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 4.
When we lived in ElPaso TX, it had a very high murder rate, on the order of 360-400 per year in a city of 700k. Mostly driven by drive-by shootings. A few months after TX approved concealed carry there was a incident where a car full of gang bangers opened fire in downtown EP. Two licensed concealed carry holders in the target zone returned fire killing one of the gang bangers and wounding another. Following that event EP became a very peaceful city again and the murder rate dropped like a stone in water.
Now, I don't claim to be a high dollar reporter, but that is what that city saw as the result of CC. Those cowards don't like it when their victims shoot back.
If one looks at the zip codes it can be noted that with few exceptions (generally crimes of passion) few firearms murders occur across America.
We need to figure out what's going wrong where the violence is occurring and what to do about it.
General laws ain't gonna fix nothing.
However, it would be proper to address the violence and offer suggestions what might be done to reduce it.
Any constructive ideas?
Check out: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Li...
Generalizations generally aren't true when the facts come out.
I'm not too sure where you see any objectivist is advocating laws that prohibit owning, or buying, or selling assualts weapons and other weapons of war to civilians? It seems to me that the article reads quite the opposite. I know I personally do not. I think any law abiding person should be able to buy whatever they can afford. The more the merrier.
As for the police chiefs finding that concealed carry cities are much safer, that's well documented. In fact, last night I was reading that the Chief of police in Detroit - yes Detroit is now advocating for increased gun ownership and concealed carry.
"In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991).[23] He has testified before Congress and state legislatures on gun control proposals. His research was cited in the Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[24]"
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
Mr. Lott studied the effects of gun control and over and over again, fewer guns lead to more crime. this was an extensive study. I think-every county across the country.
In our dreams, the entire Constitution would be the "law of the land" for everyone including the clowns in D.C. In our dreams.
My question is how can an Objectivist advocate laws that prohibit owning, or buying, or selling assualts weapons and other weapons of war to civilians? Is such a law not inconsistant with our demand for freedom from laws?
Jim Wright
Thanks for calling me "nobody".
Thanks on behalf of the Founding Fathers for calling them "nobody".
I guess "Nobody" is the only one who actually READS the Constitution.