LOVE this statistic

[cbrgator]

Found this quote on Wikipedia

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.

Facts supported HERE

Statistics like these I think are a great argument in our favor (that's .012% for you non brain surgeons). See if you can find similar statistics for your own state so that you can fire off the number anytime you're talking to someone against CCW. Post 'em here if you find them!

 

[Conqueror]

The stats are similar in every state with CCW.

 

[cbrgator]

How come these stats aren't quoted more for the sake of our argument? It's one thing to say, CCWers don't break the law and are good people. It's another to say, during the last two decades, almost 1.5 million permits have been issued, less than 200 of those people committed gun crimes.

 

[RPCVYemen]

How come these stats aren't quoted more for the sake of our argument?

I am not sure that the stat directly answers objections to CCW that I have heard:

1. CCW guns will be used (inappropriately) in "road rage" incidents.
2. CCW guns will be used to shoot people committing property crimes. A lot of people confuse "Castle Doctrine" with CCW, and lots of people (I would guess a clear majority) consider killing someone for a property crime ethically challenging.
3. CCW laws will increase the number of accidental shootings.

I don't buy these arguments - though I am not altogether sure about #3. I have seen some folks at the range with CCW licenses exhibit such poor muzzle discipline that I sure don't even want to be on the same range with them, much less in a crowded supermarket.

I think that there are clear stats on the road rage issue - proving our side - but I don't recall where I saw them.

Mike

 

[cbrgator]

I am not sure that the stat directly answers objections to CCW that I have heard:

I think it answers ALL objections, no? Only 166 people in the course of 20 years have had their licenses revoked for improper use of a firearm. Over the last 2 decades, FL has averaged issuing over 67,000 permits per year, and on average, 8 get the permit revoked for circumstances involving a gun. 8.

Or am I misreading you and you are saying that people will use guns legally to defend property, but is still morally questionable to the antis?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Good work.Gators rule!

We'll see about that come Jan 8th.

Yeah, "our" side of the stats don't get trotted out in the mainstream media nearly often enough.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I think it answers ALL objections, no?

How would that stat answer objection #2 or #3?

I am not sure it clearly refutes #1 - if any appropriate but legal uses of handguns can be imagine.

I am not arguing against your point - I don't understand the logical connection between the quoted stat and the three objections that I reported as having heard from anti-CCW folks.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Or am I misreading you and you are saying that people will use guns legally to defend property, but is still morally questionable to the antis?

The use of lethal force to protect property is morally questionable by lots of folks, not only antis.

Mike

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Then why antis support these restricitions?

The extreme left?
Probably the same reason they want to raise taxes, it feels right, and they won't accept statistics.

A lot of people, however, are probably just misinformed. Since they're not actively researching the subject, all they hear about it comes from MSDNC or Newsweek.

 

[cbrgator]

How would that stat answer objection #2 or #3?

I am not sure it clearly refutes #1 - if any appropriate but legal uses of handguns can be imagine.

I am not arguing against your point - I don't understand the logical connection between the quoted stat and the three objections that I reported as having heard from anti-CCW folks.

Mike

I'm not sure we are on the same page and perhaps I am misunderstanding you resulting in this miscommunication.
To me, the fact that only 166 CCWers in over 20 years have improperly used their firearm for any reason would refute the idea that CCWers use guns in road rage incidents and property crimes (which is normally illegal). If those are the contentions of the antis, wouldn't there have to be a greater number of violations for the argument to hold water?

 

[nutter]

The extreme left?
Probably the same reason they want to raise taxes, it feels right, and they won't accept statistics.

A lot of people, however, are probably just misinformed. Since they're not actively researching the subject, all they hear about it comes from MSDNC or Newsweek.

And you, sir, appear pretty misinformed about the left's view on taxes. Perhaps you're not actively researching it and only hearing about it from Faux News.



Here's a little exercise that might bear some fruit. Try to dig up the number of "crimes involving a firearm" over the last 5 years in Florida. Compare that to the population of Florida. Since we are seeing an incidence rate of about 1 in 10,000 (give or take) among CCW holders, you could then say "CCW reduced crimes involving a firearm by a factor of ten" or whatever the number turns out to be. Though I expect the rate of crimes involving a firearm are probably about 10x in the general population compared to CCW holders, just making a SWAG.

Edit: This would seem like a very informative statistic to me. If people who have EASY ACCESS to fire arms, for whom it is legal to buy and carry them, use them in crimes LESS than people who cannot legally carry them... that would seem to pretty effectively refute the idea that "access" to guns is "dangerous".

 

[jpatterson]

Very, very interesting. Thanks for posting! I will likely cite that number in a paper in the future

 

[Geezer59]

The use of lethal force to protect property is morally questionable by lots of folks, not only antis.

If that's the case, how come the Korean merchants were justified in shooting looters during the L.A. riots?

I'd do the same to a hostile mob carrying torches to burn down my house, etc. Minor vandalism - no. But at some point, the use of force to protect property has to be acceptable.

 

[RPCVYemen]

To me, the fact that only 166 CCWers in over 20 years have improperly used their firearm for any reason would refute the idea that CCWers use guns in road rage incidents and property crimes (which is normally illegal).

The fact that only 166 CCWers in Florida have lost their licenses would logically be related to #1 and/or #2 if the violating #1 or #2 resulted in a loss of license.

A gun might be used in a road rage incident, for example, in a manner that was ethically questionable, but not illegal. The argument is that somebody with a CCW might be more inclined to confront another person in an incident than just drive on. Such a confrontation might now result in a conviction and a loss of CCW, but would be ethically dubious - if driving away were an option.

The same would be true for #2. While there are a lot of people who would feel justified in shooting someone to protect property, a lot of folks think it's ethically questionable.

And clearly, the stat does not reflect anything about objection #3.

My point is not that these objections are in fact correct - I support CCW laws. But I don't think that the cited statistic disproves any of the common objections.

There was a stat floating around a couple of years ago that found that guns are not in fact used (or at least not reported to be used ) by CCWers in very many road rage incidents. That stat would disprove objection #1, but the stat cited above does not.

Mike

 

[KBintheSLC]

I've got one from gunfacts.info

Police are 6.5 times more likely to shoot an innocent party during a deadly force encounter than CCW permit holders.

This is probably the most utterly ridiculous trash i've ever read in my life.

Actually, I though he was right on the money. I came from a country that was ruled by the iron fist of the Soviet Socialists, and all I can say is that the reality of it is even worse. Here is a great article that reflects their resurrection in the modern world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_treason_law

 

[Sinixstar]

I've got one from gunfacts.info

Police are 6.5 times more likely to shoot an innocent party during a deadly force encounter than CCW permit holders.

Only 6.5? I imagined it would have been a bit higher then that. You figure, it's the cop's job to deal with the worst of society. People who are likely to act even more aggressively then they might normally act, for fear of going to prison.

 

[cbrgator]

This is a thread about CCW statistics. Please argue on somebody else's thread.

 

[Sinixstar]

-SINIXSTAR

I am only seeing one crazy ranting nut around here.

good one.

 

[cbrgator]

Can I get a moderator to delete the back and forths and allow this thread to continue on point?

 

[N3810F]

Sinixstar,
What are some ways that law abiding gun owners can demonstrate to the uninformed, politics aside, that the private ownership of firearms is a benefit to society?

 

[Sinixstar]

Sinixstar,
What are some ways that law abiding gun owners can demonstrate to the uninformed, politics aside, that the private ownership of firearms is a benefit to society?

It's not what you do - it's what you don't do.
You start ranting about socialists and nazi's and control of the population and everything else - and most of these people will either a) yawn and ignore you, b) roll their eyes and ignore you, c) entertain your rant and laugh at you behind your back.

That type of stuff simply reinforces the stereotype. Let's face it - that stereotype exists for a reason. To demonstrate that private ownership of firearms is a benefit to society - you first have to break the stereotypical image. We see posts on here of people doing that all the time. "Took my anti-friend to the range, and now he's thinking about buying a gun". "Showed my anti-girlfriend my gun and explained safety to her, and now she's not so scared of it..." on and on. Why does that work? Because it shows these people that their stereotypical view on the subject is wrong.
Now - how to do that on a massive scale - that's the million dollar question. It's not going to be through the media. Not because of some political MSM Agenda, but because a law-abiding, completely average person who goes to work, pays bills, and just happens to carry a gun - that's not news. That's not anything anybody's going to even pay attention to.
Somebody jumping up and down screaming about social injustice, the socialists, and "from my cold dead hands" - now that's good tv....

 

[nutter]

Well, I'm going to take the liberty to answer this:

Sinixstar,
What are some ways that law abiding gun owners can demonstrate to the uninformed, politics aside, that the private ownership of firearms is a benefit to society?

I will start by saying that this is definitely a topic for another thread. If mods feel the need to delete or remove this, I will understand.


Across the board, there is a two-pronged approach to get people "into" something. This is backed up by numerous psychological studies.

1. Reduce fear.
2. Encourage play.

Reducing fear is done by propagating information, statistics, facts, advocacy, habituation, and public relations.

Encouraging play is The High Road. Getting people who aren't already RKBA advocates to come out and shoot some guns. They will enjoy it, learn how "dangerous" it really is, understand its not "evil". And in that way become a supporter of the private ownership of firearms.

Seriously, read the mission statement for this place.

Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership. It is the declared mission of this board to achieve and provide the highest quality of firearms discussion on the Internet, a standard set by the discussion board The Firing Line from 1998-2002.

Everyone is welcome to participate, regardless of political affiliation, gender, religion, nationality, or stance on gun ownership. We aim to respect every point of view, as long as it is presented in a polite and factual manner.

There is nothing respectful or polite about Johnny Dollar's statement that originally started this brouhaha (socialist/nazi/population control/etc.).

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Does anyone think they can compile a state by state table of statistics like this?

we need a dem every generation or so to come in and clean their mess up.

Last major mess cleaned up I can think of was caused by Jimmy Carter.

I suggest we take this discussion to PM, so as not to disrupt the thread.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I think it would be nice to make a flier, full of pro-gun statistics, for door-to-door distribution.