this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
91 points (98.9% liked)

Seattle

1598 readers
156 users here now

A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder what the concern is now though? Has there been a problem I'm not aware of?

[–] Lost_My_Mind 13 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at 1/10th the rate of the general public. If you want to stop gun crimes, you would be more successful by prohibiting everyone except concealed carriers.

[–] MothmanDelorian 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Concealed carriers have a lower rate of criminality because of how selective the process is to get that license. As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates getting that license and thus spiking that number.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

As that becomes easier to get we will see less ideal candidates

Where are you getting the idea that Oregon's concealed carry laws are loosening to allow "less ideal" candidates?

Oregon went to a minimally-restrictive "Shall Issue" licensing model back in 1989. "Shall Issue" means that the state imposes no discretionary limits; anyone who has not been explicitly prohibited from owning a gun will receive a license upon request.

And yet, licensed concealed carriers still have a lower rate of criminality than the general population.

The reason, of course, is because of the background check: The "general population" includes convicted felons, whose predilection for violent crime is so high it skews the statistics for the general public. Licensed concealed carriers exclude this group of perpetrators, so their "normal" numbers seem extraordinarily low.

[–] MothmanDelorian 1 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

Oregon specifically? I don’t have any bit nationally it will absolutely without question get worse. Right now concealed carry is neigh impossible for anyone in NYC or NJ. If you aren’t LEO you will not have one right now, but the expectation is that will change and as we get more untrained and less ideal people carrying we should see an increase in crimes committed by people with cc permits.

My warning is more about how I wouldn’t rely on old data anymore because the pool of people who can carry concealed has massively increased.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 25 minutes ago

If you aren’t LEO

LEO total crime rate is only half that of general public, and five times that of concealed carriers. For certain acts (domestic violence) they are twice as likely to commit violent crime as the general public.

Opening up NYCs and NJs concealed carry from "LEO-Only" to "Shall Issue" (Meaning: "Background checked members of the general public") would improve the rates among concealed carriers in general.

[–] brygphilomena 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't that the default state? Prohibited concealed carriers except those permitted?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm saying that if we are going to try to increase safety by banning people from public buildings and parks on the basis of whether they are carrying a gun, it would be statistically safer to ban non-carriers than carriers.

I'm not suggesting that we actually do this, of course.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago

Agreed.

The people who apply for permits are the ones who'll obey the law.

I guess that means that permits are not an effective deterrent and that we should just ban guns altogether.