Mexico has strict gun laws where only wealthy people who can afford bodyguards, politicians, marksman, military, and police are allowed to legally own firearms. Obviously the criminals can get them also as you experienced. This leaves the average public open to such horrible things. Imagine this happened in Texas or Wyoming or even Alaska. Do you think that anyone would be that stupid to run into a place where many people would have a concealed cary weapon and if they did do you think he would have made it out with the money? Think about this the next time you hear people talk about putting more laws on the books to stop people from carrying weapons for personal protection.
That’s nuts - no one does a robbery in those places unless they’re armed.
The CDC tracks firearm mortality.
You’ll notice that in the three states you mentioned- Texas (12.1 deaths/100,000 residents), Wyoming (17.4 deaths/ 100,000 residents) and Alaska (23.3 deaths/100,000 residents), firearm mortality is significantly higher than it is in states like Massachusetts (3.4 deaths/100,000 residents), where the gun laws are very restrictive.
Obviously, not all of those deaths are related to muggings, and some of them are the result of suicide. But does that data really suggest that more armed people equates with less gun crime?
ETA that Alaska is a particularly poor example since it has the highest rate of firearm mortality in the country.
Edited again to correct the scaling in the mortality rates I quoted.
This is the result of suicides and gun accidents. All you need to do is look up armed robbery rates by state to see how well gun control works in solving this particular problem. If you want to live in a world where only the wealthy and criminals have guns that is certainly your choice, I personally think it is not a choice I would make. I would take the ability to protect myself over “group hugs” every time.
From the data that you linked, Texas(114 robberies/100,000) and Alaska (128.5/100,000) still fair worse than Massachusetts (71/100,000). To be fair, Wyoming looks pretty good (13.1/100,000), but I think you might want to retool you’re argument.
@gracchus is right. If you want to keep debating this, ask the mods to fork it into a separate topic.
The other option, practiced by many countries around the world, is to restrict gun ownership to no one, where both gun violence and incidents of gun accidents and suicide by firearm are significantly lower than countries with weapons freely proliferated.
How do “Gun accidents” and “ease of suicide by firearm” not count as reasons to not allow firearms to proliferate? Do those people just not mean as much in your calculations somehow?
I know a few people who would likely be dead today if our firearm laws were as awful as the American ones.
I know more than few people who actually are dead, because of the lax laws here and the relative ease of obtaining a firearm.
To each their own. Firearm mortality tracks closely with rates of gun ownership. I would rather be robbed than dead.
Not to worry, no one here wants to hug you.
And, frankly, I’d rather be robbed than kill someone to prevent it.
Welcome to BoingBoing!
We don’t have to imagine. Armed robberies take place in those states all the time. It’s not an especially common crime in Wyoming but that’s mostly a function of population density: it’s hard to get away with sticking up a diner when everyone in town already knows you.
It seems that almost all the arguments in favor of universal gun ownership depend on long-disproven theories about how gun ownership SHOULD discourage crime instead of data about how gun ownership ACTUALLY relates to crime.
Or even shoot someone without killing. Not worth the maybe 200 euros I’d lose if someone stole my wallet and phone. The emotional scarring is a gift that keeps on giving.
It’s easy to believe that if someone threatened you and you were armed, you’d draw and fire without hesitation. But I’ve been mugged and I can attest that in the moment with the adrenaline flowing it was next to impossible to think clearly. The world narrowed to a single narrow path that led the fuck away from where I was. I wasn’t thinking about drawing a weapon (I had a pocket knife) or fighting back, I was thinking about getting the hell out of there.
Does that make me less of a manly man?
Well so be it.
And course in real life by the time the robbery starts it’s already too late to get the draw on the other guy. If anything reaching for a concealed weapon could well be the very thing that gets you shot.
An excellent point.
I don’t endorse the idea of having guns in the home for self defense, but I am largely untroubled by the logic that leads others down that road.
Not so with the concealed carry fantabulists; they walk around in little bubbles of dream time, cocked, locked, ready to rock and waiting for malfeasance to rear its ugly head so they can transform into Charles Bronson and save the day.
I don’t want those assholes anywhere near me. My state has strict laws regarding who can have a gun and where they can keep it, and those laws have been instrumental in preserving one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the country. Concealed Carry Reciprocity? No thank you.
Yup. An armed society is a dangerous society.
Here’s an interesting looking book:
In 1996 Australia had a terrible mass shooting. Australia had a large and thriving gun culture with permissive gun laws.
They decided that only people like cops, and those who can demonstrate a legitimate need could own firearms, and there was a big buyback program.
There hasn’t been another mass shooting in 22 years since then.
Maybe you’re just making a stupid loaded comparison.
Perhaps the real panacea is near universal disarmament. Because it seems to have fucking worked in Australia.
I guess it depends on how “mass shooting” is defined. How about Osmington, May 2018? Lockhart, September 2014? Hectorville 2011? Monash University October 2002? Adelade, October 1999?
There are not many, but that is not the same as “hasn’t been another” since 1996.