Does Carrying a Firearm Make One Safer?

Comments

110
@101, I have another idea. Why don't we ask that burglar's gang whether they're likely to drive by and riddle his home with bullets. We could both just ask ignorant questions, ignore the facts presented to us and choose anecdotal evidence over peer reviewed studies. That would be fun.
111
@106: Nameless, faceless, bureaucrats, eh? I assume you are referring to the no-fly list bit and not the part about the gun show loophole.
So you believe that even if our intelligence agencies have a wealth of evidence tying an individual directly to terrorism, this individual should be allowed to buy whatever deadly weapons are otherwise legal?
If someone is deemed mentally disturbed to the point that they pose a threat to society, they are generally not allowed to purchase a gun. If someone has a history of serious crimes, they are generally not allowed to purchase a gun. These decisions are made by elected or appointed government officials, and usually there's not much recourse but to appeal to the agency that classified them thus. By your logic, we should allow felons and dangerous psychotics to buy guns just like the rest of us.
112
"To those idiots who are comparing the dangers of gun ownership to the dangers of being gay. Gun ownership is a choice numbnuts. "

Sure, being gay isn't a choice, sticking your unsheathed cock up a different anonymous asshole every week most certainly is a choice.

Again, break those gun stats down by race and class and you'll see owning a gun is no less dangerous than owning a car. It's thug culture that's the problem. The Swiss are heavily armed but unfailingly polite.
113
@112: Huh?
If, for every given race-class combination, owning a gun is no more dangerous than owning a car, than that condition must be also true FOR THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE. Someone here clearly doesn't understand the laws of statistics!
But you are right that irresponsible promiscuity is the problem, not homosexuality.
114
You could ask this woman. Oh wait, no you can't - she (and a lot of others like her) is dead.

Also an excellent reason to oppose mandatory waiting periods for a handgun purchase.

http://www.saveservices.org/2011/03/can-…
115
@113 owning a gun and bring married, white and middle class is as safe as driving.

116
Gun violence in America is predominantly a black, urban problem. Every stat shows that. I know you all think it's a white redneck problem, but stats don't show rednecks shooting each other up anywhere near the rates as blacks.

Maybe it's time to start condemning thug culture and gangsta rap instead if being dumb white liberals and pretending that's not a problem?
118
All of you naive white Libtards like Golob who hate guns and self-defense so much need to put up a sign in your front windows that says:

PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME
119
@ 117, how is stuff like that to be measured? If it can't be defined, it doesn't have a true place in the discussion.
120
@115, Are you suggesting we only allow married, white middle class people buy guns? That's a new argument to me.
121
@115: But that's not even what you said previously. And do you even have statistics to back up what you're saying? Or do you just make bullshit up off the top of your head, and then claim you were saying something else when you're called on it?
@116: Way to make rap music and "thug culture" scapegoats while avoiding the real cause of the problem: poverty.
122
Sorry to be terribly insensitive here, but I wanted to point out that the four Lakewood police officers who were killed recently were all carrying guns in good working order, in public, within easy reach, and they were all trained to use them very effectively. Did their being armed prevent gun violence against them? Well, sort of, one of them got a shot off into the assailant, but that did not stop the murders from happening.
123
@120 Nope, just telling that living in Seattle's great White North and owning a gun, I have no worries about them and the stats back me up.

Ahhh, ahhh 'poverty'. How come when people were much poorer in the past, they didn't shoot up their ghettos and neighbors?
124
@19, @52, @70 This, this and this.

It's not the data so much, as the conclusions one arrives at from the data. Just because carrying a gun does not statistically make you safer doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reason's to carry a gun.

Put it this way: Drunk people drive cars and get in accidents. Does that mean that sober people shouldn't drive cars? If a technology is dangerous, impaired people will cause harm to themselves and others.

Analogy the second: Cocaine use is intrinsically dangerous. Particularly to children and abused spouses in the household. (source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…) Given this, should cocaine be illegal, or should we legalize it and spend money on treatment and education? The Stranger's editorial stance looks to me to fall in line with the latter, and I agree. How is this different from guns? I know you'll say that guns can be lethal. So can cocaine. And domestic abuse is something that affects generations. Break the cycle and all that.

Please respond, sloggers. I'm interested in a ration discussion of this issue. Am I too optimistic?
125
" Did their being armed prevent gun violence against them"

So cops should unilaterally disarm and let thugs roam free?

Of course, if one of those fine Lakewood officers had beaten that piece of shit and gunned him down, you'd all be screaming 'racism' and police brutality. It's why the far left can't win elections above dog catcher and Mayor of Seattle.
126
"Gun owners are more likely to be shot"
No shit. Car drivers are more likely to be in car accidents.
Knife jugglers are more likely to get cut
Herion users are more likely to overdose

I don't own a gun but I shoot them fairly
frequently and don't find them unsafe. You just have to not be an idiot. The prob is that lots of gun owners are idiots.

And if you aren't strapped youre fucked when the zombies come!
127
Being killed or maimed while you burglarize does not make you a victim. The victim is the property owner.

I think that shooting a burglar is a reasonable course of action, and frankly, if they are in the process of the crime, a perfectly legal response. Just don't shoot them if they're leaving: you must allow them to leave unless you have reason to fear for your safety.
128
"prob is that lots of gun owners are idiots. "

And if you ever watch america's favorite black comedy, 'The First 48', you'll know that's true.
129
@124 & 126 if you showed that people were more likely to get killed in a car accident than they were to get to their destination safely then yes, I would say make cars illegal. Instead, the reality is that the vast majority of the time everyone gets to their destination safely. So, the vast majority of the time the car does it's job (getting you where you're going safely) while a tiny minority of the time someone gets hurt in one.

On the other hand, with guns, the evidence presented in this post says that people are far more likely to get violently injured if they have a gun. So, gun owners get hurt by guns more often than they're protected by them.

Again. Golob DID NOT SAY that he wanted to ban guns. He was offering data so that when you decide whether to own one you can make that decision based on facts (you're more likely to die by your own gun than protect yourself with it) rather than rhetoric (I'm perfectly safe if only I carry a gun).
130
@21- I like a rural feel to my house, so I have an ax handle.

@124- Gun ownership should be legal, as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Meaning the kind of gun ownership that goes with being part of a well organized militia. America's current gun culture, legal structure, and military have nothing to do with this concept. Anyone who wants to (and is capable of) being in the militia should have a rifle and basic training. Taking a handgun to the mall should be illegal.
131
@123:
>implying that crime rates among the urban poor have risen in the past half century or so
132
@127 I agree with you, but it seems you may have missed my point.

I'm not saying that driving a car is intrinsically dangerous. I'm saying that driving a car while drunk is more likely to result in a car accident. But just because someone is stupid and doesn't use technology safely, it doesn't mean that a well-trained, unimpaired person is more likely to injure themselves.

Admittedly, a gun is a lethal weapon, so anytime you are in the vicinity of or handling one, you are more likely to be injured or killed. But it doesn't follow that you have the same likelihood of injury or death as an untrained or impaired person.

I'm not coming from a "from my cold dead hands" perspective. I don't even own a gun. But I think this issue is sensitive enough to warrant careful consideration. If nothing else, Golob's post is just preaching to the choir. Someone who is intent on owning guns is likely to take the "well, I won't let it won't happen to me" approach. I lean slightly toward an education and awareness approach.

Which leads me to this. I believe the second point in my original post is stronger, and am interested in hearing what people think about it.
133
One more note. I do not mean to argue that guns, in fact, make you safer. I'm questioning the validity of saying that, as a rule, guns make you less safe.
134
I wonder what the Saudi Arabian population makes of all this. We're talking about a culture where EVERYBODY has a gun, not just a few loons here and there.
135
Ok statisticians: if 50% of all gun deaths and injuries are experienced by population A, who only make up 13% of the population and 35% of the gun injuries/deaths are from population B, who make up 70% of the population, which group is statistically more dangerous with guns?

1). A
2). B

?
136
@135: I think you mean "Which group is statistically more likely to be injured by guns?"
Also, speaking as someone with a grounding in statistical analysis, your little study would get laughed out of any peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because it in no way attempts to control potential confounding variables! Try something akin to a matched-pairs test, where you sample from two populations who are comparable in geography, age breakdown, socioeconomic status, etc., and differ only by the one factor of which you are attempting to test the effect. Maybe THEN you'd have some statistically meaningful data.
Sure, it's just math. And because it's just math, it's all the scarier that you're so clearly incapable of handling it.
137
Seattle is only 8% black in total. Black males committed 14 of the 28 homicides in Seattle in 2008, 12 of the 21 in 2009, and at least 7 of the 17 in 2010.
138
"likely to be injured by guns"

You make it sound almost accidental that group A is 5 times more likely to be involved in gun violence. Or are the CDC numbers wrong?

Lies, damned lies and stats: glad to see your chosen occupation puts you at the end.
139
"socioeconomic status"

So poor people are statistically more violent? For once we agree except I'd argue with you Over which is cause and which is affect.
140
Of the 27 officers that were shot and killed by criminals in the last 20 years in King and Pierce county, 21 of them were shot by black men, even though black men make up less than 3% of the population of those counties combined.  
141
Now I realize that Seattle is one of the two whitest cities in the USA and that most of you naive white progressives almost never have any actual significant contact with blacks (Charles does not count), and you are always comparing Seattle's crime rate favorably to places like Detroit, Chicago, and LA without ever putting 2 & 2 together, but geez quit being so wilfully blind and naive. You are embarrassing yourselves and you don't een realize it. Don't worry though you might someday win an Amy Biehl Award for your progressive efforts. 

Let's look at the real city of Dallas:

At least 63% of all homicides in Dallas are committed by blacks and latinos (probably even more than that).

http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_…

Homicides in Dallas Texas - 2008

Race of Suspect - # of Homicides - Percentage
White - 9 = 6%
Black - 72 = 47%
Hispanic - 24 = 16%
Unknown - 49 = 32%

Therefore, even if the every single one of the 49 "unknown" murderers were whites, the "known" black murderers would still outnumber them!!!!! 

To really put it in the proper perspective:

http://www.city-data.com/city/Dallas-Tex…

Dallas Population Racial Data:

Hispanic - 547,781 (44.6%)
White - 355,922 (29.0%)
Black - 274,087 (22.3%)

Can you imagine how wonderful and vibrant Seattle will be when it is 30% or even just 20% black? But will it still be a liberal progress city then? Probably not. White progressives who, in their retardedness and naïveté of white guilt, are most vocal about being liberal and "anti racist" and "anti white privilege" almost never have to be around any real blacks and almost never actually come into contact with them. In short, they are sheltered and naive, or they have willfully blinded themselves to the cold hard facts of reality, evolution, and crime. White progressivism is a stupid religion just like Christianity.
142
A close look at the New York Times Interactive Homicide map might interest some of you naive white libtards at The Stranger.

New York Times Interactive Homicide Map

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homici…

Blacks = 60% of the killers, 61% of the victims

Whites = 7% of the killers, 8% of the victims

Blacks = 26% of NYC population

Whites = 35% of NYC population

So what do we surmise with these stats?

Answer: Black males commit more homicides.
143
@137-142 . . . did you even read Venomlash's comment about confounding variables? Or did you simply not understand it?
144
@Root: "@101, I have another idea. Why don't we ask that burglar's gang whether they're likely to drive by and riddle his home with bullets. We could both just ask ignorant questions, ignore the facts presented to us and choose anecdotal evidence over peer reviewed studies. That would be fun. "

So, by your logic, we shouldn't defend ourselves from criminals because the criminals might commit more crimes against us.

Brilliant, I tell ya, brilliant!
145
Really, seriously, all of you who keep touting the Golob's data, did any of you actually read any of it? Did none of you see this, from item #2?
"Overall, the study found that it was not possible to generalize national information on firearm ownership and storage to surveyed patients of primary care clinics in Wisconsin."
The study's own authors admit that it's useless for a general statement on firearms policy.

Let's just cut to the chase- none of you want to own guns or to have an equalizer should the unthinkable happen and someone attack you in your homes.
I feel differently and I would defend my girlfriend and her children, and my property, from any scumbag that would think to walk into my home and either hurt my family or steal the the things that I work my ass off to provide to my family.
Don't like that? Tough.
Think you're smarter than me or more reasonable than me? Fine, try reasoning with the intruder in the dark as he's crushing your skull with a claw hammer or anally raping your partner.
Feel that it's immoral to take another persons life? OK, take that philosophical stance- I hope it comforts you while you wonder where your child disappeared to and who took him/her.

There's a reason we lock our doors and it's not out of paranoia; it's because there are bad people in the world. And sometimes those bad people decide to kick down that door or come through the window.
When they do, will your high-minded sentiments stop them? Will your morals or ethics or philosophy cease the assault or the rape? Will the gov't or your neighbors or Mr. Golob or anyone else save you? Remember, you have to be able to reach the phone to call the police and, even then, they may not come for at least several minutes.

You folks may be willing to take that risk.
I am not.
And whoever comes into my home to hurt my family will reap the consequences of their actions.
Did any of you really read the article on the incident in Tacoma?
The detectives determined that the burglars had actually been inside that mans home, before he awoke and confronted them in the garage. Think of what that might mean to you. Two strange men, whose motives are completely unknown, might be standing over you and your family as you sleep, while you're helpless.
You may think that's OK, I do not.
I sleep far better, knowing I am able to protect my family.
146
@143.... "confounding variables"

Oh, you mean "EXCUSES"!
147
@146 "A confounding variable, also known as a third variable or a mediator variable, can adversely affect the relation between the independent variable and dependent variable. This may cause the researcher to analyze the results incorrectly. The results may show a false correlation between the dependent and independent variables, leading to an incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis." (http://www.experiment-resources.com/conf…)

IOW, how do violent crime rates of poor black children of single mothers living in the inner city compare to violent crime rates of poor white children of single mothers living in the inner city.

More simply, Braeburn Apples to Braeburn apples. Not to Fujis or oranges.

Science, it works, bitches. (http://xkcd.com/54/)
148
Good job, man. I am with you on all points Golob.
149
According to USDOJ victims surveys, over 37,000 white women are raped/sexually assaulted by black men every year in the USA.  According to the same reports, less than 10 (ten) black women are raped or sexually assaulted by white men in the USA every year.   One in 3 black South African men freely admit to committing rape, usually multiple times, usually gang rapes.  
150
@147

Again, confusing cause and affect. Are more inner city blacks criminals, involved in violent gun crimes, because of poverty, or are they poor because of the criminality encouraged by their culture and defended by earnest white liberals?

Some of us believe in human will and the ability of individuals to make choices. You folks apparently don't.
151
@138: When you report the results of a statistical test, you don't draw conclusions right then and there. You report exactly what the test suggests, AND NOTHING MORE OR LESS, and save your interpretation for the "Conclusions" section of your paper.
@141: I live in Woodlawn, a neighborhood in the South Side of Chicago that is ~95% African American. Stop pretending to be a guest expert on Colored People.
@145: I'm perfectly at ease with defending myself, even with lethal force if it comes to that. There are just better ways to protect one's home or person than with a gun, ways that provide adequate security without such a high risk of accidental grievous injury.
@147: Thanks. I'm really starting to get tired of these ignorant-ass crackers pretending that the statistics back them up, when in reality they know Jack Diddly Squat about statistical analysis.
@150: There's an easy way to find out, one which jlar and I have already suggested in this thread: cohort testing. Test poor blacks and poor whites (and poor Asians and Latinos if you want to be really exhaustive) living in the same inner-city areas, and see if the crime rates amongst them differ by statistically significant margins.
See, the black subjects will be affected by the variables of black culture and of poverty, while the white subjects will only be affected by poverty. Now if the black population has crime rates which are higher than those of their white counterparts by a statistically significant margin, we can agree that the data support your hypothesis. If there is no statistically significant increase, then your hypothesis is not supported. ¿Comprendes?
152
@150 obvious troll is obvious.
153
"Science, it works, bitches"

Don't confuse sociology (ism) with science.
154
@151 you always do make the CLAIM that you live in a 95% black hood, but the catch here is that I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
155
@venomlash: "@145: I'm perfectly at ease with defending myself, even with lethal force if it comes to that. There are just better ways to protect one's home or person than with a gun, ways that provide adequate security without such a high risk of accidental grievous injury."

Really?
Name them.
Describe to me, a 6', 230-lb. man, former infantry Marine, former bouncer, former private investigator, former bodyguard, former store detective, how a 5'5", 130-lb. woman would defend herself and her children against someone of my size and physical ability.
Describe to me in detail what training, with what period of physical/psychological reinforcement and muscle memory development and with what non-lethal tools that woman and/or child could stop a physical assault in the dark, having just been woken by the hand of a stranger across their mouth.

You can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
In fact, never mind. I don't even care about your answer because you're an idiot and you're just spouting bullshit.
My family will remain safe; yours may or may not.
I just hope we never find out who's wrong, but at least I'm being proactive.
156
@155- Statistically speaking, it looks like your family is less safe.
157
@156: Based on Golob's links? I re-iterate:
Did you see this, from item #2?
"Overall, the study found that it was not possible to generalize national information on firearm ownership and storage to surveyed patients of primary care clinics in Wisconsin."
The study's own authors admit that it's useless for a general statement on firearms policy.
158
@153: Don't confuse statistical analysis with sociology. And certainly don't confuse either of them with socialism!
@154: If you ask nicely, I'll go down to 63rd and Ellis and take a picture with timestamp.
@155:
>implying a properly stored firearm would be of any protection against an intruder who has just awakened a sleeping person
Get a good knife, of the sheathed or folding varieties. Get a Taser. Get a collapsible baton.
And you know what I would do if I woke up in the dark to find a stranger's hand over my mouth? As soon as I had a sense of where his neck was, I'd jab two stiffened fingers in between his clavicles as hard as I could. Unless the guy has high-end body armor on, he'll drop like a log. (Of course, this mode of defense can be lethal if sufficient damage is done to the trachea.) I recommend teaching your wife about the various weak points of the body; everyone's got them.
159
Your answers are stunningly stupid.
160
http://www.freep.com/article/20110510/NE…
"Township police Lt. Delmar Lange said the worker fired multiple shots at one of the bandits, forcing the men to flee.
"He could see the hostage situation developing," Lange said. "He could not retreat any farther. He was in the back room. If it was me, I would have done the same thing.""

If a cop agrees that someone shouldn't have to acquiesce when cornered at work, imagine the reaction to being attacked in ones home.
161
sounds like it is possible that handgun ownership might make one more likely to die, but less likely to get robbed. so both sides are right?
162
@157- Yes, I saw your little quote. One quote and a bunch of insults isn't a convincing argument about statistics. Venomlash has done an excellent job explaining things. You've called him stupid. I find Venomlash more convincing.

Every person in America has an inalienable right to bears arms.

The vast majority of them probably shouldn't, and the more strenuously they defend their right to a gun to more likely it is they shouldn't. People who own guns because they're irrationally scared are very likely to use them irrationally.
163
@162: Well, except my talk about statistics wasn't about the issue he's raising; I was responding to Alleged's blathering about Scary Negroes.
164
Ja- please, don't mistake me for that racist fuck.
165
@164- OK, you're not that racist fuck....

So anyway, you've got a statistical analysis that contradicts Golob? Something longer than calling us stupid and one out of context quote.
166
Dave66 -

Did you read the entire survey or just the abstract? You are mis-construing the statement in my reading.

That statement referred to several specific tests regarding rates of ownership, reasons for ownership, etc. Their study found a very large variation throughout different communities within Wisconsin. However, the statement that Dr. Golob made regarding safe storage was in fact validated across the board by the data.

So, no, the study is not useless in informing public policy. I really don't see how that is very difficult to understand...
167
So what is it that is stopping you naive white Seattle libtard gun-haters from putting a sign In your front windows that reads "PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME". ? Walk your talk you white Seattle wimp libtard hypocrites (sorry about the redundancy of the last 4 words in that sentence).
168
darn Junior aren't you afraid one night you might accidentally jab your two stiffened fingers in between your own clavicles causing yourself accidental grievous injury?

it must be terrifying to sleep with such lethal weapons as your two stiffened fingers so close....
169
@168- In the meantime, you don't have to worry because nothing stiffens around your bed.
170
I fear I may be the last commenter and I want to hear Golob's opinion on crime/death in Vermont which has the most lax handgun laws in America. (no permit required to carry) Also, why are cities than ban handgun ownership outright (D.C., Baltimore) so dangerous? Lastly, if guns are the problem why are Cananda and Switzerland so safe? Cananda has more guns per capita
and all able bodied Swiss males have assault weapons in their houses for national guard service.
171
I meant Canada.
172
dwightmoodyforgetsthings,

do the mentally inhibited have a right to own a gun?

why not?

safety?
173
@170- America's culture is the reason why we shoot each other so often. High crime cities banned guns AFTER they became high crime cities.

@172- If they're competent to exercise their other rights as citizens, yes. Why did you assume I was going to say no?
174
I read up to about 109 before skipping to the end, so pardon me if someone has already said this.

Perhaps there is a "crowd" effect going on in some places: if there is a perception of common gun-ownership, perhaps some potential criminals decide not to commit said crime. But if person X on that block is the one person not owning a gun, he could get the benefits of the rest of the crowd owning guns without the risks of owning one himself. Like the crowd effect seen in community vaccination programs.

So the evidence from the different studies might be complimentary after all. One could then debate whether being a gun-owning country is good or bad in the aggregate, but I doubt that is a debate with any real end-game in the US.
175
@174- Except areas with high gun ownership are not immune to crime.
176
You're probably right. I for one am an ideologically-driven anti-gun nut. But the scientist in me wanted to offer an alternate explanation for the seemingly-contradictory evidence.
177
Golob: ...regarding a gentleman who defended his garage (undoubtedly filled with mountains of useless junk that should be thrown out) from two burglars, by killing one and seriously injuring another human being with his vaunted handgun.

Yes, burglars are human beings. This means they should have the right to break into your garage (or home) without being harmed.
178
The argument is weak because it is statistical.

A lot of things if done carelessly are dangerous. Cars are very dangerous to drive, statistically. So is carrying a gun. Yet many well-trained cops and military people, can operate vehicles safely, and guns safely. You'd essentially have to argue that cops and military should NOT have guns, or cars, because they are unsafe, in order to have anything more than a statistical argument.

And the statistical argument is pretty weak because it assumes you are untrained, ignorant, are willing to have the outcome of the "average" person rather than an expert, and so forth. By all means if you don't want to train with a gun, rehearse how to keep cool in dangerous situations, etc, then of course don't carry, it will just make you more dangerous. That's all the statistical argument is pointing out. Ignorance is dangerous.

In related news, butter is more dangerous than both guns and cars. Because people ignorant of physical health eat it and then become fat and develop health complications...
179
Also someone made an argument about a mugging being a dangerous situation where guns would not help, therefore guns have no use in making one safe. Again it comes down to training and the particular situation. If you have concealed carry and the mugger doesn't find your firearm, and you're well trained, then you should almost always be able to make yourself safer. Because instead of being a "hero" you can do the smart thing, and always try to maximize your safety. Pull out the arm only if it will improve your odds of living. For example if they have the advantage just wait until you are safe, or run. If you have gained a safe distance on a mugger who is unarmed or armed with a knife, now you have the advantage, and you can do whatever you want depending on what makes you feel safest. Or if they have a gun you could act like you're unarmed and comply, which won't change your odds of surviving at all. But if they decide to shoot at you, then of course it gets dicey, maybe the thing to do would be to run for cover. Or you could shoot back at them which could potentially improve your chances of living, over being a passive target (depending on the situation and your judgment). Or maybe you have a really quick draw that you've trained for. Or if you make it to cover you could send out a few shots as cover fire to hopefully dissuade the attacker. Who knows. It's your call. But you'd have to argue that people cannot make good judgments at all, in order to say that the gun makes the person being mugged inherently less safe. Otherwise it just comes down to the training of the individual.

The thing is, there's no credible, rational argument that carrying makes one less safe in every circumstance. They are all ideological arguments driven by gun politics. An analogous argument would be "Is carrying a katana going to make you less safe?" Let's say you're untrained and think you're a badass and pull out a katana in a mugging. Now you've just become incredibly unsafe. But if there's a well trained samurai with a katana who's mugged by someone unarmed, or armed with a knife, man I'd be betting on the samurai. And guns of course have the additional advantage that you can conceal them, in certain jurisdictions.
180
Actually, all philosophizing aside. The FBI is kind enough to keep statistics on crime prevention. The presence of an armed citizen prevents crime, often without a shot being fired thousands of times a year. An additional tidbit they keep, is the types of crimes and the weapons used. Most robbers, muggers and rapists use no weapon at all (they are just bigger and meaner). Those who use a weapon are most likely to have a knife or blunt trauma weapon. Those who resist criminals are less likely to be harmed than those who willing "walk back to the storage room," and my favorite irrefutable fact, the Texas Department of Public safety keeps crime statistics on only two identifiable groups, peace officers and concealed license holders. In Texas at least CHL holders are the most law abiding and safe group in history. I'm sorry to say, much safer and law abiding than the other identifiable group.
In closing, all the constitutional amendments are important and with responsibility does come some risk of harm. We have collectively decided that those rights are sufficiently important that the risks are to be tolerated. Otherwise we would shut down those who print subversive books, put the guilty in jail with out the expense of trial, search everyone because only the guilty have anything to hide and we would all go to the approved churches on Sunday.
181
Actually, all philosophizing aside. The FBI is kind enough to keep statistics on crime prevention. The presence of an armed citizen prevents crime, often without a shot being fired thousands of times a year. An additional tidbit they keep, is the types of crimes and the weapons used. Most robbers, muggers and rapists use no weapon at all (they are just bigger and meaner). Those who use a weapon are most likely to have a knife or blunt trauma weapon. Those who resist criminals are less likely to be harmed than those who willing "walk back to the storage room," and my favorite irrefutable fact, the Texas Department of Public safety keeps crime statistics on only two identifiable groups, peace officers and concealed license holders. In Texas at least CHL holders are the most law abiding and safe group in history. I'm sorry to say, much safer and law abiding than the other identifiable group.
In closing, all the constitutional amendments are important and with responsibility does come some risk of harm. We have collectively decided that those rights are sufficiently important that the risks are to be tolerated. Otherwise we would shut down those who print subversive books, put the guilty in jail with out the expense of trial, search everyone because only the guilty have anything to hide and we would all go to the approved churches on Sunday.
182
After reading this, all I can say is...I'm glad I don't live in WA.
While I agree idiots, drunks and druggies shouldn't own guns, I believe that anyone who is reasonably sane and takes the time to actually learn how to handle a weapon should have one.
183
@Jonathon Golob You can't guarantee anything all of the time. You want to study something, study law enforcement. They carry guns, seek out shit heads and are involved in weapons related incidents all the time. Most of the time they win. Sometimes they lose. Their weapons provide them with a fighting chance.
184
Oh, I got it. All your article cite your other articles. How does it feel to know everything you arrogant prick? You have all the answers don't you? Climate change, global warming, take the guns away, kill a baby in the womb is ok, but not the murderer in jail, "fair trial" to terrorists. Fuck you and your blog(s).