Truth about guns concealed
Posted by stargeezer 10 years, 11 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.
"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
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.
Check out: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Li...
Generalizations generally aren't true when the facts come out.
Clue: Absolutism never works.
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...
You are free to live in your bubble. America works that way.
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
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.
Yaron Brook, of the Ayn Rand Institute, in a speech was answering just that question, said that he would favor banning assualt weapons. (I can't find the speech but think it was in 2012,)
My major concern is that for us as followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy to be able to clean up our government we'll have to have a majority of Congress, a seemingly impossible task. Our enemy is firmly in control. Just re-read the Amendments to our Constitutions. What are they but a series of laws, laws and more law?
We've passed the point of no return. We are heading towards a socialist totalitarian state.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Jim Wright
As for Yaron Brook, sorry but I wasn't aware that being a member of the Ayn Rand Inst. made one celestially inspired and infallible. If the account is accurate, he is just wrong.
Next
Second point: History has clearly shown that the more armed the citizens are, the less crimes are committed. So, on what data do you base the claim that "assault" weapons should be banned? Or is it just based on feelings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bCyIAsSi...
was it in here I learned how they domesticated hogs(not comparing YB to one-just the the concept of training).
here's the recipe: get the truffles going. when the pigs aren't looking, start with one section of fence, then slowly add on sections. wehen you get down to the gate part-they are super suspicious-you might have to sweeten the pot. so now you wait the longest before you act. they get used to traveling through that one point with no fear. then you close the gate when they're in there.
now you starve them.
feed them little by little until they do what you want.
add pepper, they're naturally salty
Then, before criticizing Yaron Brook you should read some of his books and listen to a number of his speeches. Only then can you determine whether or not he is a fool.
If you're making you judgement based on hearsay, or gossip, who is the fool?
The 2nd Amendment said that "we have the right to bear arms". I suggest that the "arms" our forefathers had in mind were rifles or handguns, which are for personal protection, but also to make the people knowledgeable about guns in general, if they were needed by the militia. The militia (police?) would have, on hand, the assult weapons in case of war, and would plan on having a nation of trained soldiers to call upon for quick support.
Our Government (largely consisting of morons) has picked up on the uproar of the people, fanned by the media, to ban guns and win votes. The madman who killed 20 six-year olds and 6 adults in Sandy Hook, last year, was courteous enough to kill himself, but had he not we would now have another criminal in jail for 70 or 80 years, at around $100,000 per year, to house, feed, cloth, medicate, etc., all at taxpayer expense. But first we have allowed him to buy an assual weapon, a perfect weapon for the job, and commit the crime. Starving them is torture and we don't allow torture (not openly, at least).
Yaron Brook was pointing out this enigma as a problem that needed solving. Instead of using insults as your arguments, offer a solution for this problem, one that fits the Objectivist view of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, and a minimum of Government.
Jim Wright
Actually Jim, I'm utilizing your related information of what he said. I'm assuming that you are accurately quoting him and that he was making a honest statement of his opinion. With that accepted I can draw a conclusion based on my years of experience with guns, military, business and family life.
That conclusion is as I stated.
In you analysis of the 2nd amendment you have made the same error of misreading that most all anti gun people make. You take the clear reading of the amendment and rearrange it to mean what you want it to say.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The proper interpretation of these great words is "because a well trained militia is necessary in order for a free state to remain free and in order to field a militia in the times of need and in order that the people are trained and experienced with firearms so that this militia can be fielded, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, this right shall not be infringed."
So this then brings us to the murderous animal that killed those kids in Ct. NOBODY allowed him to buy an assault rifle. He could not have purchased the rifle himself. Here is the stupidity of passing more laws against crazy people getting guns - his mother bought it, he got into her safe somehow, stole the guns, killed her, and then killed all those kids and thankfully, himself. All of which were against the existing laws. How did he do it? With the help of his mother. This animalistic creature should have been institutionalized years before. He did not have the ability to understand he was hurting people or to separate reality from a video game. His mother was as guilty as he was because she would not allow him to be locked away where he could not kill babies.
All that given - why do you assume or equate the actions of this creature with me, the normal gun owner? I own many guns, I own over 100,000 rounds of ammunition and yes every gun I own is an "assault weapon" - right down to my 1862 Colt Musket from the Civil War.
As I mentioned in another post, one of my gun safes sits beside my desk, right here, there are around 30 handguns and around 47 long guns including 10 of the hated AR15s. Not one of these have ever threatened to shoot anybody. They are inanimate objects.
It's not the weapon that is dangerous, the person holding it is or is not dangerous
Once more I'll ask, just because a person is at the Ayn Rand Institute, do they become infallible? I think not. I also think that Yaron Brook is wrong on this if he did say he would favor banning assault weapons. It may be that he is uninformed about this subject, in which case I'd welcome the opportunity to educate him..
First of all, I never referred to YB as a "fool." I will admit that I am always amazed at the number of Objectivists who support differing levels of firearm controland it was not my intention to offend.
The 2nd Amendment is derived directly from the natural right to self-defense which is derived from I own myself, and further back to A is A.
During the revolutionary war, many or most of the cannons were owned privately. Your suggestion as to the type of firearm to which the 2nd Amendment refers is historically and logically inaccurate.
What does the cost of keeping criminals have to do with the discussion?
If you want to put property in criminal hands quickly-make it illegal. A criminal mind sees unarmed populations as easy prey. A criminal mind respects the concept of conceal carry. If I think that man is inherently good, why would I feel the need to discern what type of firearms are reasonable for a citizen to possess or not possess? I think that is a slippery slope, leaving the door cracked for another to suggest it's reasonable that every citizen should not own a gas guzzling SUV. I have read two of YB's books and listened to many of his speeches and seen him speak. I have looked for his comments on gun control and did not find any contradictory comment. He talks about the cost of gun control as onerous. You are the one who brought it up-try and provide a link. I am just commenting to your own point. As to my domesticating pigs example. this is how I see many of these types of accepting control begin. and this willingness to be controlled is mostly concentrated in large urban areas. and the Objectivists I know who promote such controls live in large urban areas. it is only my experience, but I try to understand why THIS issue has Objectivists disagreeing over another issue. Actually, the other issue I would say Objectivists are inconsistent about is Climate Change. but that's for another post.
Of course the point is solid. Neil Smith said it best:A 2-pound chunk of machined steel is a great equalizer between a 105# woman and a 250# man. And the comparisons keep being true: an assault rifle against a crowd, for example. A rocket launcher against....that's as far as I'm going here and now.
But I will boast that some years ago, on National Buy-A-Gun day, when I couldn't afford a gun, I went to my friendly local arms dealer and bought a knife. A BIG Chris Reeve knife - just because "they" didn't want me to.
All that said, on the day that ALL criminals actually are forced to pay for their crimes by enduring the full term of their legally mandated time in a prison work camp - where they WORK to repay their debt to society instead of buffing up and training for their next "parole", I might be somewhat convinced to give something up. But as long as THEY can own whatever THEY can BUY, I'll buy whatever I can AFORD.
Although I WAS looking at a cute pink pistol a couple of weeks ago......no, really, a Glock style practice gun in .22, colored so as to make it immediately obvious which was the practice one. Bought ammo instead.
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.
The Yaron Brook talk I was referring to was: "Objectivism is Radical (and Applying Can be Hard)". In it Yaron talks of Guns and War, where he has some experience, as do I. You can Google it. And I did not intend to equate you with that monster at Sandy Hook!
Jim Wright
hmmmmm.
Flood away :D
ay question gets easier if you substitute a neutral person or object for the emotion-laden one.
Thus, the question of how can an objectivist advocate laws that prohibit owning, buying or selling crystal glassware to civilians is the one you should be considering.
If you're asking how can an Objectivist advocate laws about anything,that's a different question, one which has engendered debate just about forever.
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!
However, it would be proper to address the violence and offer suggestions what might be done to reduce it.
Any constructive ideas?
thanks for the post, I'm a 2nd amendment sister, armed in California, and I wouldn't hesitate defending myself. it is frustrating to not be able to get a cc permit here. you have to have some serious credentials to get as many as you have. .
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.
Think of it as evolution in action.
Get rid of all the unConstitutional weapons regulations. (that is to say... all of them).
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.
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.
Now, how do we get together so you can tell me how you did it?
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.
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.
In our dreams, the entire Constitution would be the "law of the land" for everyone including the clowns in D.C. In our dreams.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Of emphasis: But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
The only "wrong hands" are DEAD hands. You can put a gun in a dead man's hands which only proves it is not the gun which kills, but the living man wielding it.
I left Miami after spending all my life there (except for a stint in the military) back in 1974 mainly because of the rising crime rate and being involved in an attempted robbery/car jacking. Luckily I had a carry permit when it wasn't easy to get one because of political friends and the attempt ended with the death of the perp. I packed up my family and left 6 months later, finally divesting my business interests a few years later and settled in NW Florida.
During the 80's due to the drug trade and what seemed like everyone was carrying, firearm deaths may have went up but many of those were perps vs. perps or perps vs. cops. But aside from Miami-Dade's drug times death by firearms have declined rapidly in the whole state.
Squareone. I may be old enough to be your great grandfather but I'm never to old to stop learning. :)