminal doesn't care about the consequences that is why they are the BGs in the first place.

Does a lack of consequences increase criminal behavior? No doubt.

Criminals don't give a hoot about CCWs. They don't care who and who doesn't have guns because they actively search each other out and kill each other knowing the other BG has a gun too.

The reason some places are safer than others is because overall the people there believe in individual responsibility, not breaking every law they can and having respect for others and the property of others. These people then congregate in certain areas and its those areas that are safer and better -

it isn't about guns.

If the only thing that makes some place polite and with lower crime is people carrying guns that is a very sad state of affairs.

Guns are not what keep people safe, a good society is what does that and guns are a last resort in case the anomaly in that society decides not to obey they laws and takes it upon themselves to harm others or the government turns to tyranny and oppresses the people.

Does having a gun in your home make you safer there? No, the only thing it does it give you a chance at defending yourself in case some goombah decides to break in and try to harm you but it doesn't stop them from trying and none of them care if you have a gun. The homes of police officers are burglarized quite routinely and shouldn't the criminal know the person living there has a gun? They don't care, they are just more careful..

There are lots of guns in the homes in California.

No one knows who does or doesn't have a gun. The criminals don't know because not everyone who has a gun carries it and its a fact that most people who own a gun don't carry it - including red states.

If people having guns made for safer places then Chicago would be a very safe place because contrary to what you might think, a lot of people there have guns.

This idea that guns make people safe is the same argument that liberals use to say guns make people bad. Guns don't do anything, they are a tool to deal with the exception, not the rule. If you live where crime if high a gun doesn't make you safer.

If you carry concealed then no one else knows you have a gun. The probability that you might isn't what stops crime, its the intolerance for crime in the first place that reins in the criminal element.

In those areas where crime is low its (added for clarity and meaning) and the people there are intolerant of crime are those where the people vote to say everyone has the right to have and carry a gun.

[200Apples]

^ ^ ^ Your post (TL;DR) may be summed up by simply quoting Jeff Cooper:

What [the Left] fails to acknowledge is the fact that if you took guns off the street you'd still have a crime problem... but if you took the criminals off the street you would not have a gun problem...

...paraphrased.

[SharedShots]

^ ^ ^ Your post (TL;DR) may be summed up by simply quoting Jeff Cooper:



...paraphrased.

Except that too many people who argue that guns make for a safer society don't understand what Cooper said so they go along with the idea that a polite society is where everyone has guns.

Many people confuse safety with responding to consequences of not being safe.

No one who carries a gun is safer than someone who does not. What they are able to do is defend against something that is already taking place, they aren't doing anything to prevent the attempt.

[ja308]

With the recent events concerning George Floyd and the Georgia good neighbors. Its very unlikely any police officer will respond or any citizen to get involved with others problems.
Watch the Georgia good neighbors be destroyed like neigborhood watch captain George Zimmerman has been .

New rule is only react to protect yourself or someone you love. Cops stand down for everything, that could get you a prison term, if some slug OD's while you are there .