Truth about guns concealed
Posted by stargeezer 11 years, 3 months ago to Government
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
You are free to live in your bubble. America works that way.
You can also see that the number of murders by handguns is almost exactly the same as murders from other causes.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...
Check it out.
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...
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.
Clue: Absolutism never works.
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.
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.
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!
Load more comments...