2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,243
- 52,465
Yes….you may say you can't prove that people carrying guns lowered the crime rate……
However, if you are a victim who used a gun to stop an attack…you lowered the crime rate by one victim…you.
And the biggest thing for you anti gun extremists…law abiding, peaceful citizens carrying guns for self defense did not raise the gun murder rate…blood did not run in the streets…….
On Firearms, Reporting Obscures the Truth
The article notes that there are now 200,000 carry permit holders in Minnesota, or around five percent of the adult population. It also points out that 19% of permit holders are women. In Minnesota, as in a number of other states, carry laws have been liberalized by requiring local authorities to issue permits to applicants who are not disqualified by virtue of, e.g., a felony conviction. The result has been a steep increase in the number of permit holders since the law was changed in 2003.
Whether this has been a good thing or a bad thing is what readers of the article want to know, but the Strib reporter isn’t telling:
Opponents had feared that the law would lead to a surge in shootings and gun deaths. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data show that fatalities involving permit holders are rare. In the past five years, there have been five deadly or nonlethal instances of justifiable use of a firearm by permit holders.
“Deadly or nonlethal” would include all firearm usage, so there must have been more than five instances. In any event, all five instances described in the article are cases of self-defense, and none led to charges against the permit holder. Still, the vagueness continues:
The debate over carrying guns has varied little since permit-to-carry laws became the norm more than a decade ago. Both sides can present statistics and reports to prove their points.
Well, not really. When shall-carry legislation was enacted by the Minnesota legislature in 2003, liberals unanimously predicted that it would lead to a bloodbath. Violent crime, they told us, would skyrocket.
But it didn’t happen; on the contrary, the incidence of homicide and other violent crimes dropped steadily.
In the five years ending in 2003, the homicide rate in Minnesota averaged 2.6 per 100,000. In the ten years since the law was liberalized, the rate has averaged 2.0 per 100,000, a 23% decline. Moreover, the rate has dropped further as more carry permits have been issued. In the last five years, the rate has averaged only 1.7 per 100,000, a 35% reduction compared with the 1999-2003 average.
This isn’t opinion, it is arithmetic. The liberals were wrong. Yet it is rare to see this basic fact acknowledged in news reports. The Strib says that “both sides can present statistics and reports to prove their points.” We know what the statistics are on the pro-gun side, and they appear to be conclusive. So what can the anti-gun side offer?
However, if you are a victim who used a gun to stop an attack…you lowered the crime rate by one victim…you.
And the biggest thing for you anti gun extremists…law abiding, peaceful citizens carrying guns for self defense did not raise the gun murder rate…blood did not run in the streets…….
On Firearms, Reporting Obscures the Truth
The article notes that there are now 200,000 carry permit holders in Minnesota, or around five percent of the adult population. It also points out that 19% of permit holders are women. In Minnesota, as in a number of other states, carry laws have been liberalized by requiring local authorities to issue permits to applicants who are not disqualified by virtue of, e.g., a felony conviction. The result has been a steep increase in the number of permit holders since the law was changed in 2003.
Whether this has been a good thing or a bad thing is what readers of the article want to know, but the Strib reporter isn’t telling:
Opponents had feared that the law would lead to a surge in shootings and gun deaths. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data show that fatalities involving permit holders are rare. In the past five years, there have been five deadly or nonlethal instances of justifiable use of a firearm by permit holders.
“Deadly or nonlethal” would include all firearm usage, so there must have been more than five instances. In any event, all five instances described in the article are cases of self-defense, and none led to charges against the permit holder. Still, the vagueness continues:
The debate over carrying guns has varied little since permit-to-carry laws became the norm more than a decade ago. Both sides can present statistics and reports to prove their points.
Well, not really. When shall-carry legislation was enacted by the Minnesota legislature in 2003, liberals unanimously predicted that it would lead to a bloodbath. Violent crime, they told us, would skyrocket.
But it didn’t happen; on the contrary, the incidence of homicide and other violent crimes dropped steadily.
In the five years ending in 2003, the homicide rate in Minnesota averaged 2.6 per 100,000. In the ten years since the law was liberalized, the rate has averaged 2.0 per 100,000, a 23% decline. Moreover, the rate has dropped further as more carry permits have been issued. In the last five years, the rate has averaged only 1.7 per 100,000, a 35% reduction compared with the 1999-2003 average.
This isn’t opinion, it is arithmetic. The liberals were wrong. Yet it is rare to see this basic fact acknowledged in news reports. The Strib says that “both sides can present statistics and reports to prove their points.” We know what the statistics are on the pro-gun side, and they appear to be conclusive. So what can the anti-gun side offer?
