Bullet Tooth, it seems like you're getting confused about the purpose of the study. There are so many factors to consider that I don't believe any one study will ever conclusively prove any way or the other whether guns cause crime. There is simply no way to eliminate all of the extra variables. That being said, the study provides correlative evidence toward that assertion. It's all you can really ask for.
some advice -Dont use the "more guns, less crime" study when defending firearms
- Thread starter Bullet Tooth
- Start date
- Status
Bullet Tooth
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 16
I've found that attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls.
you get me all worng, I am pro gun!!!
----------------------------------------
Just because I think that a study supported by gun rights advocates is wrong, doesnt mean Im anti gun
I dont like people to expect that I should have a bias (simply taking a studys word for it because it supports my position)
I mean, does someone who is a fan aof ancient grecian culture have to beleive that the solar system revolves around the earth?
you get me all worng, I am pro gun!!!
----------------------------------------
Just because I think that a study supported by gun rights advocates is wrong, doesnt mean Im anti gun
I dont like people to expect that I should have a bias (simply taking a studys word for it because it supports my position)
I mean, does someone who is a fan aof ancient grecian culture have to beleive that the solar system revolves around the earth?
alan
Member
Gentlemen and Lady:
It strikes me that the problem might well lie in and with the title, More Guns, Less Crime, rather than with any studies that Lott did, or had done.
Perhaps the way it SHOULD have been put might be as follows. More Guns Carried By the Law Abiding, Less Crime. Of course, being somewhat wordy, it wouldn't be as "handy" a title.
How does that strike readers?
It strikes me that the problem might well lie in and with the title, More Guns, Less Crime, rather than with any studies that Lott did, or had done.
Perhaps the way it SHOULD have been put might be as follows. More Guns Carried By the Law Abiding, Less Crime. Of course, being somewhat wordy, it wouldn't be as "handy" a title.
How does that strike readers?
Trisha
Member
"Gently, GENTLY!!!"
(from "The Princess Bride")
BT (as opposed to "milk-tooth");
Theocratic dogma has shown itself to be very real here, as so many are all but thumbing on the heads-up display and hearing the pre-ignition capacitors charging whenever anyone (me included, in the past and perhaps yet) emotes an audatious notion: "They" raised some worthy points!
I sense hackles going up akin to me stroking my semi-feral barn kitten backwards while I wore a latex glove on a dry, windy day.
"Know thy enemy," is likely oft overlooked, with the ubiquitous 'them' handily and energetically tossed into the outer darkness berefit of a passing glance (much less being shriven) - and the fact that you are indeed blaspheming with energy is worthy and timely.
Earn your keep, then; resolve your case and don't twitch when mutters an imprecation about the anti's with a bit of vitreol - you may well find you are being agreed with as best as one is able. "Each to their abilities, each to their gift," I believe, yes?
Move this thread forward: that Lott and Mustard have been meticulously 'scoped and examined is a given. The observations you've highlighted are worthy of inspection individually, as are any voiced. Personally, I avocate Paxton Quigley's book, "Armed and Female" to my friends, with other tomes (incliding Lott and Mustard) - for no contemporary volume is intrisically capable of being our perfect lamp against the darkness.
I believe you've accomplished much; ably and well - and you've received a spectacular diversity and depth in response.
Connecting this to your other thread on assualt weapons, I'd go through the door you've already opened and draw corollaries to the Greeks - and the 'assualt weapons" of their day - and watch with pat amusement as frentic detractors tried to divert that inescapable sociopolitical reality and intellectual renaissance with irrelevant annotations to WMD's. . .
It's a pleasure to have you here.
Trisha
(from "The Princess Bride")
BT (as opposed to "milk-tooth");
Theocratic dogma has shown itself to be very real here, as so many are all but thumbing on the heads-up display and hearing the pre-ignition capacitors charging whenever anyone (me included, in the past and perhaps yet) emotes an audatious notion: "They" raised some worthy points!
I sense hackles going up akin to me stroking my semi-feral barn kitten backwards while I wore a latex glove on a dry, windy day.
"Know thy enemy," is likely oft overlooked, with the ubiquitous 'them' handily and energetically tossed into the outer darkness berefit of a passing glance (much less being shriven) - and the fact that you are indeed blaspheming with energy is worthy and timely.
Earn your keep, then; resolve your case and don't twitch when mutters an imprecation about the anti's with a bit of vitreol - you may well find you are being agreed with as best as one is able. "Each to their abilities, each to their gift," I believe, yes?
Move this thread forward: that Lott and Mustard have been meticulously 'scoped and examined is a given. The observations you've highlighted are worthy of inspection individually, as are any voiced. Personally, I avocate Paxton Quigley's book, "Armed and Female" to my friends, with other tomes (incliding Lott and Mustard) - for no contemporary volume is intrisically capable of being our perfect lamp against the darkness.
I believe you've accomplished much; ably and well - and you've received a spectacular diversity and depth in response.
Connecting this to your other thread on assualt weapons, I'd go through the door you've already opened and draw corollaries to the Greeks - and the 'assualt weapons" of their day - and watch with pat amusement as frentic detractors tried to divert that inescapable sociopolitical reality and intellectual renaissance with irrelevant annotations to WMD's. . .
It's a pleasure to have you here.
Trisha
adobewalls
Member
"My first degree was in Maths, and to keep my hand in statistics I've been involved in on-line discussions about gun control. There's lots of statistical arguments there, but it seems to get the most hits of any of my pages. "
That to me says Mr. Lambert is not searching for any form of truth - but is only amusing himself casting stones at others.
Just a gentle reminder that John Lott has a follow up book, "The Bias Against Guns". In it he discusses the data and the analysis methods used on the data. Bullet Tooth, it may be prudent for you to read that book also.
That to me says Mr. Lambert is not searching for any form of truth - but is only amusing himself casting stones at others.
Just a gentle reminder that John Lott has a follow up book, "The Bias Against Guns". In it he discusses the data and the analysis methods used on the data. Bullet Tooth, it may be prudent for you to read that book also.
Trisha
Member
Ha! "We," who??
Them commie-types go for agricultural work camps (Pol Pot) and communal resource-pooling! I'm not receptive to mandatory "sharing" with the komisar saying "Be a good girl," while staring at me beneath his cap's visor, y'know?
I was sayin, "Use what resource Goddess saw fit to stuff in ya!"
Trisha
Them commie-types go for agricultural work camps (Pol Pot) and communal resource-pooling! I'm not receptive to mandatory "sharing" with the komisar saying "Be a good girl," while staring at me beneath his cap's visor, y'know?
I was sayin, "Use what resource Goddess saw fit to stuff in ya!"
Trisha
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Mr. Tooth (may we call you Bullet?),
The comment about arguing with 2nd Amend bigots wasn't about you, it was about you attempting to argue with anti's.
The comment about arguing with 2nd Amend bigots wasn't about you, it was about you attempting to argue with anti's.
Ryder
Member
One year after Michigan became shall issue the State police released data which was printed in the newspapers. That stated violent crime rates were significantly reduced. Something like 30% if I recall. National crime rate stats are in decline according to FBI press releases. The rebuttal is on whoever is calling this a lie. That would be you "Bullet Tooth".
Many of the people in my CCW class had bought their first gun to participate and others had borrowed guns and were planning to buy their own. I've bought two newly manufactured (carry format) guns myself in the last year. How could there possibly not be more guns in circulation? That's an insane suggestion. The national production and sales of gun manufaturers is online (BATF). There are something like a half million new firearms put into circulation every year.
Considering the extremely low arrest rate of people with permits you can only be implying that criminals are causing more crime now than before CCW went into effect? Honest people being prepared to defend themselves causes more criminals? There is no deterrent factor?
Are you French or something
Many of the people in my CCW class had bought their first gun to participate and others had borrowed guns and were planning to buy their own. I've bought two newly manufactured (carry format) guns myself in the last year. How could there possibly not be more guns in circulation? That's an insane suggestion. The national production and sales of gun manufaturers is online (BATF). There are something like a half million new firearms put into circulation every year.
Considering the extremely low arrest rate of people with permits you can only be implying that criminals are causing more crime now than before CCW went into effect? Honest people being prepared to defend themselves causes more criminals? There is no deterrent factor?
Are you French or something
Monkeyleg
Member.
Ah, creative writing class. I remember it well. So few pages, so many words.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Ryder, it was a few months back, but my recollection of BATF numbers is some five million rifles/pistols/shotguns into the U.S. market for each of the last ten or twelve years.
A predecessor book to any of Kleck's or Lott's work is "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. The study was limited to Florida, but was quite in-depth. The primary conclusion was that no gun control law passed at the state level had ever had any impact on gun crime.
Art
A predecessor book to any of Kleck's or Lott's work is "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. The study was limited to Florida, but was quite in-depth. The primary conclusion was that no gun control law passed at the state level had ever had any impact on gun crime.
Art
Wheels 'n' Guns
Member
"More Guns-Less Crime"??
Since the original reference which led to such diverse and interesting discussion, was from University of New South Wales, Australia, I would like to add my "local" comments.
Here in Australia, we don't have any "right to bear arms" protection in our Constitution, so all the anti-gun types push the "guns cause crime" line. They point to the large number of criminals who commit their crimes with guns. Many on the pro-gun side have different arguments, but I like to emphasise the "Criminal" act, rather than put the blame on "The Gun". I argue that the Police don't have unlimited resources, so it is best for Governments to tackle the real causes of criminal activity in society, such as Drugs, Racial conflict, Gang Wars, Poverty, etc. Putting more and more laws in place which target law abiding gun owners, actually re-directs Police resources away from those problems, with the result that crime in all classes increases!
With that approach, I recently had following letter published in local paper. Some in the Media, who were previously anti-gun, are now rethinking their position, when it is costing them (taxpayers) so much money, with no result, as well as having to face security guards at their local shopping centres. (article follows):
"After the 1996 buy-back, which saw $500 million wasted on vandalistic destruction of harmless rabbit rifles and fox guns, Crime did not decrease! Murder actually increased by 20%, in 2001/2 according to latest figures from Australian Institute of Criminology. The increase was not due to guns, but such things as fists, knives and Golf Clubs!
The two separate articles in recent (28th May) Daily Telegraph, should prove conclusively that all the money, time and resources, spent on "Tough Gun Laws" has been a complete waste! In one case, where a "hitman" fired several shots into his victim in Haymarket, it should have been a simple matter for the Police to check the Firearms Registry Computer, using the serial numbers of the 3 pistols used. That would have immediately revealed the name and address of the Licenced owner. However, it is well known that criminals do not obey Laws, so would not have Registered their Pistols!
Surprise! Surprise! So, what is the point in having all the massive resources of Firearms Registration, and Computer Power if it can't be used to secure an arrest? Not only that, but had the Handguns been Registered, it would not have lessened the seriousness of the crime!
Then, on page 11 of the same Telegraph, the case of a "fake gun" , with a man having been arrested by Police and charged over having had his 6 year-old brother's toy gun in his car! No criminal act was committed, no bank was robbed and nobody was hurt, yet the Police saw this poor fellow as an easy catch, simply because he had something that "looked like a real gun". Had the police shot this poor man, would they have been excused, because "he had a Gun"?
These two cases graphically illustrate how "Tough Gun Laws" only work to victimise innocent people (who happen to legally own guns for sport or recreation), but do absolutely nothing to stop criminals! Criminals by definition, don't obey the Law!
However, the madness continues, with another round of "Tough Handgun Bans" about to be introduced and another multi-million dollar "buy-back", this time of Legally owned Pistols, used in sporting events, by fully Licenced sportsmen and women, who are the ones least likely to commit ANY Crime!
Are we to assume that the new Gun Laws and the recently formed Australian Crime Commission, will be used to simply further harass Law Abiding Sporting Shooters, over such "dangerous" breaches of the laws, as not attending the correct number of club events, not having all paperwork up to date, only having 2 bolts to secure the gun safe, (not 4, as the Law states) etc. etc.? All this, while the REAL Criminals get an easy go.
Why would the Police want to chase after Real Criminals? They shoot back!!!"
Since the original reference which led to such diverse and interesting discussion, was from University of New South Wales, Australia, I would like to add my "local" comments.
Here in Australia, we don't have any "right to bear arms" protection in our Constitution, so all the anti-gun types push the "guns cause crime" line. They point to the large number of criminals who commit their crimes with guns. Many on the pro-gun side have different arguments, but I like to emphasise the "Criminal" act, rather than put the blame on "The Gun". I argue that the Police don't have unlimited resources, so it is best for Governments to tackle the real causes of criminal activity in society, such as Drugs, Racial conflict, Gang Wars, Poverty, etc. Putting more and more laws in place which target law abiding gun owners, actually re-directs Police resources away from those problems, with the result that crime in all classes increases!
With that approach, I recently had following letter published in local paper. Some in the Media, who were previously anti-gun, are now rethinking their position, when it is costing them (taxpayers) so much money, with no result, as well as having to face security guards at their local shopping centres. (article follows):
"After the 1996 buy-back, which saw $500 million wasted on vandalistic destruction of harmless rabbit rifles and fox guns, Crime did not decrease! Murder actually increased by 20%, in 2001/2 according to latest figures from Australian Institute of Criminology. The increase was not due to guns, but such things as fists, knives and Golf Clubs!
The two separate articles in recent (28th May) Daily Telegraph, should prove conclusively that all the money, time and resources, spent on "Tough Gun Laws" has been a complete waste! In one case, where a "hitman" fired several shots into his victim in Haymarket, it should have been a simple matter for the Police to check the Firearms Registry Computer, using the serial numbers of the 3 pistols used. That would have immediately revealed the name and address of the Licenced owner. However, it is well known that criminals do not obey Laws, so would not have Registered their Pistols!
Surprise! Surprise! So, what is the point in having all the massive resources of Firearms Registration, and Computer Power if it can't be used to secure an arrest? Not only that, but had the Handguns been Registered, it would not have lessened the seriousness of the crime!
Then, on page 11 of the same Telegraph, the case of a "fake gun" , with a man having been arrested by Police and charged over having had his 6 year-old brother's toy gun in his car! No criminal act was committed, no bank was robbed and nobody was hurt, yet the Police saw this poor fellow as an easy catch, simply because he had something that "looked like a real gun". Had the police shot this poor man, would they have been excused, because "he had a Gun"?
These two cases graphically illustrate how "Tough Gun Laws" only work to victimise innocent people (who happen to legally own guns for sport or recreation), but do absolutely nothing to stop criminals! Criminals by definition, don't obey the Law!
However, the madness continues, with another round of "Tough Handgun Bans" about to be introduced and another multi-million dollar "buy-back", this time of Legally owned Pistols, used in sporting events, by fully Licenced sportsmen and women, who are the ones least likely to commit ANY Crime!
Are we to assume that the new Gun Laws and the recently formed Australian Crime Commission, will be used to simply further harass Law Abiding Sporting Shooters, over such "dangerous" breaches of the laws, as not attending the correct number of club events, not having all paperwork up to date, only having 2 bolts to secure the gun safe, (not 4, as the Law states) etc. etc.? All this, while the REAL Criminals get an easy go.
Why would the Police want to chase after Real Criminals? They shoot back!!!"
Dorrin79
Member
As I've said before - it doesn't matter. My gun rights are based on principles (right to life, right to property) not on specious "social benefits" of said rights.
Even if it was proven that more guns equals more crime, I would still have a right to own and carry guns.
John Lott's work is interesting, and I don't mean to knock it. If it helps convince someone of the error of their beliefs, great. But the fight for liberty in this country was won by principle, not by arguing that "the economy will improve by 3% if we revolt against the Redcoats!". Our fight for the preservation of that liberty will be won the same way.
Or so I hope.
Even if it was proven that more guns equals more crime, I would still have a right to own and carry guns.
John Lott's work is interesting, and I don't mean to knock it. If it helps convince someone of the error of their beliefs, great. But the fight for liberty in this country was won by principle, not by arguing that "the economy will improve by 3% if we revolt against the Redcoats!". Our fight for the preservation of that liberty will be won the same way.
Or so I hope.
Mute
Member
First, let's deal with the critics misleading assertion that the Lott book claims more guns equal less crime. That is merely the title of the book. The conclusions that John Lott drew from his statistical analysis was that enactment of shall issue laws in places that didn't have them resulted in an decrease in overall crime rate (stronger in some categories than in others) over time. The longer the time the bigger the decrease. Based on the criterion and controls implemented in his study.
The reason for the year-to-year study is to eliminate the misrepresentative nature of taking single points in an entire time line to make an accurate conclusion to any thesis. There are several other controls put into the study to eliminate as much as possible, any outside factor that could be a genuine cause for the results he found. No single factor could be responsible for the decrease in crime rate or lack thereof, but Lott makes a strong case for the enactment of shall issue law being one of the contributing factors.
However, don't take my word for it. Look at this website where Lott answers some of the criticism on his study:
Confriming More Guns, Less Crime
The reason for the year-to-year study is to eliminate the misrepresentative nature of taking single points in an entire time line to make an accurate conclusion to any thesis. There are several other controls put into the study to eliminate as much as possible, any outside factor that could be a genuine cause for the results he found. No single factor could be responsible for the decrease in crime rate or lack thereof, but Lott makes a strong case for the enactment of shall issue law being one of the contributing factors.
However, don't take my word for it. Look at this website where Lott answers some of the criticism on his study:
Confriming More Guns, Less Crime
cuchulainn
Member
I agree with those who say utility arguments are beside the point when it comes to rights, but if we are going to endulge in utility arguments, at least we should frame the discussion correctly.
Often, we place the burden of proof on ourselves when we should place it on the antis. We shouldn't have to show that CCW helps to stop crime to justify carrying; they should have to show that CCW makes crime worse in order to even think about asking us to stop, much less forcing us (*).
If nothing else, Lott (and Kleck before him) allow us to point out that there is no correlation between CCW and increased crime. While correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does prove lack of causation. Therefore, we can point out, "Not only would your proposal violate our rights, it lacks basis in a real problem. It does nothing but target disproven, empty fears."
(*)[edited to add] Or to go back to the title of this thread, we shouldn't be "defending firearms," we should be forcing them to "defend gun control."
Often, we place the burden of proof on ourselves when we should place it on the antis. We shouldn't have to show that CCW helps to stop crime to justify carrying; they should have to show that CCW makes crime worse in order to even think about asking us to stop, much less forcing us (*).
If nothing else, Lott (and Kleck before him) allow us to point out that there is no correlation between CCW and increased crime. While correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does prove lack of causation. Therefore, we can point out, "Not only would your proposal violate our rights, it lacks basis in a real problem. It does nothing but target disproven, empty fears."
(*)[edited to add] Or to go back to the title of this thread, we shouldn't be "defending firearms," we should be forcing them to "defend gun control."
Bullet Tooth
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 16
thanks for the link,mute
It seems to back up lott's claim, and therefore makes it yet another source I can use in proving the benefits of gun ownership
It seems to back up lott's claim, and therefore makes it yet another source I can use in proving the benefits of gun ownership
braindead0
Member
After some looney got an anti letter printed in the local newspaper, I decided to check the numbers. This person had claimed that violent crime is higher in Pennsylvania (where they have CCW) than Ohio.
It was pretty easy to find the gubment crime stats for both states, and even easier to find out that rape is 400% higher in Ohio than Pennsylvania, murder somewhere around 225% and all other violent crimes were higher as well (in varying degrees).
Granted, that's a limited example. But I think much of the demographics in PA vs. OH are similar, so perhaps not a big stretch to compare the two.
I think that John Lott did an excellent job of controlling for any other reasonable explanation and the numbers still showed that CCW lowered violent crime rates.
It was pretty easy to find the gubment crime stats for both states, and even easier to find out that rape is 400% higher in Ohio than Pennsylvania, murder somewhere around 225% and all other violent crimes were higher as well (in varying degrees).
Granted, that's a limited example. But I think much of the demographics in PA vs. OH are similar, so perhaps not a big stretch to compare the two.
I think that John Lott did an excellent job of controlling for any other reasonable explanation and the numbers still showed that CCW lowered violent crime rates.
Zak Smith
Member
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html
The above link is a pretty comprehensive list of objections and attempted refutations of Lott/Mustard, in addition to Lott's response to each.
Lambert's objections strike me as straw-man, but here's what Lott himself says in response to Lambert:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm
The above link is a pretty comprehensive list of objections and attempted refutations of Lott/Mustard, in addition to Lott's response to each.
Lambert's objections strike me as straw-man, but here's what Lott himself says in response to Lambert:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm
Shooter 2.5
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 476
If someone is going to tell me that CCW carriers didn't go out and buy guns just for that special occasion when they received their license, I would have to say they're crazy.
Gun manufacturers even came out with new lines just for carrying.
Every time a state would pass a CCW law, the media would send someone to the local gunshops and ask if there was a run on certain carry models and the answer is always "yes".
Gun manufacturers even came out with new lines just for carrying.
Every time a state would pass a CCW law, the media would send someone to the local gunshops and ask if there was a run on certain carry models and the answer is always "yes".
Monkeyleg
Member.
Shooter 2.5, I'm not sure I understand your point. I've come across plenty of people who want a CCW law in our state, and who think they'll be able to comfortably carry the 6" revolvers and full-size 1911's that they currently shoot.
Certainly some folks can get used to that, but not most. That's why gun shops stand to make some serious $$$ if we get shall-issue passed here.
It's also why I don't understand why some gun shops just won't help us in the effort.
Certainly some folks can get used to that, but not most. That's why gun shops stand to make some serious $$$ if we get shall-issue passed here.
It's also why I don't understand why some gun shops just won't help us in the effort.
mattd
Member
Yes they did, you are wrong, it says "The ``more guns'' in the title of Lott's book mostly refers to more guns being carried in public by permit holders. " Plus gun ownership is always on the rise. Plus people who never carry or own guns will go out and buy and gun and get a permit. So only if one person that doesn't own a gun goes out and gets a permit there was a increase in gun ownership.
--
He said anti-second amendment, not anti-gun, they are not the same thing.
Im not sure of the % but the states with lax of ccw laws have 38% less crime or somewhere around there, but don't quote me on that.
Lott at one time also came on a internet message broard under false name and hyped up his book.
Everyone here who has not already read Chapter 5 Evaluating Evidence On Guns: How and How Not to Do It Of Lotts New Book "The Bias Against Guns" should do so now. Just go to the store and read it, you don't even need to buy it. You wil see that you are wasting time arguing this thread. No, I don't have all day to explain it for you. But I will give you a start. Lott explains in detail how the cross-sectional and time-series analysis works, and applies to his evidence. The original thread starter must have just looked at a graphic chart in Lott's book then gone to the VPC website before even reading the rest of the books. Or he simply didn't understand the explanation given.
edited:
From the site "Lott claims that ``Guns are used for defensive purposes about five times as often as they are used for crimes.'' In fact, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the number of gun crimes (about 850,000 in 1996 [38]) is about twelve times as much as the number of defensive gun uses "
errrr...reported defensive uses
"(about 72,000 in 1996 [38]). This is surely not surprising--criminals are more likely to be involved in a situation where a gun might be useful, and so have more incentive to carry a gun.." They can also only choose to commit crimes on the occasions when they are carrying a gun "
Ok...enough time wasted here.
edited:
From the site "Lott claims that ``Guns are used for defensive purposes about five times as often as they are used for crimes.'' In fact, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the number of gun crimes (about 850,000 in 1996 [38]) is about twelve times as much as the number of defensive gun uses "
errrr...reported defensive uses
"(about 72,000 in 1996 [38]). This is surely not surprising--criminals are more likely to be involved in a situation where a gun might be useful, and so have more incentive to carry a gun.." They can also only choose to commit crimes on the occasions when they are carrying a gun "
Ok...enough time wasted here.
Last edited:
mattd
Member
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node21.html
Thats more than just misreading them it could be making them up.
Thats more than just misreading them it could be making them up.
English John
Member
Consider this
1) "attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls" because they base their arguments on emotion rather than logic- their mind is made up, don't confuse them with the facts.
2) What about the present situation in Britain: Less guns = more crime.
3) Remember Florida: A) People get CCW, muggers attack tourists. B) Snowbird tourists get Fla. CCW, muggers attack foreign tourists. C) Cops crack down (to keep tourists coming in), muggers go away.
4) Even if I am the last CCW in the country, it is my right and my decision.
1) "attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls" because they base their arguments on emotion rather than logic- their mind is made up, don't confuse them with the facts.
2) What about the present situation in Britain: Less guns = more crime.
3) Remember Florida: A) People get CCW, muggers attack tourists. B) Snowbird tourists get Fla. CCW, muggers attack foreign tourists. C) Cops crack down (to keep tourists coming in), muggers go away.
4) Even if I am the last CCW in the country, it is my right and my decision.
- Status