Cecil Moore wrote:

Care to share? Not that I'm against carrying concealed and blasting
the criminals away, mind you. It's just that these type of claims have
regularly fallen under the urban legend category, i.e. fantasy.

I threw it away after reading. As I remember, crime in the US is
down 35% while crime in the UK is up 35%. Canada and Australia
were also mentioned as having increasing crime rates along with
their increasingly restrictive gun laws.

Well, I'd be extremely skeptical about this type of "statistics". For
one, I am sure they were not comparing the same periods, and there are
numerous tricks available for anyone who is attempting to prove anything
with statistical figures. Take, for example, the US 35% reduction in
crime rate. It is more than likely that this figure was achieved by
comparing the crime rate from the peak of a recession to its bottom. The
US crime rate always faithfully follows the economy - employed people
don't have to resort to crime. No connection to the CCW whatsoever. What
about the "increasing crime rate" in the UK or Canada? CCW has never
been legal in these countries to begin with, yet both countries have the
crime rate ten times lower than the US. I bet the mag never raised that
issue.

Even in the US, the highest crime rates are the states that have
the strictest gun laws. If you were a criminal, would you rather
break into a house in New York City or Dallas?

That's not how it works. A criminal in Dallas doesn't wake up one day
and decide to break into a house, following up with a visit to the local
library to do research on where he's less likely to get shot, then
catching a bus to Big Apple. Also, the crime rate - gun law strictness
comparison is a common post hoc fallacy. Is it possible that the
relationship is inverse: because those states have the highest crime
rates, they instituted the strictest gun laws?

While I was living near Phoenix, "The Phoenix Sun" reported that
an attempted robbery using a knife at a local Circle-K was foiled
by an ordinary customer who was carrying a concealed weapon.

It happens. However, this type of testimonial evidence proves little.
I'm not sure that as a neutral bystander I'd like to be in the middle of
a shoot-out between the criminals and armed civilians. Even the police
makes numerous mistakes in these types of situations, and we are to
believe that any Joe Blow is capable of handling a situation where even
the cops call for backup first.

"First Freedom" magazine carries about ten similar reports per month where
the good guys' guns foil the bad guy's violent crimes.

I'm sure they do. If I were the editor of a magazine pandering to the
gun owners, I'd do the same, while completely ignoring the negative
aspects.

But apparently
that is not newsworthy enough for the liberal newspapers.

"Liberal", as usual being defined as anything a person calling himself a
conservative hates in a given moment? A friendly reminder: fat-ass
hypocrite AM talk show drug addicts don't get to define liberalism and
liberals, especially not with their hate propaganda.


73 ... WA7AA

--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly