Truth about guns concealed

Posted by stargeezer 10 years, 2 months ago to Government
96 comments | Share | Flag

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Those in favor of ever more expansive and restrictive gun control measures have emotion on their side. But with each tragic incident that takes place in yet another “gun-free zone,” it becomes more apparent that gun restrictions aren’t working as proponents would like.

The majority of the national media are all in on the bans and limitations already in place or being proposed, and that overwhelming narrative tends to crush anybody who points out the benefits of gun rights policies such as concealed carry. The mainstream media almost never report on research that challenges the approved narrative, which explains why a comprehensive study by Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius has hardly seen the light of day since being released Nov. 26. As reported by http://Reason.com on Dec. 23, Mr. Gius’ study — titled “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” — covered a period of 29 years and compiled data from all 50 states. It was published in the journal Applied Economics Letters.

“The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.”
And what about so-called assault weapons?

“It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level,” Mr. Gius noted.

Nobody is advocating to let just anybody carry a concealed weapon. Those who obtain concealed-carry permits — those who undergo extensive training and background checks — tend to be responsible, law-abiding people. Criminals don’t have those traits, and no amount of lawmaking will instill those traits in them. As Mr. Gius summarized, “These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.”

The study results also highlight the advantages of concealed carry. Knowing that any person at any time could be carrying, to defend themselves or others, can act as a deterrent to those with bad intentions. Rolling back overly restrictive gun laws or, better yet, introducing legislation that supports concealed-carry rights, would do far more to protect citizens than creating more gun-free zones or expanding restrictions on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
SOURCE URL: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-truth-about-guns-concealed


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 10 years, 2 months ago
    The writer inadvertently stumbles into the truth that liberals are driven by emotion rather than data.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
      Actually, although accused of being a liberal, I'm driven by data and studies of those like Kleck.

      "In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991).[23] He has testified before Congress and state legislatures on gun control proposals. His research was cited in the Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[24]"

      From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -2
        Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
        Can't even accept agreement.

        Sheesh, what a bunch of radicals.

        It appears that unless the party line is toed that some just are going to be intolerant.

        Thanks for proving my point.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago
    If gun free zones worked as intended, then there would be no sandy hook, no columbine, no gun violence in these gun free zones. Where responsible non criminal adults are allowed to posess firearms, there are, strangely enough, less death due to an armed criminal. Of course, when you demand your citizenry, indeed, yourself, to be victims, the thought of defending ones self is reprehensable. So you must legislate zones where people can be victimized, by allowing the criminals a free pass to commit crimes without fear of retribution or being defended against... by keeping legally responsible peoplefrom defending themseves with firearms. They should change the names of them fro Gun Free Zones to Free Pass zones... except that would be honest, something the rotters abhorr...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
      It's the responsibility of those who carry to within the law make absolutely sure the perp is not able to move onto the next victim.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 2 months ago
    Good article Star. The left has already decided to ignore all the facts so I guess it will do little good. Shameful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
      Actually there are many on the left who like firearms.

      Check out: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Li...

      Generalizations generally aren't true when the facts come out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WillH 10 years, 2 months ago
        I am going to break my rule to ignore you and actually reply. There may be many on the left that “like” firearms, but they are people who make that one exception to their otherwise destructive philosophy. Furthermore the exception they make generally tends to apply to themselves only, as in the case of the permit to carry that Feinstein eventually gave up to help with her political position, meanwhile being married to a war profiteer the whole time. These “left wing gun people” are in no way friends to the firearms community. They do not help the cause, and don’t even make sense. It’s like a Republican wanting bigger government or more entitlements. It simply does not work.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -2
          Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
          Can't even allow agreement from the other side without contaminating it.

          Clue: Absolutism never works.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WillH 10 years, 2 months ago
            The absolutism of right and wrong always works. You are either right or you are wrong. That is all, the only choices available. No, I do not allow for agreement from liberal democrats when their clear objective is the destruction of my society. 150 years ago democrats sought to keep an entire race of people in chains. Almost 60 years ago they held a 60 working day filibuster against the civil rights bill. 50 years ago they spit on soldiers returning from war. Now they seek to enslave people anew by making them dependent upon the government for everything. Nothing has changed about democrats for 200 years, except for their tactics. I accept no agreement with them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -2
              Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
              I'm sure many dictators and despots will agree with you.

              Meanwhile I support choice for all. Choice in weapons, choice in marriage, choice in recreational drugs, choice in associating with others to increase my worth, choice in end of life issues...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ WillH 10 years, 2 months ago
                I stand corrected once again. I temporarily had forgotten why people ignore you. Oh well, the last word in this is yours to have. I am not going to convince you with provable facts, dates and reasons. Meanwhile your insinuations that I am somehow anti-freedom, like a despot or dictator are nothing more to me than a fart in the wind.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
                  America is about taking care of our own. I find it sad that so many have forgotten that and run to extremism.

                  You are free to live in your bubble. America works that way.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JBW 10 years, 2 months ago
    I don't know where the Economist got his numbers but a number of senior Police Chiefs are finding that where people are free to carry guns the murder rate is falling at an accelerating rate!

    My question is how can an Objectivist advocate laws that prohibit owning, or buying, or selling assualts weapons and other weapons of war to civilians? Is such a law not inconsistant with our demand for freedom from laws?

    Jim Wright
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
      Hi Jim, nice to meet you.

      I'm not too sure where you see any objectivist is advocating laws that prohibit owning, or buying, or selling assualts weapons and other weapons of war to civilians? It seems to me that the article reads quite the opposite. I know I personally do not. I think any law abiding person should be able to buy whatever they can afford. The more the merrier.

      As for the police chiefs finding that concealed carry cities are much safer, that's well documented. In fact, last night I was reading that the Chief of police in Detroit - yes Detroit is now advocating for increased gun ownership and concealed carry.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JBW 10 years, 2 months ago
        Star geezer: Quoting you "any law abiding citizen should be able to buy whatever they can afford.", it is not the law abiding that I am concerned with, it is the criminals. Should they be able to buy an assualt weapon, or a bazooka, or other weapons of war?

        Yaron Brook, of the Ayn Rand Institute, in a speech was answering just that question, said that he would favor banning assualt weapons. (I can't find the speech but think it was in 2012,)

        My major concern is that for us as followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy to be able to clean up our government we'll have to have a majority of Congress, a seemingly impossible task. Our enemy is firmly in control. Just re-read the Amendments to our Constitutions. What are they but a series of laws, laws and more law?

        We've passed the point of no return. We are heading towards a socialist totalitarian state.

        Tell me where I'm wrong.

        Jim Wright


        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
          BTW - There are zero accounts of ANY criminal ever using a Bazooka or Grenade Launcher in any crime. Zip, nada, none, zero. So give up the strawman JBW, I've got a box of matches.

          As for Yaron Brook, sorry but I wasn't aware that being a member of the Ayn Rand Inst. made one celestially inspired and infallible. If the account is accurate, he is just wrong.

          Next
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 2 months ago
          Two points: The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) are laws that restrict the government, not the citizens.
          Second point: History has clearly shown that the more armed the citizens are, the less crimes are committed. So, on what data do you base the claim that "assault" weapons should be banned? Or is it just based on feelings?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 2 months ago
          If Yaron said that then he's a fool. And disappointing. (And ALL weapons are "assault" weapons...that's the whole point..can't defend yourself with a non assault weapon, or I'd be stocking up on bananas and pillows.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
            they're DC/NY trained.
            was it in here I learned how they domesticated hogs(not comparing YB to one-just the the concept of training).
            here's the recipe: get the truffles going. when the pigs aren't looking, start with one section of fence, then slowly add on sections. wehen you get down to the gate part-they are super suspicious-you might have to sweeten the pot. so now you wait the longest before you act. they get used to traveling through that one point with no fear. then you close the gate when they're in there.
            now you starve them.
            feed them little by little until they do what you want.
            add pepper, they're naturally salty
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JBW 10 years, 2 months ago
              If you consider yourself an Objectivist you must have carefully read the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

              Then, before criticizing Yaron Brook you should read some of his books and listen to a number of his speeches. Only then can you determine whether or not he is a fool.

              If you're making you judgement based on hearsay, or gossip, who is the fool?

              The 2nd Amendment said that "we have the right to bear arms". I suggest that the "arms" our forefathers had in mind were rifles or handguns, which are for personal protection, but also to make the people knowledgeable about guns in general, if they were needed by the militia. The militia (police?) would have, on hand, the assult weapons in case of war, and would plan on having a nation of trained soldiers to call upon for quick support.

              Our Government (largely consisting of morons) has picked up on the uproar of the people, fanned by the media, to ban guns and win votes. The madman who killed 20 six-year olds and 6 adults in Sandy Hook, last year, was courteous enough to kill himself, but had he not we would now have another criminal in jail for 70 or 80 years, at around $100,000 per year, to house, feed, cloth, medicate, etc., all at taxpayer expense. But first we have allowed him to buy an assual weapon, a perfect weapon for the job, and commit the crime. Starving them is torture and we don't allow torture (not openly, at least).

              Yaron Brook was pointing out this enigma as a problem that needed solving. Instead of using insults as your arguments, offer a solution for this problem, one that fits the Objectivist view of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, and a minimum of Government.

              Jim Wright
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
                JBW said "Then, before criticizing Yaron Brook you should read some of his books and listen to a number of his speeches. Only then can you determine whether or not he is a fool. "

                Actually Jim, I'm utilizing your related information of what he said. I'm assuming that you are accurately quoting him and that he was making a honest statement of his opinion. With that accepted I can draw a conclusion based on my years of experience with guns, military, business and family life.

                That conclusion is as I stated.

                In you analysis of the 2nd amendment you have made the same error of misreading that most all anti gun people make. You take the clear reading of the amendment and rearrange it to mean what you want it to say.

                A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                The proper interpretation of these great words is "because a well trained militia is necessary in order for a free state to remain free and in order to field a militia in the times of need and in order that the people are trained and experienced with firearms so that this militia can be fielded, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, this right shall not be infringed."

                So this then brings us to the murderous animal that killed those kids in Ct. NOBODY allowed him to buy an assault rifle. He could not have purchased the rifle himself. Here is the stupidity of passing more laws against crazy people getting guns - his mother bought it, he got into her safe somehow, stole the guns, killed her, and then killed all those kids and thankfully, himself. All of which were against the existing laws. How did he do it? With the help of his mother. This animalistic creature should have been institutionalized years before. He did not have the ability to understand he was hurting people or to separate reality from a video game. His mother was as guilty as he was because she would not allow him to be locked away where he could not kill babies.

                All that given - why do you assume or equate the actions of this creature with me, the normal gun owner? I own many guns, I own over 100,000 rounds of ammunition and yes every gun I own is an "assault weapon" - right down to my 1862 Colt Musket from the Civil War.

                As I mentioned in another post, one of my gun safes sits beside my desk, right here, there are around 30 handguns and around 47 long guns including 10 of the hated AR15s. Not one of these have ever threatened to shoot anybody. They are inanimate objects.

                It's not the weapon that is dangerous, the person holding it is or is not dangerous

                Once more I'll ask, just because a person is at the Ayn Rand Institute, do they become infallible? I think not. I also think that Yaron Brook is wrong on this if he did say he would favor banning assault weapons. It may be that he is uninformed about this subject, in which case I'd welcome the opportunity to educate him..
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
                Jim,
                First of all, I never referred to YB as a "fool." I will admit that I am always amazed at the number of Objectivists who support differing levels of firearm controland it was not my intention to offend.
                The 2nd Amendment is derived directly from the natural right to self-defense which is derived from I own myself, and further back to A is A.
                During the revolutionary war, many or most of the cannons were owned privately. Your suggestion as to the type of firearm to which the 2nd Amendment refers is historically and logically inaccurate.
                What does the cost of keeping criminals have to do with the discussion?
                If you want to put property in criminal hands quickly-make it illegal. A criminal mind sees unarmed populations as easy prey. A criminal mind respects the concept of conceal carry. If I think that man is inherently good, why would I feel the need to discern what type of firearms are reasonable for a citizen to possess or not possess? I think that is a slippery slope, leaving the door cracked for another to suggest it's reasonable that every citizen should not own a gas guzzling SUV. I have read two of YB's books and listened to many of his speeches and seen him speak. I have looked for his comments on gun control and did not find any contradictory comment. He talks about the cost of gun control as onerous. You are the one who brought it up-try and provide a link. I am just commenting to your own point. As to my domesticating pigs example. this is how I see many of these types of accepting control begin. and this willingness to be controlled is mostly concentrated in large urban areas. and the Objectivists I know who promote such controls live in large urban areas. it is only my experience, but I try to understand why THIS issue has Objectivists disagreeing over another issue. Actually, the other issue I would say Objectivists are inconsistent about is Climate Change. but that's for another post.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
            ls, the mental photo here is.........giggle. thanks.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 2 months ago
              Don't be a perv! I was making a VERY valid point (a little too quickly maybe...)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
                I haven't been accused of THAT since I founded the Hedonist Caucus of the Libertarian Party.

                Of course the point is solid. Neil Smith said it best:A 2-pound chunk of machined steel is a great equalizer between a 105# woman and a 250# man. And the comparisons keep being true: an assault rifle against a crowd, for example. A rocket launcher against....that's as far as I'm going here and now.
                But I will boast that some years ago, on National Buy-A-Gun day, when I couldn't afford a gun, I went to my friendly local arms dealer and bought a knife. A BIG Chris Reeve knife - just because "they" didn't want me to.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
            Exactly right LetsShrug. Every rifle, pistol, shotgun and knife is a derivative or a "weapon of war" right down to my Model 1862 Colt Musket - that WAS used in the civil war - should THAT be banned????

            All that said, on the day that ALL criminals actually are forced to pay for their crimes by enduring the full term of their legally mandated time in a prison work camp - where they WORK to repay their debt to society instead of buffing up and training for their next "parole", I might be somewhat convinced to give something up. But as long as THEY can own whatever THEY can BUY, I'll buy whatever I can AFORD.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 2 months ago
              Even IF all the criminals can be magically kept from any guns, that still leaves the biggest potential criminal on the loose and armed to the teeth - the government. Let's not forget that the main reason for the Second Amendment was to keep the government in check. The intent was for the citizens to have any and all arms that the government can have, canons included. Remember that throughout history, governments have been the biggest criminals and murderers by far. Armed citizen is the best method to keep the government honest, just like an armed citizen is the best way to keep a potential criminal honest. Any government has a potential to become criminal, a potential that is exercised much too often.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 2 months ago
              Yes but let's face it. If it's black. And has a pistol grip. And no pretty wooden parts. It's REALLY scary and bad. /sarc
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
                all of that is true - and soooo cool.
                Although I WAS looking at a cute pink pistol a couple of weeks ago......no, really, a Glock style practice gun in .22, colored so as to make it immediately obvious which was the practice one. Bought ammo instead.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 2 months ago
                  I was at a gun show and saw an AR15 style semiautomatic rifle with pink pistol grip, stock, and handguards. So is that still an assault rifle? Or just an assault on the senses rifle?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
                    Last winter in FL I attended a gun show where one of the vendors specialized in AR15s with wood stock sets. They were gorgeous and I really wanted one, but I've got too many ARs in my collection.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
      Jim,
      ay question gets easier if you substitute a neutral person or object for the emotion-laden one.
      Thus, the question of how can an objectivist advocate laws that prohibit owning, buying or selling crystal glassware to civilians is the one you should be considering.
      If you're asking how can an Objectivist advocate laws about anything,that's a different question, one which has engendered debate just about forever.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
      do you have any stats to your first point, Jim?
      To your second question: An Objectivist would not advocate prohibiting the ownership of ANY personal property. In fact, he would advocate for the diligent enforcement of All personal property rights, and by extension ALL property rights.
      welcome back!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
      Objectivists should not advocate banning specific weapons.

      However, it would be proper to address the violence and offer suggestions what might be done to reduce it.

      Any constructive ideas?

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
        Throw the key away on anybody using a gun in a crime. Make prison hard time, not a country club.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Tap2Golf 10 years, 2 months ago
          hey... there is a concept that has always amazed me. shouldn't the primary reason to send someone to prison be punishment? seems like I see a lot of very buff, well fed dudes in the occasional prison clips on news shows. it's no wonder these thugs go back in the joint for r n r. I'm not suggesting that losing one's freedom for a period of time wouldn't be horrible. makes me shiver.
          thanks for the post, I'm a 2nd amendment sister, armed in California, and I wouldn't hesitate defending myself. it is frustrating to not be able to get a cc permit here. you have to have some serious credentials to get as many as you have. .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 2 months ago
          At least enforce the existing laws. In many case using a gun in the commission of a crime should carry an automatic 5 years. This is often just plea bargained away. Great point about prisons. They should be more like....prisons.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -3
          Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
          We already have one of the highest prison populations in the world.

          Would it be proper to empty our jails of non-violent (generally just user) drug offenders? After all wouldn't Objectivism support the notion that someone can ingest what they want?

          BTW, I do agree that for violent offenders the main mission should be to keep them from being in a position to harm others.

          More non-violent but evil offenders like Madoff they should be in with the bad guys. Madoff set up a situation where lots of folks were ruined and some lost their health because of stress or simply committed suicide.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 2 months ago
        Make firearms training mandatory in high school.
        Get rid of all the unConstitutional weapons regulations. (that is to say... all of them).

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 10 years, 2 months ago
    A lot of the current problem is by people with mental instabilities. Lanza, Holmes, Harris, Khlebold (?) all had problems that they felt were related to their shootings and they acted on them. Even the latest incident in Centennial, CO, the shooter had issues and felt he needed to act on them, a mental instability. The only reason these things happen in gun free zones is that they feel they will have less opposition to their actions. When they are confronted or caught, they usually kill themselves or give up, they don't want to fight, they want to feel superior to their victims. Holmes in Aurora didn't pick the nearest theater to his apartment or the biggest, he chose the one that was gun free because he wanted to feel superior and have no opposition.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
      Dead on target Jim. We aren't going to get to the bottom of this problem until we take off the PC sunglasses and acknowledge where the problem coming from. GFZ or as they are also called Criminals Firing Zones, only act as a magnet to these animals. A place where they can act out their "first shooter" video game fantasy without interference, by authorities for as long as possible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
    http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Against-Guns-...
    Mr. Lott studied the effects of gun control and over and over again, fewer guns lead to more crime. this was an extensive study. I think-every county across the country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
      I took a look at the free preview of Mr. Lott's work. Within the first few paragraphs I noted a number of fallacies.

      Most noteworthy was his cherry picking the data dates. He choose to select data from a period of time where the FBI data reflects a large increase in deaths due to suicide - not crime. A look at the FBI violent crime stats for the past 30 years will reveal a 50% reduction in crime related gun deaths. In fact the FBI data now shows that more violent crime deaths are caused by knives, clubs and automobiles than guns. The statistic for total deaths by firearms is (I did not look it up this morning) around 34,000. Of which suicide accounts for 22,000 as I recall. Violent crime is a very low 12 or 14 thousand.

      Your odds of being killed in a auto accident as you drive to the store for milk are 3 times higher that the odds of being killed in a violent crime by a gun.

      The next erroneous data he presents and then draws the wrong conclusion about is the number of new gun owners. While the number of new owners have risen, particularly since the election of the gun salesman of the year Barry Obummer, not all gun sales are to new owners. But that is how Mr. Lott presents his data. Most gun owners buy more than one gun. I buy at least one new gun every month and have done so for years. I am a gun collector and so I'm a bit outside the norm, but still, I don't know any shooter who doesn't buy at least one gun a year if they can afford to.

      Of his reported thousands of new guns sold he assumes that each represents a new gun owner who is untrained, uneducated about guns and is going to shoot someone. One of my gun safes beside my desk is open at the moment and looking into it I see at least 30 pistols and 40 long guns - even 8 or 10 mass killing AR-15s. Not one of these dangerous weapons have ever killed a soul - but Mr. Lott draws a conclusion that by my owning these inanimate objects that I will be very likely to commit mass murder.

      Psst....I even own a 100 round magazine (not a "clip") for my AR's. Why?? Because some lib may some day tell me I can't. I've never used it, but I'll own one just in case.

      FYI - I even hold a concealed carry permits that are good in 37 states and I'm waiting for my Illinois permit to arrive. Dang, I'm a fairly dangerous man.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
        stargeezer, that's why I love you.
        Now, how do we get together so you can tell me how you did it?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
          My actual permits are from IA, Tx, FL, UT, and soon to arrive IL.. Between reciprocal agreements among several states, constitutional carry states that allow anyone to carry and allowances for retired federal officers, 37 currently recognize my credentials. Some other will also but since my retirement was not due to reaching mandatory retirement age or duty years, there are some states that are funny about it. Including my state.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
      Really? For the past thirty years according to the FBI we have seem a marked reduction in violent crime, particularly in states that have concealed carry laws.

      When we lived in ElPaso TX, it had a very high murder rate, on the order of 360-400 per year in a city of 700k. Mostly driven by drive-by shootings. A few months after TX approved concealed carry there was a incident where a car full of gang bangers opened fire in downtown EP. Two licensed concealed carry holders in the target zone returned fire killing one of the gang bangers and wounding another. Following that event EP became a very peaceful city again and the murder rate dropped like a stone in water.

      Now, I don't claim to be a high dollar reporter, but that is what that city saw as the result of CC. Those cowards don't like it when their victims shoot back.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 2 months ago
      Actually generally across the country they make zero difference except to impede the individual's ownership of such firearms.

      If one looks at the zip codes it can be noted that with few exceptions (generally crimes of passion) few firearms murders occur across America.

      We need to figure out what's going wrong where the violence is occurring and what to do about it.

      General laws ain't gonna fix nothing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 2 months ago
    "Nobody is advocating to let just anybody carry a concealed weapon."

    Thanks for calling me "nobody".
    Thanks on behalf of the Founding Fathers for calling them "nobody".

    I guess "Nobody" is the only one who actually READS the Constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by guidvce 10 years, 2 months ago
      Calm down, Hiraghm. No one is calling anyone a "nobody". In a country actually following the Constitution, "anybody" could own a gun and not have any training at all, or license, or whatever.
      In our dreams, the entire Constitution would be the "law of the land" for everyone including the clowns in D.C. In our dreams.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johmah 10 years, 2 months ago
    Concealed carry permits only tell the statist central government where the guns are. See below Rudyard Kipling's" The Gods of the Copybook Headings" poem.
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
    I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
    Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

    We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
    That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
    But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
    So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

    We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
    Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
    But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
    That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

    With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
    They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
    They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
    So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

    When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

    On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
    (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
    Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

    In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
    By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
    But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

    Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
    And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
    That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    Of emphasis: But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    The only "wrong hands" are DEAD hands. You can put a gun in a dead man's hands which only proves it is not the gun which kills, but the living man wielding it.




    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 10 years, 2 months ago
    I agree with all that has been stated here. I do have a CC license and own several weapons. But I have decided that if the Gov't. becomes draconian, I'm teaching myself Archery skills and after watching the Slingshot Channel on You Tube I'll take that up too.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jerryel 10 years, 2 months ago
    I've seen the large decrease in crime happen in real time down in Miami. When there was a spate of car jacking murders a number of years back and after the carry law was passed in Florida the majority Cuban/Latino population of the Miami area started carrying out of fear. Within a very short time the violent crime rate dropped to the lowest in history especially black on white crime.

    I left Miami after spending all my life there (except for a stint in the military) back in 1974 mainly because of the rising crime rate and being involved in an attempted robbery/car jacking. Luckily I had a carry permit when it wasn't easy to get one because of political friends and the attempt ended with the death of the perp. I packed up my family and left 6 months later, finally divesting my business interests a few years later and settled in NW Florida.

    During the 80's due to the drug trade and what seemed like everyone was carrying, firearm deaths may have went up but many of those were perps vs. perps or perps vs. cops. But aside from Miami-Dade's drug times death by firearms have declined rapidly in the whole state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 10 years, 2 months ago
    Similar to the Monty Hall Problem, may after being brainwashed in PS cannot wrap their brain around the psychology of the criminal mind because everyone is good!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 10 years, 2 months ago
    In my city a cc man shot and killed a criminal trying to rob a store. The store had a NO CC sign. He said he did not see the sign and was not prosecuted. If I see a No CC sign I do not go in.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WillH 10 years, 2 months ago
      Yeah, that varies from state to state. Here in Tennessee that sign carries force of law with it. 1st offense is $500, while the second could be the pulling of your permit. In my day to day routine I never go in a place that is posted. I figure if my personal protection device is not welcome neither is my wallet. I will make exceptions for special trips. My daughter is homeschooled, so we sometimes take her on field trips. I will disarm for museums, aquariums, etc. when necessary.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Retired24-navy 10 years, 2 months ago
      In most western states, the no cc sign has to be 12 by 12 inches, and cite the exact state law by number and be mounted on entrance or be invalid. Also anyone who in against cc should be required to post and maintain a gun free zone in their front yard so the good little criminals will be safe. I carry cc and have for many years.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo