Ya know who really needs to carry ... DOGS.
"A dozen states surveyed for this article, including Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, issued 537,000 permits last year, an 18% increase compared with a year prior and more than double the number issued in 2007. Early figures for 2013 show many states are on pace for their biggest year ever. About eight million Americans had concealed-carry permits as of last year, the Government Accountability Office said in what it called a conservative estimate."
"Some leaders in law enforcement call the increasing requests for concealed-carry permits unwelcome, citing safety concerns. Thomas Dart, sheriff of Illinois's Cook County, which encompasses Chicago, said that although the effect on crime is disputed, more people carrying guns "makes our job more difficult." "Without the gun, it's a fistfight. With the gun, it's a shooting," he said."
Hmm, this is the second (meta)review survey of gun control published and that I found today. Wonder what's up.Research is split on whether more armed citizens deter or exacerbate gun violence. Economist John Lott, a conservative commentator and author of "More Guns, Less Crime," said data show concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime.
But the National Research Council, part of the congressionally chartered National Academies, has disputed links between concealed-carry laws and drops in crime. And the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun control, said that since 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have fatally shot about 500 people, that 128 of them have been convicted of manslaughter or homicide, and 36 have committed murder-suicides.
Last edited by Nightmare; 07-08-2013 at 07:16 AM.
If TRUMP 2016 loses then I will shrug off my WHITE MAN'S BURDEN and leave the world to the Dindus and Done Nuffins. Read and understand Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a prescription for the future. TRUMP 2016
Ya know who really needs to carry ... DOGS.
A few random thoughts:
The WSJ is showing its partiality. They label Lott as a conservative, knowing that some will see that as bias. They refer to the National Research Council as "congressionally chartered," trying to give it an imprimatur of non-bias.
Lott does not equivocate. He flat-out says that there is a statistical link between an armed citizenry and reduced violence. The NRC merely "disputes" this claim. It does not say that the claim is wrong. It does not assert that the opposite is true.
The WSJ immediately goes on to quote a stat from a group with an anti-gun agenda as though it were part of the NRC study.
OK, let's explore that stat anyway. CCP holders have shot 500 people since 2007. Let's see that's about six and a half years or about 80 people per year. That ain't many when you consider the total number of murders in the country each day, especially in areas that are "gun-free" or political divisions with strong gun control. Not to mention that less than half of them were murders. (I can't be any more precise because of the fuzzy way the numbers were presented. The 36 murder/suicides included how many murders or suicides?) What were the rest of the shootings? Self-defense? The advocacy group also conveniently fails to mention how many times a firearm stopped a crime without it having been fired!
John Lott is an economist. He delved into ALL of these questions. As hard as he tried, he could not establish that increased legal gun ownership increased violent crime. He could not escape the conclusion that increased legal gun ownership reduces rates of violent crime.
But, none of that matters, even is legal gun ownership increased violent crime dramatically, we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Until the antis can do away with that constitutional right, ALL of this gun-control crap is unconstitutional. And, even if they destroy the Second Amendment, making gun-control constitutional, I still have my God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right to defend myself. I, and many others, would immediately start exercising the hell outta that right if folks were to render the Constitution useless by removing the one Right that protects all the others.
What matters is knowing that you are not, and work very hard at not, becoming a statistic.Facts are stubborn things, statistics are more pliable. - attributed to Mark Twain
Clarify: Without the gun, it's a fistfight where the victim gets put in the hospital or worse, robbed, raped, held for ransom, or just kicked around for fun by thugs. And potentially knifed or shot if the thugs are packing.Dart: Without the gun, it's a fistfight. With the gun, it's a shooting
With the gun, it's a shooting in self-defense to protect the lives of innocent American citizens (caring about citizens is something that made this country great) or much more often the bad guys just flee without a bullet fired - I guess Dart really hates that. Bad for business.
No doubt he's making remarks against law abiding citizen ownership based on the behavior of thugs, who bypass any laws and wouldn't be affected. Good for business.
Somebody in a gun forum has a quote by noted writer Robert Heinlein as their tagline.
It is "An armed society is a polite society."
Twain called it on "statistics".
He said "There are lies, damned lies, then there are statistics.
Last edited by JTHunter; 07-10-2013 at 01:16 PM.
So, more gun ownership under President Obama than the previous administration, and more concealed carry permits as well. And here I thought Pres. Obama was taking away all our right to gun ownership/carry with his vast dictatorial powers. I must be listening to the wrong people.
Also, what people (until Colorado) were saying is that he wants to take guns away, not that he had done so.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited by mikeyb; 07-11-2013 at 05:02 PM.