Crimes from CCW holders vs non CCW Holders!

[SnowCajun]

Does anyone know of a chart or graph that shows a comparision to crimes by CCW license holders vs non license holders? I got into a debate on a news web page and of course everyone wants guns gone, but in trying to explain to them you don't punish the good child for what the bad one has done I stated something about it not being done by CCW license holders, that sure sometimes one does act up or slips through the system, but I'd like to back up the statistics on that in some way if possible.

People always want to take the guns as if that's the answer to everything, I swear if someone passes gas loudly they blame guns. What will they want to take next if they take the guns away, shall we give up our steak knives because the criminals have gone to those since guns supposidly wouldn't be available anymore, or how about outlawing automobiles too, we've seen enough of those run through buildings as a battering ram to break in, and we all probably know or have heard of some kid taking their parents car in the middle of the night and dying while driving crazy, or killing someone else while out joyriding, I bet no one wants to outlaw cars!

Okay, so some of that may be a bit overboard, but these people that are always yelling it's all the fault of guns really get to me at times.

SnowCajun

 

[BluesStringer]

You should be able to find all the umm....ammunition you need either Here or Here.

You may have trouble finding stats on the exact question you're asking. Legal uses of guns for defense are not only done by CWP holders, many happen in a person's home where their CWP status is not at issue. All of the stats that I've seen do not distinguish between CWP vs. non-CWP holders. They generally only distinguish between legal and illegal uses.

Having been on the web for a bit more than 10 years now, most of that time spent debating politics and constitutional issues, I have an observation to offer you. Take it with however many grains of salt you wish. In my experience, if you're trying to sway truly leftist liberals with facts and stats, you're wasting your time. If the forum you're participating in really is populated by "everyone wants guns gone"-types, they are operating on nothing but emotional arguments to put forth such a ridiculously unsupportable and unconstitutional concept. Facts won't sway them. Stats won't sway them. Nothing will convince them that you have a right as a free American to protect and defend yourself and your family with the same amount of force that is likely to brought to bear against you in an illegal, violent attack, whether you hold a valid CWP or not.

I'm telling you this as one who has never had very good control of myself in implementing the knowledge that they (the leftist liberals) don't care what I have to say. You can find at least one example of me letting myself get into it with a liberal right here on this site. I understand the temptation. You know you're right, we all know you're right, and the natural instinct is to show them the errors of their ways through logical, well thought-out and researched, statistically sound debate. I do it too. Just as long as you know that you're probably wasting your time and the only thing you're likely to accomplish is some decent practice at articulating your positions, well, there ya go, that's about all you're going to get out of it.

Blues

 

[rabywk]

You know you're right, we all know you're right, and the natural instinct is to show them the errors of their ways through logical, well thought-out and researched, statistically sound debate.
Blues

Wait a second. You are to use logic, research, and statistics while debating gun control? I thought it was whoever yelled and cried the loudest won the fight. I have been going about this all wrong.

 

[DrDavidM]

Here is a little information that might help. I, unfortunately agree you probably won't change their minds, but it's always nice to have some educated evidence (instead of made up junk) to back what you say.

Link Removed



Have there been any problems in states with shall-issue concealed carry laws?
Benefits strongly outweigh any problems.

In the state of Washington, a state with demographics virtually identical to Minnesota, 36 years of experience with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws and NO problems prove that the crime deterring benefits of these laws unequivocally outweigh any concerns. That is a fact!

Accidental shootings in states with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws in 1992 were 36% less in states with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws than other states. A majority of states (31) had 36% fewer accidental deaths than the remaining 19 states. The total number of accidental deaths in 1992 was 1409. A detailed study of all counties indicates that in counties with populations over 100,000 (27 accidental handgun deaths occurred in counties with shall Issue laws) a net increase in accidental deaths due to handguns was 6 tenths of one percent. If "non-discretionary shall issue" laws where implemented nationally the result would be about 9 more accidental handgun deaths per year vs. a net reduction of totals deaths between 1,561 and 1767.

The most comprehensive and carefully done examination of successful defensive gun uses by civilians determined that there were in excess of 2.5 million DGU s each year, with 400,000 incidents in which the victim believed that using the gun (almost always by brandishing) almost certainly saved an innocent life. In Florida , between Oct. 1987 and April 1994 only 18 crimes were committed by permitees out of 221,443 permit holders. Multnomah County, Oregon, has issued 11,140 permits between 1990 and 1994 and experienced 5 permit holders involved in shootings, 3 were deemed justified by Grand Juries, one was an accidental rifle firing while being unloaded, and one was an assault. In Texas by the end of 1996 82,000 permits had been issued and only one permitted fatal shooting had occurred. The shooting was deemed justified.

Each year some permits are revoked for various reasons. The number is extremely small. Nevertheless, any weighing of the benefits over problems will demonstrate that problems are minimal in comparison to stopping 80,000 to several million crimes per year.

 

[ishi]

Somebody check my math, but those statistics seem to say that about .008% of permit holders commited crimes with guns. (florida, 1987 - 1994)

Oregon seemed to be about .009% for Multnomah Cty, Oregon, 1990-1994.

Those stats are overwhelming.

 

[HK4U]

Facts and truth mean nothing to the enemies of the 2nd amendment/constitution. It is good to have though for some are just ignorant and there is still a chance of educating them.

 

[BluesStringer]

Facts and truth mean nothing to the enemies of the 2nd amendment/constitution. It is good to have though for some are just ignorant and there is still a chance of educating them.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, thus my use of the phrase, "truly leftist liberals" in suggesting time may be being wasted in engaging them. If someone admits to ignorance, that's a perfect opening to educate, and should be taken as a request to be educated. If someone says they don't care about the law or history of guns in America, either implicitly or directly, just practice your chops if you must, but don't get disappointed or feel like you've failed "the cause" when you can't sway them.

Blues

 

[kwo51]

How how do we get this info to the people that count?

 

[tattedupboy]

No matter what the actual facts are, the important thing to remember about data is that it can be used to say whatever the researcher wants it to say. If an anti wants to show how easy it is for a convicted felon to obtain a CCW, he will find a way to do it. Yes, it's dishonest, but when has the truth ever stopped an anti from trying to do what they do?

 

[spc]

How how do we get this info to the people that count?

You can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.

CCW holders are generally considered to commit fewer crimes than LEO. Not by much, but that does show we are amongst the most law abiding groups around.

spc

 

[slowfire]

Prof. Lott of Havard wrote and article a couple years back that was published on the Wall Street Journal. It was well researched and written.

 

[HK4U]

Prof. Lott

Prof. Lott of Havard wrote and article a couple years back that was published on the Wall Street Journal. It was well researched and written.

I seem to remember that. If anyone has a link to it that would be great.

 

[Puppy]

Just google Pro. Lott of Harvard and you will find it.

(You will also find attacks on Lott from the Brady Bunch.)

 

[DrDavidM]

Here is a link to his website. I didn't read it all yet, but I plan to review it later today.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/02/research-on-guns-and-road-rage.html

 

[DrLewall]

and the frustration just keeps building.

 

[bbrown]

Link Removed

 

[speergold40]

I wish paul helmke would consider these statistcis instead of overlooking thembut then again convincing a brick wall of the obvious would probably be easier than him. I focus on trying to convince those that can be swayed and mostly politicians. They need to realize that a gun control agenda is a good way to never get re-elected.