Data shows that visible guns makes people more aggressive, so it’s a logical next step to believe that open carry makes it more likely that disagreements will turn into violent conflicts.
Shannon Watts
Founder of Moms Demand Action
September 1, 2021
TEXANS CAN NOW OPENLY CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC WITHOUT A PERMIT OR TRAINING. POLICE SAY THE NEW LAW MAKES IT HARDER TO DO THEIR JOBS
[Interesting. I wonder what invisible guns make people do.
Watts knows open carry does not make it more likely that disagreements will turn violent. She is planting the idea in a effort to persuade the public it is acceptable to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And, of course, she completely ignores the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
I would also bet that any data she has indicating “visible guns makes people more aggressive” is the result of cherry picking the data and probably presuming causality and ignoring other factors which account for any change in perceived aggressiveness.
I’m not sure. I know that seeing a gun makes many explode and phone Plod ranting and raving. Maybe that is the aggression she means.
She’s on what, husband number four, or is it five?
Guns carried openly by whom? Might there be some dangerous people that when their open carry is noted by others they decide that the safest approach is a lethal preemptive strike? Certainly that is how the gangsters view guns openly carried by the gang members of competing gangs.
She’s actually correct. Kind of. If you were in a herd of Mom’s demanding. You would get an aggressive reaction for open carry. (But that has nothing to do with the rest of the world.)
So in her bubble the data is clear.
And just like all commie mommies. What little goes through their fat head is all that matters. How dare you contradict mommy!
I mean, if Bloomberg picked you out of the crowd, and paid you to be that ignorant. The over blown ego just comes with the territory.
This is what happens when 75 I.Q. meats, (yes, I spelled that correctly), up with a masters degree in self-esteem.
And speaking of low I.Q’s and gun control. Did anyone else notice that Biden is going to rejoin the UN treaty on small arms trade. At the same time he just gave Obama’s Taliban friends 90 billion worth of weapons and cash?
Just as anyone shot is a “victim” – regardless of whether they were in the midst of committing a crime, I could see where “visible guns” could easily be associated with increased aggression. If you can count 24-year old gangbangers as “children”, wouldn’t US infantrymen deployed to combat zones be considered aggressive individuals with visible guns?
Hmm, so police are inciting violence by the mere open carrying of guns. In the minds of leftists, the pope, and common criminals, that probably actually makes sense.
It’s important to understand the position, or mindset, which dictates and informs their reasoning. The presence of police, or of anyone else who might stand in the way of crime and criminals, in the mind of the criminal (including politicians, or anyone who subscribes to the popular, redistributionist, top down, centrally planned, authoritarian world view) is indeed an agitating force. The criminals wouldn’t need to be violent if we’d all simply stop resisting! They’re going to rob and kill you and burn down your shops, one way or another, so they may as well be allowed to do it peacefully, you see?
Thus, indeed and in truth, the visible presence of guns, which represent the recognition and defense of life and property, is an agitating influence in a world where the rights to life and property have been declared null and void. And so the message is, “Just submit and there won’t be any need for additional violence!”
You’re simply not “getting it” if you think there‘s virtue in defending life and property, you see. You’re not realizing who is in charge here, and that makes you the idiot who can’t see what’s directly in front of him.
And so, what may seem to us to be pure insanity, extreme stupidity or even actual, severe brain damage, is in fact perfectly reasonable from the criminal point of view. It is actually logical, sensible and even practical, if one assumes that the criminal syndicate of this world constitutes the supreme and inevitable authority.
And so it all depends on the foundational mindset from which a person discerns, perceives, interprets and understands the world. As I’ve put it many times, it’s all about one’s allegiance, and that allegiance dictates one’s perceptions and understanding. Neither side can afford to tolerate even the mere presence of the other, by the way, for one mindset is a deadly poison to the other, and therefore continued mass killing would seem to be inevitable.
The two sides are of course defined by Lucifer in one corner of the proverbial boxing ring and Christ in the other. The winner has already been decided (2K years ago), and so it’s now only a matter of how many lives are to be saved or lost before it’s over (before the close of probation).
“The criminals wouldn’t need to be violent if we’d all simply stop resisting!”
And that abusive husband wouldn’t need to beat his wife if she’d just make the damn sandwich!
[/sarcasm]
Since it seems on-point, I’ll just drop this quote here:
“For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” — Jeffrey R. Snyder
Somebody watched too many TV Westerns when they were young.
Bad Guy, ” Let’s settle this now”. Man in black man wearing two revolvers.
Dude, ” I’m not heeled’. Easterner, farmer, shop keeper or sheep herder.
Bad Guy, “You should be! Bang!”
Stay heeled my friend!
“No need to go heeled to get the bulge on a tub like you.”
“Data shows that visible guns makes people more aggressive, …” — I observe that she does not bother to cite any sources for that data. The unavoidable conclusion is that it is a fiction she just pulled out of her anatomy.
That was my first thought, too. “What data? Citation needed.”
And as pointed out everywhere, “The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,'” so she’ll need more than one or two examples.
When we needed a number in Cost Estimating for proposals, we called the source for such numbers, PIDOOMA; “Pulled It Directly Out Of My Anatomy.” And we were more specific about what orifice we were referring to.
I might have read whatever “study” she thinks supports her claim. It also has a lament from the author that the observations were the opposite of that very premise. Shannon must have stopped reading after the hypothesis, fully content that it was comprehensive and does not end with “more studies are needed”.
Maybe we’re thinking of the same study, but I remember one where the hypothesis to be tested was that more guns and looser gun laws cause more crime. (I regret I don’t have a citation for it at the moment.)
Then the authors dug into the data on gun ownership and crime statistics, and — to the authors’ credit — had the academic integrity to conclude that not only does the data NOT support that hypothesis, but there’s a weak correlation going the opposite way, showing that more gun ownership and looser gun laws correlate with LESS crime.
We all know, “Correlation does not imply causation,” but the extension of that is, “Causation cannot happen without correlation.” It’s premature to conclude that more gun ownership and looser gun laws cause reduced crime without more multivariate data. But the data completely rule out that more guns causes more crime; there’s no positive correlation there, so there cannot be causation.
If Shannon Watts read the opening paragraphs to that study, she might mistakenly think the conclusion said something other than what the authors actually wrote.
Then again, when someone who is honestly mistaken is corrected, one of two things will happen: They will either cease to be mistaken, or cease to be honest. Shannon has been in this game long enough to have been corrected, multiple times. And yet, she’s still spouting the same B.S.
She has not ceased to be mistaken; therefore, she has ceased to be honest (if she ever was, which was already in doubt).
I do have as signed copy of John Lott’s More Gun, Less Crime if Shannon needs reference material.
That ties to the current question, actually. Lott is an actual scientist, because he makes his raw data available to others. The intent, of course, is to allow others to check that his work is accurate.
What happened at some point, as he described in an appendix to the second edition of his book (if I remember right) is that some fake scientists, from CMU (?) took his data and deleted 85% of it, including some whole states, and used the remaining 15% to “prove” the opposite of what Lott had demonstrated. In other words, if you carefully select the “right” 1/7th of the data, then yes, more guns DO cause more crime.
Nice guys. So perhaps that bit of creative fiction is what Shannon was using.
The Bellesiles Gambit? When in doubt, make it all up.
Of course visible guns cause crime and aggression! Every aggressive criminal in the courts system was apprehended by a police office who openly carries a gun!
Haven’t you ever seen a gun and spontaneously broken out into uncontrollable paroxysms of rage? No? Well then you’re clearly insane, and part of the problem, and must be stopped for the children. How can anyone be so cruel and cold hearted?
I always open carried when shopping in North Carolina. Nobody cared. Did not even need a Permit. Now that I can Open Carry in SC with my CWP, same thing, nobody seems to notice or care. But I still conceal when shopping at Wally World since they hate us gun owners.
You shop at places that hate you?
That reminds me, I gotta move out of this Blue state that is full of REDS, and to a Red state that is full of True Blue Americans.
Notice the answer was not to allow constitutional concealed carry?
If open carry sets people off. Then why not just allow them to put it under their clothes without restriction? Problem solved, right?
Ya, ain’t holding my breath waiting for Bloomberg’s commie mommies to back that either.
Has Lying Watts ever been asked to provid PROOF of this assertion?
She’s on crack or just insane! When will “O’Biden” give her and other Terrorists after our 2A protections of the Right to Own and Bear Arms, licenses to be their own ant2A Gestapo…after Chipman is made Gun Czar?