• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists in Attack

E

Equinox

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, Colorado, USA
imported post

"(CNSNews.com) – India’s strict gun laws are partly to blame for the success of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, according to the head of an Indian gun rights group and a U.S. expert who has examined the impact of gun laws on crime and terrorism.

Abhijeet Singh, founder of Indians for Guns, told CNSNews.com Tuesday that if the citizens of Mumbai had been allowed to carry guns, terrorists would nothave killed as many people as they did--and might have been deterred from attacking in the first place."

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40567
 
O

Orygunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
737
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

I'm not sure if I'm liking some of John Lott's quotes from an OC perspective:

In studyingmultiple-victim public shootings in the United States that occurred from 1977 through 1999,Lott saidhe found that the presence of armed law enforcement, while it may reduce the number of murders generally, typically had no effect on multiple-victim public shootings.

“This is because police are easily identified,” Lott said. “Terrorists either kill police first or wait until they leave the scene to attack.”
Click to expand...

and:

“That’s the benefit of concealed handguns,” [Lott] said. “At Virginia Tech, 500 people came into contact with the killer. If the killer had known a significant percentage of the people were carrying concealed handguns, he wouldn’t have known who to take out first. He would have wanted to take out the people who were armed, but he wouldn’t have known who they were.”
Click to expand...
I can see the logic of the statements, but because of the rarity of OCers, we have yet to have one in the middle of a mass shooting or terrorist attack to know whether they would really be a prime target or not.

Obviously, an armed citizen isn't near as recognizable or noticable as a LEO, so probably they would still avoid being noticed in a terrorist attack.

...I think OC and CC complement each other nicely... Both have their advantages...
...Orygunner...
 
T

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

Mr. Lott has written whole books on the statistics behind his assertion that concealed carry is a benefit to society as a whole. As far as I know he hasn't done any studies on open carry. I can't cite, but I think I remember him saying that an open carrier reduces his own risk of being a target of crime because criminals will pass him over and find an easier target but the presence of concealed carriers reduces overall crime rates by making a criminal concerned that any target he picks could conceivably produce a weapon.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Obviously this is one of those cases where Lott fits his evidence to his conclusion. My own reasoning tells me that OC has the potential to be a much better deterrent on a societal level than CC. If the uncertainty really caused so many criminals to second-guess, I think there would be virtually no crime in CCW states. Instead, you see that there is virtually no crime against OCers.

Personally, I think seeing a gun is more likely to cause a criminal to think twice about his next crime than is the possibility of CCW. If criminals thought about consequences, they wouldn't be criminals. Relying on them to realize that we might be armed is foolish. Better to make it clear upfront what assaulting a law-abiding citizen entails.
 
G

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Any one who has read one of John Lott's books know that he doesn't make the data fit the conclusion. He collects the data and lets the conclusion come on it's own. This is why no peer review has been able to discredit his findings.
 
T

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Obviously this is one of those cases where Lott fits his evidence to his conclusion. My own reasoning tells me that OC has the potential to be a much better deterrent on a societal level than CC. If the uncertainty really caused so many criminals to second-guess, I think there would be virtually no crime in CCW states. Instead, you see that there is virtually no crime against OCers.

Personally, I think seeing a gun is more likely to cause a criminal to think twice about his next crime than is the possibility of CCW. If criminals thought about consequences, they wouldn't be criminals. Relying on them to realize that we might be armed is foolish. Better to make it clear upfront what assaulting a law-abiding citizen entails.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. In this article Lott mostly talks about citizen CC preventing mass shootings better that uniformed armed police/security. He claims he can prove it and I think we can all agree on that. He presents us with the opinion that CC would prevent mass shootings better than OC but doesn't claim he can prove it.

In his book he statistically links higher rates of CC licenses to lower rates of various crimes. He also states his opinion that low rates of CC would reduce crime rates for the entire population better than low rates of OC. His assertion being that criminals, though not rocket scientists, will attempt to reduce risk. He says OC hugely increases the perceived risk of a single potential victim causing the criminal to find another victim. But, an increase in CC somewhat increases the perceived risk of all potential victims causing the criminal to switch jurisdictons or choose less confrontational crimes. IIRC he doesn't claim he can prove this theory statistically.

It seems that the great thing about OC is also the problem with OC. It is by it's nature unregulated. Some places have ownership permits, or generalized carry permits, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has a permit specifically for OC. So, while John Lott can get CC permit numbers, do a big pile of math and say that increased rates of CC decrease rates of various crimes by a specific amount, I don't think anybody can find OC rates for enough places for them to be able to do that sort of hard scientific statistical analysis on OC.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

thorvaldr wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Obviously this is one of those cases where Lott fits his evidence to his conclusion. My own reasoning tells me that OC has the potential to be a much better deterrent on a societal level than CC. If the uncertainty really caused so many criminals to second-guess, I think there would be virtually no crime in CCW states. Instead, you see that there is virtually no crime against OCers.

Personally, I think seeing a gun is more likely to cause a criminal to think twice about his next crime than is the possibility of CCW. If criminals thought about consequences, they wouldn't be criminals. Relying on them to realize that we might be armed is foolish. Better to make it clear upfront what assaulting a law-abiding citizen entails.
Click to expand...
Not exactly.  In this article Lott mostly talks about citizen CC preventing mass shootings better that uniformed armed police/security.  He claims he can prove it and I think we can all agree on that.  He presents us with the opinion that CC would prevent mass shootings better than OC but doesn't claim he can prove it. 

In his book he statistically links higher rates of CC licenses to lower rates of various crimes.  He also states his opinion that low rates of CC would reduce crime rates for the entire population better than low rates of OC.  His assertion being that criminals, though not rocket scientists, will attempt to reduce risk.  He says OC hugely increases the perceived risk of a single potential victim causing the criminal to find another victim.  But, an increase in CC somewhat increases the perceived risk of all potential victims causing the criminal to switch jurisdictons or choose less confrontational crimes.  IIRC he doesn't claim he can prove this theory statistically. 

It seems that the great thing about OC is also the problem with OC.  It is by it's nature unregulated.  Some places have ownership permits, or generalized carry permits, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has a permit specifically for OC.  So, while John Lott can get CC permit numbers, do a big pile of math and say that increased rates of CC decrease rates of various crimes by a specific amount, I don't think anybody can find OC rates for enough places for them to be able to do that sort of hard scientific statistical analysis on OC.
Click to expand...
I just don't follow Lott's logic here. I don't see how the possibility of CC is a deterrent, yet a criminal who was just deterred by the reality of OC is going to move right on to the next victim. Do you see how little sense this makes? Criminals aren't good at abstract analysis, but they do understand simple things like visible guns.

The CC bias is evident in his work. Sorry you all can't see it.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Gordie wrote:
Any one who has read one of John Lott's books know that he doesn't make the data fit the conclusion.  He collects the data and lets the conclusion come on it's own.  This is why no peer review has been able to discredit his findings.
Click to expand...
Fitting data to a conclusion doesn't necessarily yield invalid data, and it can be very hard to disprove if the data is valid. That doesn't mean Lott is right about OC/CC. I think facts will show that he is wrong, although it will be through a preponderance of new data rather than Lott's old data having been wrong in any way. It's the difference between incorrect data and incomplete data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top