Why does anybody think concealed carry is a good idea?

[williepete]

I've used a gun three time in my life to protect myself, family and property. Once in the States against a break in and two in Panama against attempted assault/robbery.

None of the situations resulted in a shooting, injury or police involvement so the three incidents didn't end up on the FBI's statistical analysis. I'd wager this is common.

I'm a firm believer in it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Concealed carry keeps the bad guys guessing.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Why do we think Concealed Carry is a good idea, oh I don't know, the alternative, rape, seems so one-sided, I understand that half the people in a rape, really enjoy it, I just don't think being the victim is fun. I also understand people really want more stories about rape on the local news, some people live vicariously through the news, I guess I just don't think I should be your entertainment.

seems simple really.

Guns don't stop rape. Killing young men and sending them off to war helps a lot however.

I disagree with you. So do the facts. Read this, PMH:

Cases in which guns saved lives

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do we think Concealed Carry is a good idea, oh I don't know, the alternative, rape, seems so one-sided, I understand that half the people in a rape, really enjoy it, I just don't think being the victim is fun. I also understand people really want more stories about rape on the local news, some people live vicariously through the news, I guess I just don't think I should be your entertainment.

seems simple really.

Guns don't stop rape. Killing young men and sending them off to war helps a lot however.

I disagree with you. So do the facts. Read this, PMH:

Cases in which guns saved lives

You can disagree with me all you like, but I know the numbers.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Why do we think Concealed Carry is a good idea, oh I don't know, the alternative, rape, seems so one-sided, I understand that half the people in a rape, really enjoy it, I just don't think being the victim is fun. I also understand people really want more stories about rape on the local news, some people live vicariously through the news, I guess I just don't think I should be your entertainment.

seems simple really.

Guns don't stop rape. Killing young men and sending them off to war helps a lot however.

I disagree with you. So do the facts. Read this, PMH:

Cases in which guns saved lives

You can disagree with me all you like, but I know the numbers.

Here are the numbers. Have a look, PMH. It proves you are wrong!

Guns empower women more than modern feminism. The confidence from learning to shoot a pistol is far superior to any gender studies course. Detroit police chief gives credit to armed citizens for drop in crime. Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. [Police Chief James] Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns. "Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon," said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime.

A confrontation in Urbana, IL. It has been estimated that between 200,000 to 300,000 righteous use of a firearm in the defense or possible defense of innocent life go unreported each year because the firearm is either never discharged or an armed citizen never reported the incident even after discharging their firearm since no deaths were involved. In each case the armed, law-abiding citizen says he or she believes they may have been killed, kidnapped or severely injured if they hadn't pulled their pistol. I am now one of those people. "Castle" Defense: What Can-May-Should-Must You Do. Home invasion is perhaps the most frightening and dangerous of all violent crimes (it is committed out of public sight usually without fixed time/escape constraints and innocent occupants, often women and children, are rarely able to flee). It is becoming somewhat commonplace during daylight hours and at night in both urban and rural neighborhoods.

Yes, Guns Kill, But How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead. Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2½ or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number." Criminals avoid armed citizens. Kennesaw, Georgia: In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. Guns and Self-Defense.
Cases in which guns saved lives


I rest my case.

But wait! One more fact for you you'll find on the link here. More than 90% of violent crimes occur without a gun according to federal statistics. What does this mean for a woman trained to use a gun? The link answers that question too! According to the experts, 3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either had a gun or showed a gun.

The numbers do not lie, PMH. It's a deterrent to criminals who commit violent crimes. After Democrat, Gabby Giffords, was shot, her husband bought her one! He also bought an assault weapon for himself! How about those apples?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I do not know of a single married couple I am friends with where the husband or the wife or both do not have a concealed carry permit. It's very popular where I live.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't give a fuck what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

The odd thing is that they never, EVER apply this logic to anything else. Many more people, usually children, die of drowning in their homes every year than die of gunshot wounds, also because their parents or caregivers didn't observe the basic safety rules for children around pools and bathtubs, but at no time do we hear this hysterical outcry against widespread pool and bathtub ownership. HUGE numbers of people die in auto crashes due to someone ignoring the basic safety rules for driving, but again, no outcry.

And the only answer is, "Well, but guns are designed only for the purpose of killing."

Okay. How about this? My house has items in it that are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: killing. They're called "poisons", and I keep them around to kill bugs. Most houses in America have them. They serve no other purpose than to kill. And children die from ingesting those poisons every year because their parents don't observe the basic safety rules for having poison in a house. Where's the liberal outcry demanding permits and background checks for common household poisons, hmmm? You can't tell me they're necessary for something else, or designed to be used for something other than killing, and the mortality danger is just ancillary. Their only purpose is death.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you going to claim that there is no chance a criminal will break into my home while I am there?

Yep. If you are here it won't matter, and it doesn't happen here.

It doesn't happen often there.

And if you choose to live that far out in the middle of no where, I am happy for you. I am not uprooting my family and losing friends out of fear.

And I was not asking if you claimed there is no chance a criminal will break into your home. I was asking about them breaking into mine. Since I live in a suburb of Atlanta (inside the beltway), there is indeed a chance that someone will break into my home while I am here.

So play the hero then asswipe. Chances are the gun will either kill you, by suicide, or be used against you. Godspeed.

There are over 300 million firearms in private hands, less then 20 thousand suicides a year by firearms, care to do the math on the chance that owning a firearm equates to a risk of suicide? There are less then 12k murders a year and most are gang bangers murdering private citizens or other gang bangers, care to do the math on the chance someone owning a firearm equals they will die from their own firearm?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year on average

Four thousand three hundred and eighty three DGU's per day? Every day. I call bullshit. Prove it.

Depends on whose numbers you use. Obviously, many occasions when a gun is used defensively, but not actually fired, are never reported. The statistical extrapolation in that regard should be no problem for liberals, who insist that we take at face value rape and attempted rape statistics that are ALSO extrapolated in the same fashion, based on the assumption that many of them go unreported.

A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

For these reasons, the Cato researchers investigated published news reports which much more often reveal how Americans use guns in self-defense. The data set is derived from a collection of nearly 5,000 randomly selected incidents published between October 2003 and November 2011. Still, the authors also recognize limitations with this approach, since many defensive incidents are never reported by victims, or when they are, never get published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

When you consider the population of the United States in general, the number of people who own guns, and the number of crimes and attempted crimes every year, it's really not that hard to believe that many attempted crimes are headed off by the intended victim possessing a firearm. Criminals are stupid and reckless, but they're not generally suicidal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now that the Republicans and the NRA have convinced so many that police can't do their jobs and that all government is completely ineffective, it is up to the citizens to kill whatever criminals they can.

Somehow I don't think that this is the law and order society that the founders had in mind for us.

The stupid crap that comes off your keyboard....

No, cops can't be everywhere. By the time you need one it's too late. If you need to be convinced of it, then you really shouldn't be voting or driving. Please just stay at home.

Our Founding Fathers actually very much intended a law and order society where people defended their own lives and property, since they certainly did not have anything approaching metropolitan police departments with motor vehicles and radios and computers, prepared for rapid response to a crime scene after someone called them on the telephones they ALSO didn't have.

 

[Little-Acorn]

because of the fact that it will more likely kill a family member than a criminal;

Looks like the leftist fanatics are bitterly clinging to this falsehood like their lives depend on it. When in fact the opposite is true.

GunCite - Gun Control Web Site A Gun in the Home

 

[Little-Acorn]

The usual nonsense about guns being more dangerous to a house's residents than to a burglar or home invader, has been debunked numerous times.

Here is one such.

------------------------------------------

GunCite - Gun Control Web Site A Gun in the Home

Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

Introduction

Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner's gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.

Refutation

First we need to understand how the ratio was derived.

Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann's paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).

Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death . . . . . . . No.
Unintentional deaths . . . 12
Criminal homicide . . . . . 41
Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Self-protection homicide . 9

As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

Let's apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.

Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death . . . . . . No.
Unintentional deaths . . . 0
Criminal homicide . . . . 50
Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Self-protection homicide . 4

This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.

So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.

Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.

For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research. (See How often are guns used in self-defense?)

 

[AmericanFirst]

Impotent little Mighty Mouse wannabes who don't have the balls to open carry and just aching for the excuse to blast the life outta some uppity darkie in a hoodie.

All looking to earn their Mighty Mouse patch.

Libtards are so stupid.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Impotent little Mighty Mouse wannabes who don't have the balls to open carry and just aching for the excuse to blast the life outta some uppity darkie in a hoodie.

All looking to earn their Mighty Mouse patch.

Libtards are so stupid.

When they lose arguments, all they can do is make up stuff like that, and try to fool people into believing conservatives are thinking it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

T

Impotent little Mighty Mouse wannabes who don't have the balls to open carry and just aching for the excuse to blast the life outta some uppity darkie in a hoodie.

All looking to earn their Mighty Mouse patch.

Libtards are so stupid.

When they lose arguments, all they can do is make up stuff like that, and try to fool people into believing conservatives are thinking it.

hey probably carry concealed themselves being a bunch of cowardly sissies.

 

[zeke]

None of the situations resulted in a shooting, injury or police involvement so the three incidents didn't end up on the FBI's statistical analysis. I'd wager this is common.

So you didn't bother to notify police about a B&E attempt at your home. You know, so the police could do their thing and maybe catch a thief before the next B&E. Sure as hell wouldn't want you as a neighbor. "Yea, I stopped you from ripping me off thief but go on and I won't call the police on you" WTF?

Why in the hell wouldn't you have called and let the police know? Unless it is illegal for you to have a firearm, I can't think of any other reason not to notify the police of the attempt.

But I am sure you have some weird ass reason.

 

[paulitician]

'Good/Bad?' Unimportant. It's your right. I would advise all Americans to consider obtaining a conceal/carry permit. Times will get worse. The shit is going to hit the fan.

Who knows what will trigger the collapse, but it is very likely to occur. I would advise Americans to get prepared. Humans are wild animals in the end. It won't take much for them to turn rabid.

 

[Little-Acorn]

None of the situations resulted in a shooting, injury or police involvement so the three incidents didn't end up on the FBI's statistical analysis. I'd wager this is common.

So you didn't bother to notify police about a B&E attempt at your home. You know, so the police could do their thing and maybe catch a thief before the next B&E. Sure as hell wouldn't want you as a neighbor. "Yea, I stopped you from ripping me off thief but go on and I won't call the police on you" WTF?

Why in the hell wouldn't you have called and let the police know?

Because of the likelihood that the police will then take away all my guns, never give them back, and take away my right to own a gun for the rest of my life, even when I did nothing but legitimately defend myself against a criminal.

In other words, because liberals have poisoned the air against anyone supporting the U.S. Constitution.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

[elektra]

Why do we think Concealed Carry is a good idea, oh I don't know, the alternative, rape, seems so one-sided, I understand that half the people in a rape, really enjoy it, I just don't think being the victim is fun. I also understand people really want more stories about rape on the local news, some people live vicariously through the news, I guess I just don't think I should be your entertainment.

seems simple really.

Guns don't stop rape. Killing young men and sending them off to war helps a lot however.

You are a callous cold son of a bitch, literally on the side of Rapists.

 

[Iceweasel]

Guns don't stop rape. Killing young men and sending them off to war helps a lot however.

Who sends dead young men to war?

 

[zeke]

Because of the likelihood that the police will then take away all my guns, never give them back, and take away my right to own a gun for the rest of my life, even when I did nothing but legitimately defend myself against a criminal.

I take it that it is illegal for you to own a gun? Gee that's great. Respect for the law eh?

Seeing as how the willipete guy said he didn't shoot anyone. Or even fire his weapon. All he had to do was let the police know about an attempted break in at his home. He didn't have to say a word about him using a gun to deter the criminal.

Instead he let the criminal go on about his business. WTF?