LucasMcCain wrote:Obviously I was joking, but your reply does bring up another interesting point. If the carrying population was a "large-ish" percentage of the total, I don't think you'd see very many 30.06 locations left. Once a "large-ish" percentage of the population stops giving you business, you either recognize it and take the signs down or you go out of business.sbrawley wrote:Nah, they'll just start focusing on 30.06 locations.LucasMcCain wrote:I think there was a thread on here somewhere about what happened to the crime map in some city in Florida when the NRA convention came to town. Massive decrease in crime because even the criminals had enough sense to realize they stood a much better chance of encountering armed resistance that week. If there were so many armed people in Texas that criminals knew they stood a very good chance of getting shot if they tried anything, well, um, I don't know, they'd all move to California?
These two posts really do kind of tie all of the other posts together well. And I suspect that this could well be how it played out. Over time, by word of mouth or some college grad kid's study, etc the general population would start figuring out where the fewest robberies were happening. Some reporter would finally, begrudgingly, do a news article about it and 30.06 signs would start dropping when even the non-gun folks started to go to locations that were safer.
I appreciate everyone's comments. At the macro level, it would be kind of cool to hear someone say in the future "I don't carry anymore, I just go to non-posted restaurants because they simply aren't robbed anymore." Granted we'd still want them to carry, but it would be nice if we as LTCs had the numbers to statistically drive the bad guys to more susceptible climates and away from non-posted locations.
As I said, thanks everyone. All good stuff.
