this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
350 points (96.1% liked)

News

23332 readers
4808 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A US appeals court Saturday paved the way for a California law banning the concealed carry of firearms in “sensitive places” to go into effect January 1, despite a federal judge’s ruling that it is “repugnant to the Second Amendment.”

The law – Senate Bill 2 – had been blocked last week by an injunction from District Judge Cormac Carney, but a three-judge panel filed an order Saturday temporarily blocking that injunction, clearing the path for the law to take effect.

The court issued an administrative stay, meaning the appeals judges did not consider the merits of the case, but delayed the judge’s order to give the court more time to consider the arguments of both sides. “In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of these appeals in any way,” the judges wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A gun person might say open carry can also make you a target.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Then guns are definitely not a deterrent.

There is no such thing as a deterrent that deters people who don't know about its existence, and if you're a target by openly carrying the thing you call a deterrent, that doesn't deter people either.

So maybe the argument that guns are a deterrent should be dropped by the people who want to carry their gun concealed about their person.

[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, I believe the idea is that if you are wanting to start something and you know people are definitely carrying, but you don’t know who or how many is the deterrent.

I am not here to convince you.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

"I don't know if someone around me has a gun" doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent so far since that's the status quo regardless of the legality.

[–] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Let me start by saying I appreciate this hasn’t devolved and does seem to be a civil discussion.

The idea is most citizens are law abiding and if it is illegal to conceal carry or barred by the establishment to carry then only three types of people would be a threat to someone who intends to cause violence. First a law enforcement officer, second another person intended to break the law with a weapon and last would be an individual with the attitude’rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6’. The possibility of those types being in the vicinity is much lower than when everyone can be capable of self defense with a firearm.

There are many more nuances involved: does the person carrying have training? Can the person carrying be more of a danger than the danger their presence prevents? Is the criminal logical/smart enough to know and understand that there is a risk of an armed populace when they enact their crimes? And many more variables that can be put into play that aren’t part of this discussion.

Thanks for reading.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can understand your points here, but I still don't understand, and maybe it's just me, how not knowing who around has a gun makes everyone safer than knowing that you have armed people around in case there's a problem.

Like someone else said, everyone they know conceals as a deterrent from mugging. I'm no mugger, but I know I'd be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying a gun.

I'd like to see some actual hard data that having legal concealed weapons actually makes people safer than having them out in the open.

[–] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying

Sure, but if you were a mass shooter you'd take out the guy with a holster on his hip first.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm putting too much thought into this, but if I were a mass shooter, I would avoid shooting up the place where I saw someone with a gun in a holster.

[–] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Especially if you knew there was a damn good chance others were carrying that you couldn't see, too.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not what I'm saying.

Let's say I'm a mass shooter. I'm going to kill as many people as I can before I'm taken out. I know I'm going to die either way.

Scenario 1: I walk into a mall and I'm going to start shooting, but I see a guy with a gun and I go somewhere else where I know I'll get a chance to kill more people.

Scenario 2: I walk into a mall and I only suspect someone might have a gun, so I start shooting in the hopes that no one does.

Anyway, there are still mass shootings in states where people can have concealed weapons, so it's not like that is proof they are a deterrent either.

Also, I wish people wouldn't just angrily downvote my comments rather than talk to me when I am trying to be as reasonable and non-confrontational about this as I can. Especially when I have admitted that maybe I'm just not understanding this.

I appreciate the discourse I am having with you.

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Mass shootings happen in "gun free" zones. Legally carried guns are for the immediate defense of life. It isn't complicated.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

This is about concealed vs. open carry. No one is talking about not allowing guns at all.

[–] fsr1967@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I agree. Nukes only work as a deterrent (for example) because the countries that have them "open carry" them. A concealed-program nuke is only good for after the fact revenge on a country that attacks you or an ally/neighbor. Just like a gun.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/does-allowing-law-abiding-citizens-carry-concealed-handguns-save

The study used FBI annual cross-sectional time-series county crime data for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. Although many recent crime studies have used proxies for deterrence, such as police expenditures or general levels of imprisonment, this study used arrest rates by type of crime, and also, for a subset of data, conviction rates and sentence lengths by type of crime. The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of "shall issue" right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I already gave you my issue with this link you gave and its author. Why do you think pasting it a second time will change what I said?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Two different responses, for two different questions you had asked.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

Okay, and your response to my issues with what you have provided are what? Because, again, that doesn't actually show me the paper, and the author has used questionable figures and methodology in the past.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims.

Unless they have a gun themselves, of course.