Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6102)	2/19/2001 12:13:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

wonder what the critical mass for that would be. Somewhere between 50 and 75 percent, I would guess, would have to carry, but not everyone. I think in places with liberal concealed carry laws we are all ready over the critical mass to provide deterrence but no where near 50%. A small percentage can provide some level of deterrence. Also a level of defense for those that are carrying and those who are near them. Statistics from states that have allowed liberal concealed carry show a decrease in crimes. There are however a lot of other factors involved so these stats don't exactly amount to proof, but I would submit that they show at least that it is reasonable to believe that such laws are at least slightly effective at reducing violent crime against individuals. I wonder, though, if the tactical advantage wouldn't erode over time. Criminals would just get bigger guns or shoot first rather than take the chance. Carrying looks like a slippery slope to me, not like a solution. Bigger guns probably would not be much of an advantage for the criminal. They are harder to conceal and carrying them would attract more attention. I don't think shooting first would always be the best strategy for the criminal. Not only would it open the criminal up, to murder or attempted murder charges, but if a lot of the bystanders are armed it may cause the criminal to come under fire from them. Even if the potential victim is all by himself shooting escalates the conflict and the first shot often either misses or hits but does not prevent the person shot from firing back. Also few criminals would be likely to have effective silencers and the noise would make them more likely to be caught. On the other hand, the thought of all of us living like some old western movie is chilling. I'm not much of a highbrow, but I do appreciate civilization. The violent crime rate in the actual old west was lower then it is now. In movies though I guess it is higher. Is being able to defend yourself uncivilized? Tim