Excellent article on new CCW study
- Thread starter mbok1947
- Start date
- Status
It's a tradition here to sum up a link with a few words over the content and avoid the perception that the poster is simply engaging in a "drive by."
The article is a "good" one in respect to the authors view that gun ownership is changing the landscape by increasing the number of those who carry - and who are therefore less dependent on police for their own protection.
I do question that they are also more prone to "run to the sound of gunfire." While the author makes his point they are, it contrasts with his explanation the gun carrying public is more informed and savvy about what we do. I see it as being more educated about when it's necessary, not a matter of heroics, which is implied in the article. There are also a good many anecdotal stories of the "good Samaritan" or "hero" who suffers grievously for their actions. The observation "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind, and the first in my recollection would the the citizen who confronted a man in a Utah discount store pushing in a shopping cart full of weapons - who was shot in the back by his female partner. That seems absent in the framework of the article.
Let's not forget that in our own practices of carry, we don't have a bird's eye view and we never know exactly what is going on, unlike the guy who tackled a legal concealed carrier in the parking lot of another of that stores locations. If it always was clearly right vs wrong even the cops would never make a mistake.
Nonetheless a nice article to read, one hopes those who haven't made up their mind can.
The article is a "good" one in respect to the authors view that gun ownership is changing the landscape by increasing the number of those who carry - and who are therefore less dependent on police for their own protection.
I do question that they are also more prone to "run to the sound of gunfire." While the author makes his point they are, it contrasts with his explanation the gun carrying public is more informed and savvy about what we do. I see it as being more educated about when it's necessary, not a matter of heroics, which is implied in the article. There are also a good many anecdotal stories of the "good Samaritan" or "hero" who suffers grievously for their actions. The observation "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind, and the first in my recollection would the the citizen who confronted a man in a Utah discount store pushing in a shopping cart full of weapons - who was shot in the back by his female partner. That seems absent in the framework of the article.
Let's not forget that in our own practices of carry, we don't have a bird's eye view and we never know exactly what is going on, unlike the guy who tackled a legal concealed carrier in the parking lot of another of that stores locations. If it always was clearly right vs wrong even the cops would never make a mistake.
Nonetheless a nice article to read, one hopes those who haven't made up their mind can.
This fails as a confusion of correlation and causation fallacy; there is no objective, documented evidence that supports the notion that an increase in the number of persons carrying concealed firearms is ‘responsible’ for a decrease in crime, violent or otherwise.
Indeed, the sources and causes of crime are in fact extraordinarily complex, where although it might appear that an increase in the carrying of concealed firearms has a decrease in crime, it is an appearance only, devoid of fact or substance.
Citizens have the fundamental right to carry concealed firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.
Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to do so.
Attempting to ‘justify’ the carrying of concealed firearms with baseless claims that doing so ‘decreases’ crime only serves to undermine efforts to defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.
That we have the right to carry concealed firearms is in of itself sufficient, no further ‘justification’ is needed – particularly when that ‘justification’ fails as a fallacy.
MedWheeler
Member
I see one of two things happening with this thread.
It will stay largely on-topic as a healthy dialogue takes place regarding whether or not a reason an increase in carriers is good for the country is because it reduces crime (and whether or not that idea can actually be substantiated.)
It will go off-topic and become another thread on whether or not anyone should use their lawfully-carried firearm to defend another person not known to him or her.
Regardless, I see no negatives in an increase in the number of lawfully-armed people in this country. I'm glad it's happening; it does create a strong "political force", as noted in the article.
It will stay largely on-topic as a healthy dialogue takes place regarding whether or not a reason an increase in carriers is good for the country is because it reduces crime (and whether or not that idea can actually be substantiated.)
It will go off-topic and become another thread on whether or not anyone should use their lawfully-carried firearm to defend another person not known to him or her.
Regardless, I see no negatives in an increase in the number of lawfully-armed people in this country. I'm glad it's happening; it does create a strong "political force", as noted in the article.
To average person the only thing CCW does is provide false sense of security.
larryh1108
Member
Care to substantiate this or is it just an opinion that has no merit or value?
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Interesting "Fact", would weapons carried by the average criminal be equally worthless?
BSA1
member
I find this to be a powerful statement.
"At the same time that carry permits have increased at an astonishing rate, violent crime has decreased, and concealed-carry permit holders remain remarkably law-abiding...
And yet despite that growth, available data still indicate that permit holders are substantially more law-abiding than the police. For example, using data from Florida and Texas, Lott found that “permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers."
While there are several reasons why distrust of the police in United States is increasing I think one thing that is happening is conceal carry people are demanding the same level of conduct and accountablity from "professional law enforcement officers."
"At the same time that carry permits have increased at an astonishing rate, violent crime has decreased, and concealed-carry permit holders remain remarkably law-abiding...
And yet despite that growth, available data still indicate that permit holders are substantially more law-abiding than the police. For example, using data from Florida and Texas, Lott found that “permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers."
While there are several reasons why distrust of the police in United States is increasing I think one thing that is happening is conceal carry people are demanding the same level of conduct and accountablity from "professional law enforcement officers."
The function of police is to maintain status quo. One can protect themselves against fictitious threats by carring a firearm. By accepting rights to own guns we put individual right above group safety which goes out the door each time terrorist mass shooter shows up.
larryh1108
Member
Wow, I think you've made me speechless. Why do you participate in a gun forum?
danez71
Member
denton
Member
The pro-gun stats are actually much too strong to be casually dismissed with the correlation/causation argument.
People who are anti-gun are trying to change the status quo. They have the burden of producing evidence that their scheme will actually make things better.
If there is no causal relationship, you can sometimes find correlation. That's a fact. But if there is a causal relationship, you should be able to find correlation. If it's not there, then the anti-gun proposal has not met its burden.
People who are anti-gun are trying to change the status quo. They have the burden of producing evidence that their scheme will actually make things better.
If there is no causal relationship, you can sometimes find correlation. That's a fact. But if there is a causal relationship, you should be able to find correlation. If it's not there, then the anti-gun proposal has not met its burden.
threefeathers
member
There are correct answers on either side of the equasion here. Yes, to a person who buys a gun and does little or no training with it then it probably does give a false sense of safety. That said I questioned a lady who took one of our classes whe did stop her car from being 'Jacked' by locking her door and reaching in her purse for the Ruger .22 snubby and put a round through her passenger side window when the thug tried to break it open with a large screw driver. The bullet hit him but he stopped his act of violence and ran. The police did show up fairly soon but didn't capture the fellow. He did leave a small amount of blood next to the car but must have put pressure on it. She has no idea where she hit him. Only that he yelled, "F^^k once.
However she realized that she had no real training and that if something happens in the future .22 might not be all the gun she needs. This lady is a 50ish secretary for a business and she talked one of her friends to take our Safety-Selection Seminar. She had gotten a CCW permit from one of the 2 hour classes someone or another gives in AZ. She has courage and now a bit of training. I expect her in the next MAG 20 class we host for Mas.
So I have to reflect on the casual relationship. In Arizona the number of people carrying who are getting training certainly does increase the number of gun owners who can and will act when necessary.
I have a nephew who did 12 years in Florence for doing 52 car jackings, mostly at the Tucson Mall over a 6 month period when he was 20. My brother had died and the young man got hooked up with a Illegal Immigrant girl whose father was connected with a garage in South Tucson that sells car parts.
He is out now, a past member of the Arian Brotherhood, I hope. Anyway he tells me that a number of his old acquaintances fear two things, getting shot while Jacking, and getting shot by an alert homeowner during a break in,
Car Jacks in the parking lots of restaurants and Malls are particularly dangerous. Unfortunately it seems that the Bad Guys are doing a better job of training but that is another subject.
However she realized that she had no real training and that if something happens in the future .22 might not be all the gun she needs. This lady is a 50ish secretary for a business and she talked one of her friends to take our Safety-Selection Seminar. She had gotten a CCW permit from one of the 2 hour classes someone or another gives in AZ. She has courage and now a bit of training. I expect her in the next MAG 20 class we host for Mas.
So I have to reflect on the casual relationship. In Arizona the number of people carrying who are getting training certainly does increase the number of gun owners who can and will act when necessary.
I have a nephew who did 12 years in Florence for doing 52 car jackings, mostly at the Tucson Mall over a 6 month period when he was 20. My brother had died and the young man got hooked up with a Illegal Immigrant girl whose father was connected with a garage in South Tucson that sells car parts.
He is out now, a past member of the Arian Brotherhood, I hope. Anyway he tells me that a number of his old acquaintances fear two things, getting shot while Jacking, and getting shot by an alert homeowner during a break in, Car Jacks in the parking lots of restaurants and Malls are particularly dangerous. Unfortunately it seems that the Bad Guys are doing a better job of training but that is another subject.
Bad guys are much more worried about getting shot by the average citizen than they are by police.
Anyone who buys a gun should practice, or get training, or both to become proficient with the weapon. Not everyone does though. I am not for mandatory training though.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Since the mid-1970s I've asked the anti-gun types to tell me of any specific law which has served to reduce the rate of violent crime via any sort of firearm. So far, no answer.
What is known in from experience in Florida is that with the advent of their CHL program, certain types of crime declined. Muggings, e.g., and car-jackings. Also, fewer attempts at robbery of drivers of taxicabs. Too much uncertainty as to whether or not an intended victim was armed.
What is known in from experience in Florida is that with the advent of their CHL program, certain types of crime declined. Muggings, e.g., and car-jackings. Also, fewer attempts at robbery of drivers of taxicabs. Too much uncertainty as to whether or not an intended victim was armed.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Neither of those statements make a lick of sense.
Curator
Member
paulsj:
While your suggestion makes good sense the requirement for "training" has been used to severely restrict a basic civil right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Several States have made the training process unnecessarily difficult to access and expensive thereby significantly reducing gun ownership. States that have enacted "constitutional carry" do not seem to have significantly more gun accidents or accidental shootings than severely restrictive States like New York, Illinois, or Massachusetts. The Declaration of Independence states that the right to life is "unalienable" (different from "inalienable") The "Bill of Rights" does not grant civil rights such free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, only enumerate those rights that pre-exist government and so protect them. If one has the right to life, how is it justified to restrict access to the means to protect that life? Free, universal gun/self defense training would be fantastic, but unlikely to happen as long as almost half of the people in this Country really want the government, police, or private security to protect them rather than taking the responsibility upon themselves.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
I appreciate that the article contained the link to the Lott study. I downloaded a copy and am looking forward to reading it as schedule permits.
JN01
Member
People protect themselves with firearms against very real threats every day.
And yes, we are a nation that values individual rights over a nebulous "common good". There are plenty of countries that run roughshod over their subjects for the sake of the State- it sometimes happens here, but we still have some checks and balances in place. Your implication that less guns will lead to less crime really has no data to back it. The US had a 25 year decline leading to record lows for homicide and other violent crimes, while at the same time, gun sales and concealed carry permit issuance exploded.
If you're willing to give up rights for an empty promise of safety, why not do away with the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure? Think of all the illegal guns, drugs, child pornographers, and other assorted criminals you could get off the street if you just allowed the police to search anyone, anywhere, any time they want.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Good post OP.
I recommend not feeding the trolls.
I recommend not feeding the trolls.
paulsj needs to do a bit more `splaining, since I can't figure if he's .....
(1) Advocating people maintain an I'm-a-helpless-victim and hope that many victims clumping togther will be easier for "officials" to defend; or...
(2) The officials should be in charge of selective training and selective may-issue.
Either way it sounds a bit like the Drop your Western Birth Rate to Fight Climate Change announced recently via NPR.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change,
(Meanwhile, the bad guys are doing neither)
(1) Advocating people maintain an I'm-a-helpless-victim and hope that many victims clumping togther will be easier for "officials" to defend; or...
(2) The officials should be in charge of selective training and selective may-issue.
Either way it sounds a bit like the Drop your Western Birth Rate to Fight Climate Change announced recently via NPR.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change,
(Meanwhile, the bad guys are doing neither)
CapnMac
Member
And have never once ever borne that logical burden.
Other than to postulate without cause that the problem is insufficient severity in extant laws.
Their argument is entirely histrionic and predicated upon "Something Must Be Done" with absolutely no credence given to if the consequences might be worse than the proposed "solution." Which is also why such groups fails to see the irony in there already being 20,000 gun laws already on the books (which have had no demonstrable effect upon crime at all).
- Status
Similar threads
