What are the needs for concealed carry at Apple? For some reason this reminds me of Apple’s security team attempting to recover (by force) the lost iPhone 4.
That is simply not true. There is no need for concealed carry in France nor UK, for example.
Even the Wikipedia article on the topic lists numerous scientific studies showing that the effectiveness of concealed carry varies in place and time, and that there is almost no link between concealed carry and lower crime rates : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_Unite...
Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the government currently grants licenses to carry a concealed handgun there despite having highly restrictive laws elsewhere in the country. I highly doubt this would be the case if there wasn't a strong recognized need.
I'll offer a counter-example to your claim that CCW is needed every single place on earth: my home.
I don't have a gun. If someone comes in to my home with a gun, even if they are a "good guy", the odds of my dying by gunshot would instantly go up by a large multiple.
In comparison, the odds that I'm going to suffer a home invasion, that I would have been shot without the friendly gun owner, and that person successfully prevents it is vanishingly small.
I realize that not everybody lives where that calculation comes out that way, but to claim it CCW makes sense everywhere is unsupportable.
> another's particular distaste for self-preservation.
15155, I'm sure you are a smart person, but stop for a second and really inspect what you have done here. It is obvious to me you are not making a reasoned argument, but an emotional one, but think it is reasoned.
I spelled out clearly a situation where someone entering my home with a gun increases my chance of injury or death. Your retort is to claim I have a distaste for self-preservation. You didn't apparently think about what my claim was or counter with an argument why my logical deduction was wrong, but instead just assumed I don't want to avoid death or injury.
So let me break it down. I live in a safe neighborhood. I don't have a gun. If you, a good guy with a gun, entered my home at my invitation, did my chances of injury or death just go up or down? I'm not claiming it is a significant chance, just that it a large multiple of an already minuscule probability.
You never know... what? I'm a 2A supporter and a hunter, but I simply don't understand this kind of reasoning for why you need to concealed carry. The chance of you ever being in a position where having a firearm on you in public will make things better rather than worse is so ridiculously small that it just reeks of irrational fear. If you're that afraid of whatever situations you're imagining, how do you ever get in a car when your chance of getting injured or killed in one is astronomically higher?
That said, California's constant fight against 2A with absolutely idiotic rules needs to die.
I’ve never had a fire in my kitchen, but I still keep a fire extinguisher. I’ve never had cancer, but I still have medical insurance.
The marginal cost of carrying a gun is basically zero. If I ever do find myself in a situation where I need it, I’ll be glad to have it. And even if I don’t, the fact that random anonymous law-abiding citizens have guns is itself a crime deterrent.
No, it isn't. The stats for gun deaths in the US make this absolutely, unambiguously clear, far beyond the point where there's any realistic case for debate about it.
Widespread fire extinguisher use dramatically lowers the odds of you dying in a fire.
Widespread gun use - not just the presence of guns as an option, but the assumption that guns can be used on the street - dramatically increases the odds of you dying because of someone else's gun.
Proponents always seem to reduce this to an imaginary heroic encounter where Random Shooter is stopped by Heroic Armed Citizens.
That's almost never how it works in practice on the street. It's far more likely that Random Citizen is shot before they can even get their weapon out. And even if bystanders are armed they either won't have time to do anything to prevent a shooting, or they won't risk trying to shoot one of two people who are fairly close together at some range, or they'll simply decide it's not their problem and the most they'll do is call the police after it's over.
At this point someone usually says "But this one time..." And it's true there are exceptions.
But they don't change the statistics, which are completely clear - more gun use means more random gun deaths, partly because concealed guns really aren't particularly useful against attackers who already have their weapons out.
You have a far better chance of survival if you learn some distraction and confusion techniques and/or fast self-defence moves than by trying to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at you at close range.
There's a correlation because people who live in dangerous places tend to carry guns. But that's not causation--there's no reason to suspect that carrying a gun increases my chances of being killed by a gun.
Huh? Surely carrying a gun somewhere where there are no other guns immensely increased the chance that you’ll be killed by a gun, since the number of guns in the vicinity went from zero to one.
It does, yes. The majority of firearm deaths in the US are suicides, and the majority of suicides are committed with a firearm. The suicide rate is several times higher among men who own guns or regularly handle guns than it is among men who do not. It's clear that gun ownership has a high propensity to convert a survivable mental health crisis into a suicide. A US adult (but especially a man) who owns a gun is far more likely over their lifetime to use the gun on themself than they are to use it to defend themself.
Yes, I suppose it necessarily does, although I was referring more to the chance that in a struggle (perhaps an attempted robbery) your gun accidentally or intentionally discharges.
Kitchen fires are very common, as is cancer (not to mention the slew of other issues that require medical attention). Being in a situation where having a concealed gun in public will help anything is not. You haven't addressed any part of the argument here...
edit: also, there is no conclusive evidence at all to support your last statement [1].
I don't think the need is at Apple, but rather, for personal bodyguards to the CEO. This appears to be the reason Facebook was involved in the same scheme.
On apples campus he probably would be allowed to carry just by the business itself, similar to a bank security guard. Off campus is where the permit would be used to carry. They wanted to carry it anywhere in the state where it is permitted for CCW holders, so that's the probably reason they applied. It also allows you to buy a gun without a waiting period (I know this is the case for cops).
The only way to be exempt from a waiting period is to become a LEO or by getting certain categories of FFL (federal firearms license, which can come with a lot of stipulations).
At one point there was a court ruling saying that the waiting period was unconstitutional for people who already owned guns or had CCWs, but it was appealed
I mean, you said why not yourself. There's a lot that goes into being a bodyguard that makes it quite different from allowing random employees to carry.
I think this is a cultural thing that causes people in other places to worry too much about concealed firearms. I'm from Texas, where it's generally understood that there is a very good chance that any given person is carrying. Not just Joe Tough Guy either, there are plenty of old ladies with .25 ACPs in their handbags. People don't see it as scary or abnormal the same way other places do; it's just a tool that many people carry. I've only ever seen one incident where someone got stupid with a concealed handgun, and that guy was clearly a moron and had been drinking quite a bit. "Random people" carrying isn't really an issue. And because they're not seen as an exceptional or evil scary thing, most people are less-likely to abuse them, at least from what I've seen.
At the end of the day, Texas, however you may feel living there/being from there, has a higher per capita firearm death rate than several large states with stricter gun laws and many countries with stricter gun laws, and I personally believe those things to be related.
The data are from 2015, but DC is highest by far, even with its very strict gun laws. Note that California is higher than Texas despite horribly restrictive gun laws.
My point was more that people are less likely to abuse them as some exceptional item, at least as far as I've seen. Criminals will always use them; I was more talking about the likelihood of someone to draw a gun in a tense situation, which I can't measure. But people who view them as tools and know how to use them understand that one ought not to draw a gun unless he intends to use it.
All that aside, I don't support gun rights because rates of certain crimes are below some number. We would call it silly to support a right to privacy only insofar as terrorism does not exceed a certain threshold and to say that such a right disappears. In the same way, I don't believe crime rate should have any effect on our right to keep and bear arms.
I know there are areas with higher gun murder rates than TX. DC is a slightly unfair comparison, as you're comparing a city to a state. CA is not significantly higher than TX.
Your general point- which really seemed to be "knowing that everyone is armed in TX results in less gun violence", is easily disproven by other states with totally different laws having similar or lower gun violence rates.
To your last line- I agree with you, I don't believe crime rate should have any effect on our right to keep and bear arms. I want a complete repeal of the Second Amendment, though.
So, um...what are the statistics for Texas, which is the state being talked about?
It's all very well to mention that other states have some firearm homicides each year, but if you don't provide Texas' stats to compare to, it's not especially germane to the topic at hand...
The reason I pointed out the other states was to show that the looser gun laws of Texas is not necessarily the cause of higher firearm homicide rate. The other states have looser firearm laws than Texas (not in all respects).
I do not think it is the cause. My point is that the laws on the books and the firearm homicide rate seem fairly loosely coupled, if at all. If TX has loose laws, and CA has strict laws, and they're about the same with regards to firearm homicide rate, I think it is fair to suggest that the original poster's suggestion that "knowing every person could be armed actually reduces issues" may be faulty.
I used to work for a company that fielded body guards as one of their many services. Basically just have a pulse, don't have a criminal history, pass a fairly trivial interview that's designed to filter out people who think they're gonna be billy-badass or that it's gonna be an exiting job. There's a reason it doesn't pay well. Almost anyone can do it.
Driving a floor polisher was more lucrative and sucked less so I did that.
