• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Firearms - The US Discussion Thread

Jarnhamar said:
So basically he was more than happy to support firearm owners and in turn take their support while he was in office but when he couldn't benefit from it anymore he changes his act?

Or you could look at it another way. When in power the  gun lobby precluded him from acting on what he knew made sense and was right. Once out of office he was free support policies that he felt made sense as a gun owner and member of the NRA.

 
Kilo_302 said:
Or you could look at it another way. When in power the  gun lobby precluded him from acting on what he knew made sense and was right. Once out of office he was free support policies that he felt made sense as a gun owner and member of the NRA.

I could but then I would be wrong  ;D

He even maintained his support of the gun lobby after an assassination attempt

Sounds like he stayed in bed with the gun lobby by choice to the very end.
 
Well it's no secret that once they've left office, politicians are free to speak their minds and say what they really think. It's also no secret that gun control has become a political football, and the debate is overly partisan. By speaking his mind after he left office, it's quite obvious that Reagan's inaction while IN office was primarily due to political considerations, NOT what would make good public policy. It's much the same today.

This image in particular represents an extreme overreaction, and is also quite threatening. This is the environment in which people are expected to have a rational debate about what constitutes sensible policy around the regulation of firearms:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/nra-ammunition-bills-threatening-photo-twitter-new-york-lawmakers


Not to mention this image, which Neil MacDonald has pointed out has an obvious subtext:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160105/statement-on-president-obamas-proposed-executive-actions-on-gun-control

It's a head-and-shoulders shot taken from behind, at a moment when the president was hunching slightly, and so emphasized the protruding ears Obama himself has joked about.

But this was no joke. You don't need a membership in Mensa to figure out the subtext: "This monkey wants to take your guns, America."

It's no wonder that even a conservative politician had to wait until leaving office to suggest that a 7 day waiting period might be a good idea.
 
The question is what is more important, gun control or reducing the violence? Gun control is a easy to define issue with nice short talking points about what promises a politician can make. Solving the root causes of the violence is incredibly messy, will take a generation if you start now. Politicians generally hate stuff like this, because you can't break in into sound bite, you risk pissing on peoples cornflakes, risk being called a racist, any positive results will happen after you leave office. So Politicians go after the gun issue, because if they fail, they blame the NRA and if they win anything they look like Gods. The actual results on the street are immaterial to most of them.
 
Background checks seems like a good idea to me. I think everyone should have them done.  They'd probably need to be revamped though, the FBI found a number of mass shooters passed background checks. 

7 day waiting period? Makes me think of Homer Simpson buying a gun- but I'm angry now!  I don't really see it serving a purpose but whatever.

Mass shooters in the US are actually responsible for a very low number of total yearly firearm homicides. The majority of deaths in the US from firearms are caused by African Americans shooting other African Americans with illegally obtained pistols.

I have an idea or two where the US should look first to curb their problems with firearm deaths.
 
Background checks, like all other "gun control" measures, are basically useless at best.

I am unable to open the full study on DWAN, but the abstract can be viewed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711323:

Do Background Checks on Private Gun Transfers Help Stop Mass Public Shootings?

John R. Lott Jr.
Crime Prevention Research Center

January 2, 2016

Abstract:     

Persistent claims have been made that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns would reduce mass public shootings. Yet, this is the first study to systematically look to see if that is true. In fact there is no evidence that these laws reduce the risk of these attacks. Examining all the mass public shootings in the US from 2000 through 2015, we find that states adopting additional background checks on private transfers they see a statistically significant increase in rates of killings (80% higher) and injuries (101%) from mass public shootings. There is not one mass public shooting that occurred over that period where these checks would have prevented it from occurring.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: mass public shooting, background check, crime

JEL Classification: K00, K42, K40

Obama's only valuable "gun control" achievement has been to boost firearms sales. Concurrently, homicide rates have plummetted.
 
The entire NRA video discusses background checks, in fact
 
HIPPA is more an issue that needs to be discussed than gun control.
  The fact that the mental health issues are not as sexy as a new useless law is appalling.

Gun Dealers already needed an FFL to do business.

  What the requirements are talking about is stopping "face to face" transactions between people who do not know each other.
Now I am an ardent 2A supporter.  However when one looks at the "Nation's Gun Show" in Chantilly VA, and sees the number of NJ, NY, MD plates in the parking lot - and folks buying guns in the parking lot for cash -- one has to sit back and think.
  Most guns that show up on crime scenes in the NE area (around 60%) are figured to have been bought via third party private sales from VA.

Lending or selling a gun to someone you do not personally know is 1) not a felon 2) not a resident of your state, wrong -- sadly it seems to be taking yet another law to deal with this gray market.
 
My concern is that it is taken too far, and your spouse, or child (of legal age) borrowing a gun is going to get swept up with this



 
More on the idea that "Gun Control" is political theater rather than an effective response to violence. As noted in other posts, if "Gun Control" actually worked, so called Blue cities and States, which have the most draconian gun control laws in the United States, are also the most dangerous in terms of gun violence, exactly the opposite of what gun control advocates claim:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/12/other-chairs-empty-obama-speech-deaths-domestic-foreign-column/78631644/

First Lady's box should be empty at State of the Union speech: James Bovard
James Bovard 10:46 a.m. EST January 12, 2016

Saving seats for the dead would require a lot more room for victims of Obama's policies.

The White House announced that there will be a seat left vacant in the gallery during Obama’s State of the Union Address "for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice." This old stunt is part of Obama’s campaign for new federal restrictions on firearms ownership, but if he really wanted to provide a voice for those who've lost theirs, at least in part, due to his own administration's policies, he'd have to empty all the seats in the gallery reserved for the first lady and her guests.

While trumpeting the private death toll from guns, Obama on Tuesday night will likely ignore the 986 people killed by police in the United States last year according to The Washington Post's database. Many police departments are aggressive — if not reckless — in part because the Justice Department always provides cover for them at the Supreme Court. Obama’s "Justice Department has supported police officers every time an excessive-force case has made its way" to a Supreme Court hearing, The New York Times noted last year. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently said that federally-funded police agencies should not even be required to report the number of civilians they kill.

To add a Euro flair to the evening, Obama could drape tri-color flags on a few empty seats to commemorate the 30 French medical staff, patients, and others slain last Oct. 3 when an American AC-130 gunship blasted their well-known hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The U.S. military revised its story several times but admitted in November that the carnage was the result of "avoidable ... human error." Regrettably, that bureaucratic phrase lacks the power to resurrect victims.

No plans have been announced to designate a seat for Brian Terry, the U.S. Border Patrol agent killed in 2010. Guns found at the scene of Terry's killing were linked to the Fast and Furious gunwalking operation masterminded by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agency. At least 150 Mexicans were also killed by guns illegally sent south of the border with ATF approval. The House of Representatives voted to hold then-attorney general Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to disclose Fast and Furious details, but Obama is not expected to dwell on this topic in his State of the Union address.

On a more festive note, why not save some seats for a wedding party? Twelve Yemenis who were celebrating nuptials on Dec. 12, 2013, won’t be able to attend Obama’s speech because they were blown to bits by a U.S. drone strike. The Yemeni government — which is heavily bankrolled by the U.S. government — paid more than a million dollars compensation to the survivors of innocent civilians killed and wounded in the attack.

Four seats could be left vacant for the Americans killed in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya — U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. But any such recognition would rankle the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has worked tirelessly to sweep those corpses under the rug. It would also be appropriate to include a hat tip to the hundreds, likely thousands, of Libyans who have been killed in the civil war unleashed after the Obama administration bombed Libya to topple its ruler, Moammar Gadhafi.

Obama loves to salute promising young Americans but 16-year-old Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki won’t get a chance to attend. That Denver-born boy was killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, while he was in Yemen looking for his father (who was killed in a CIA drone strike two weeks earlier). If that kid’s name had been Bob, he might still be around to cheer Obama’s anti-gun crusade.

An indeterminate number of chairs could be left vacant for the Syrian and Iraqi women, children and men who have been beheaded, maimed or otherwise slaughtered as a result of the massive arms shipments the Obama administration provided to Syrian "moderate" rebel groups who defected to al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra or other terrorist groups, including the Islamic State. As Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., lamented in late 2014, "ISIS is armed to the teeth — with American equipment." But Obama meant well, so we should just move along.

If the first lady sat alone among the other 28 seats the White House receives in the first lady's box, it wouldn't make room to represent the casualties of Obama administration policies at home and abroad, but it sure would send a different message to viewers at home.

James Bovard, author of Public Policy Hooligan, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
 
Out of curiosity, I checked a sampling of gun laws on wikipedia.  Most states require no permit to purchase a handgun and a few require no permit to carry it.  In these states permits are available to take advantage of open or concealed carry reciprocity between most states.  I know I should have moved there 30 or 40 years ago.  Too old now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
 
I think there's some confusion out there as to what exactly Obama is proposing. Here's a link to the CNN "Gun Control Townhall" from last week. Obama is really trying to target those who go to gun shows, purchase dozens of firearms and then resell them elsewhere where the gun laws are more strict. This happens all the time, and is one of the main ways guns get into the hands of criminals.

If you watch the debate, you'll notice that time and time again, a "pro-gun" person will ask the same question or suggest that the new laws will make it harder for them to get guns. It's simply untrue. If you're a law abiding citizen, the new laws might even speed up the process through an improved background check system.

It makes sense to me. If you're particularly wary of Obama's plans, this is definitely worth watching in its entirety. It's just common sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HrBR_kXIHw
 
Kilo when you have a party and politicians that have for decades said they want to limit and restrict who can own what, why on earth would the gun owners believe that they only want to deal with a small portion of that pie. The gun control strategy has been akin to taking slices from a loaf of bread. Gun owners have a loaf of bread, the gun controllers say “give us a slice” and we leave you alone. Come the next election cycle they say “give us a slice and we leave you alone”. Something bad happens and the politicians need to be seen to do something and they say “give us 2 slices or we take 5”. Pretty soon the loaf is getting smaller, and each time the gun controllers will say “it’s only reasonable to give us the slice we are asking for” without mentioning that they already have taken ½ the loaf without any visible improvement to the situation they claim to want to fix. When the firearm owners say; “your idea is not working, give us back a slice” the gun control types scream “Oh my god the streets are going to run with blood”. You have to understand that with the hardcore gun control types, this issue has zero to do with public safety and everything to do with control over the citizens of the country.
The president of the NRA has rightly pointed out that the gun control types are not interested in public safety and that they have failed to ensure existing laws are funded and enforced. The NRA has read the tea leaves and determined that trying to be to reasonable will lead to the gun owners being sacrificed to the altar of the “public good”. The NRA fights fire with fire and that is why the gun control types demonize it, because it is successful at thwarting them. 
 
I disagree. I think public safety is ALL that's driving attempts at "gun control." It's a difficult issue to confront, given how politicized the debate is, and it would be far easier to sit back and do nothing.

From your post I understand that you disagree that background checks will have an effect. That's certainly possible, but as Obama has said, even if you can reduce annual gun deaths from 30,000 to 29,000, it will have been worth it. It's a very targeted policy, and again, it will only really affect those who purchase numerous firearms with the intention of reselling.

At the end of the day, a society that has more guns will have more gun related injuries and deaths, accidental and otherwise. THere are exceptions of course, and it's a complex issue. But given that the US won't import Kinder Surprise toys because they're a choking hazard, surely some sensible controls around guns can be implemented to prevent a guy from filling a van with Kel-tecs in Indiana and selling them in Chicago.
 
Kilo, please explain why, if "public saftey" is the primary goal of gun control types, the very places with the most draconian "gun control" laws, and the ones most in line with what gun control advocates hope to achieve, have the highest rates of gun crimes, violence and public disorder, exactly opposite to what the narrative tells us we are supposed to expect.

Many of these places are solidly "Blue", and indeed have not had a Republican mayor or city council for decades, so there has been no poitical opposition to block the enactment and enforcement of these laws. Further to that, various Federal gun control laws have been in force in the United States since the 1930's (many decades before the rising wave of gun crime that started in the 1970's...). OTOH, measures that do work, like "stop and frisk" or "broken windows policing" are bitterly resisted, often by the very same people who advocate for gun control.

Since reality is so at varience with the narrative, why should we believe anything gun control advocates tell us anymore?
 
Actually you are making assumption about where I stand on background checks, the current background check system in the US is flawed and fails to capture the information available, they also fail to prosecute people that try to buy a gun when prohibited. The Federal and State governments could fix these issues without passing any new laws and improve the existing system. It’s also been shown that the majority of the violence happens in very localized areas mainly to a well defined demographic, Yet time and again they fail to fix the underlying causes. So if the government fails to fix things well within their mandate and control, which would not only improve public safety, but also improve society as whole, why would the gun owners believe them or give up more of the loaf? Gun control in the US is a red herring to appease voters and avoid dealing with more difficult social issues that sadly need to be addressed and urgently. We already know that gun deaths have been dropping for decades and not due to any of the current gun controls legislation. In fact it is likely the removal of lead from household products that contributed more to that than gun control.
So does the feds either in Canada or the US offer tax rebates for gun storage safes or training? If so why not, wouldn’t that be in the interest of public safety and it might reduce accidents and thefts. Actually the RCMP in the North did actually give out or got some discount to get northerners to do just that and kudos’s to them for thinking out of the box.
I have lived with 27 years of gun control directly affecting my life and dealing and studying the issue. You will never convince me that gun control is not about social engineering, because the people pushing it have said just that over the years. This is an ideology war that is being waged, the NRA knows it, so does the leadership and movers within the gun control movement know it to. It’s people like yourself have not come to realize it. 
 
"Public Safety" has absolutely nothing to do with these proposals, or any other "gun control" measure. "Gun control" constently achieves the exact opposite of what its pushers claim, and, when it fails, they simply push for an increased dose.

I do not know why supposedly intelligent people push it. Some are well-meaning, and simply accept the lies that they are told because they have no natural interest in understanding a complex issue, but the motivation of the ones originating the lies is completely incomprehensible, unless one ascribes it to mental illness - the specific ailment is "hoplophobia", an irrational fear of weapons.

https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/04/ending-gun-violence-common-sense-versus

The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is you.

Sheldon Richman | October 4, 2015

What passes for thinking about the prevention of gun violence is not thinking at all. Thinking (as problem-solving) is a search for means that can be reasonably expected to achieve a given end. By reasonably I mean that supporting arguments can be provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of reasonable people the connection between the means and ends. What we get from gun-control advocates is nothing like that; instead they operate on the magical belief that uttering certain words - codifying just the right incantation - will accomplish the end.

We know they believe in magic, not logic, because those who propose to restrict individual rights regarding guns see no need to explain how their proposals would reduce or end gun violence. For them it's enough to declare their sincere belief that this is the case and to invoke polls showing that a majority of people also believe in whatever is being proposed.

What's belief got to do with it?

Passing "common-sense gun laws," gun controllers say, would prevent mass shootings. "Universal" background checks is the most popular proposal. But where is the explanation of how that would achieve the end? Not only is this not explained; the people supposedly paid to raise such questions - journalists - never even ask. Most of them operate on the basis of magical belief too.

Let's look at "universal" background checks. The term indicates that all would-be gun buyers would actually undergo a check. Leaving aside the recent mass murderers who passed background checks, we know that universal checks are impossible no matter what the legislation says because buyers in the black market, gun thieves, and those who are given guns will not be included.

Similar objections apply to the anti-gun lobby's other magical proposals. Each would leave untouched those who obtain their guns through already illegal channels. We can have no reasonable expectation that people who intend to commit violent offenses against others will be deterred by mere restrictions on gun purchases and possession. Stubbornly ignoring that self-evident truth is the sign of a magical disposition.

We see the same disposition in the "mental health" approach to preventing gun violence. Some conservatives like this approach presumably because it deflects attention from guns. But proposing, as Mike Huckabee and others have, that the government "do a better job in mental health" - whatever that means - tells us nothing about how it would prevent gun violence. What justifies the belief that psychiatrists and others in the field can predict with reasonable accuracy who is likely to commit mass murder? (Psychiatrists are not known to be competent at predicting who among their own patients will become violent.) Isn't it more likely that people who never would have committed violent acts would be drugged and imprisoned (in "hospitals"), while others never even suspected of being potentially dangerous would go on to commit horrendous acts? One shudders at the civil-liberties implications of "doing a better job in mental health." Do we want the police to have pre-crime units?

In contrast to the incantations offered by practitioners of public-policy magic, gun-rights advocates propose measures that reasonably can be expected to prevent or reduce the extent of mass murder: for example, eliminating government-mandated gun-free zones. (Property owners of course should be free to exclude guns, however foolish that is.) Those with ill-intent are unlikely to respect gun-free zones, but most peaceful individuals will. Thus they will be defenseless against aggressors. Gun-free zones, then, are invitations to mass murder. Refusal to acknowledge that fact is also a sign of a magical disposition.

When this objection to gun-free zones is raised, gun-controllers typically respond that the answer to gun violence cannot be "more guns." But when aggressors are the only ones with guns, what would be wrong with more guns if they were in the right hands? Eliminating gun-free zones would in effect put guns in the hands of the innocent at the scene of the attack. As it now stands, the only people with guns are the killers and police, who may be miles away. (Too often the killers are the police.) The connection between means and end is clear. If would-be mass killers suspected they would meet resistance early on, they might be deterred from launching their attack. But even if not, the chances of minimizing an attack would obviously be greater if some of the gunman's intended victims were armed.

Another reasonable measure would be to remove all restrictions, such as permit requirements, on concealed or open carry of handguns. Again, the link between means and ends is clear. Concealed carry has the bonus of a free-rider benefit: when people are free to carry concealed handguns, assailants, who clearly prefer their victims unarmed, won't know who's carrying and who's not. That extra measure of deterrence - that positive externality - could be expected to save innocent lives.

Believers in gun-control magic refuse to acknowledge that one cannot effectively delegate one's right to or responsibility for self-defense. With enough money, one might arrange for assistance in self-defense, but few will be able to afford protection 24/7. It's a myth that government assumes responsibility for our security, since it does not promise round-the-clock personal protection and its officers are not legally obligated to protect you even if an assault occurs before their eyes. The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is: you.

Those who believe in the right to bear arms have common sense on their side in the matter of ending mass shootings. Magic won't do it.

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

I believe that I already posted "Do Background Checks on Private Gun Transfers Help Stop Mass Public Shootings?" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711323 earlier. I am not able to open the complete paper from where I am, and can only post the abstract:

"Persistent claims have been made that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns would reduce mass public shootings. Yet, this is the first study to systematically look to see if that is true. In fact there is no evidence that these laws reduce the risk of these attacks. Examining all the mass public shootings in the US from 2000 through 2015, we find that states adopting additional background checks on private transfers they see a statistically significant increase in rates of killings (80% higher) and injuries (101%) from mass public shootings. There is not one mass public shooting that occurred over that period where these checks would have prevented it from occurring."

The absolute best website for factual information regarding "gun control" is the Crime Prevention Research Center at
http://crimeresearch.org/

Here are a few more articles worth reading:

Why Do Democrats Get Away With Lying About Guns?
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/why-do-democrats-get-away-with-lying-about-guns/

Gun Control: More Racial Disparities Than the Drug War
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/02/gun-control-more-racial-disparities-than-the-drug-war/

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm

"One 'body of research' (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found 'estimated annual gun use for self-defense' to be 'up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.'"

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

The vast majority of US firearms-related homicides are gang-related. Police shootings account for over a thousand more, annually. There are only about 2000 non-gang/non-police firearms homicides annually in the US, out of over 300,000,000 people and about the same number of firearms.

America does not have a gun problem. It has a gang problem, fed mainly from drug income and concentrated in certain parts larger cities which almost invariably have extremely restrictive firearms policies. The US is a very safe place for anybody not living in those areas and not active in the drug trade.
 
Thucydides said:
Kilo, please explain why, if "public saftey" is the primary goal of gun control types, the very places with the most draconian "gun control" laws, and the ones most in line with what gun control advocates hope to achieve, have the highest rates of gun crimes, violence and public disorder, exactly opposite to what the narrative tells us we are supposed to expect.

Here are some numbers for you. Because we are talking about public safety, we're talking about NDs and suicides as well. Conveniently, each slide also includes some information on what is required to purchase a firearm.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/


Here's a specific example of what can happen in open or concealed carry States when someone isn't trained, or they're just drunk. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are far more idiots out there with guns than there are people who actually want to do harm. It's not fair to ask citizens to be around these pylons when they're carrying lethal weapons. Our freedom from the possibility of dying a violent death because some idiot didn't engage his safety is more important than that idiot's freedom to carry.

Ironically, this guy later said he had brought his gun for self-defence in the event that there was a mass shooting.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/shooting-reported-at-renton-movie-theater/

Authorities have in custody a man who they believe accidentally shot and injured a woman in a Renton movie theater Thursday night, Renton police Cmdr. David Liebman said.

Investigators believe the 29-year-old man was intoxicated when he entered a showing of the film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” at Regal Cinemas The Landing 14, 900 N. 10th Place, with a loaded gun before 8:15 p.m., he said.

After he fumbled with the gun, it accidentally fired, hitting the 40-year-old woman in the shoulder, Liebman said. Medics took her to Harborview Medical Center, where she was in serious condition Friday morning. A hospital spokeswoman said she is improving and in intensive care.

Investigators believe the gunman and the woman don’t know each other, Liebman said.

After the shooting, the man reportedly left the theater and briefly went into a nearby restaurant, where he dropped the gun and picked it back up, according to a witness and police.

After a search, authorities announced around 10:15 p.m. that the man called 911 to turn himself in, and that he was in custody. Liebman said the man, from Newcastle, described the shooting as an accident.
Nathaniel Hansen, of Newcastle, talks to the press after rendering assistance to an injured woman in a theater in Renton Thursday night.

Nathaniel Hansen, who was in the theater, said he heard “just one loud pop.”

“We were in ’13 hours’ so there were a lot of gunshots going on in the movie, but this was louder than everything else,” Hansen said.

After the gun went off, the suspect “walked out like nothing happened” and “seemed like he was intoxicated or something because he was stumbling around,” Hansen said. The man left out of the theater’s front door while still holding his pistol, he said.

Hansen used paper towels to put pressure on the woman’s wound until paramedics arrived. The woman told him she “had no idea who that was.”

The incident remains under investigation
 
[quote author=Kilo_302]

Here's a specific example of what can happen in open or concealed carry States when someone isn't trained, or they're just drunk.
[/quote]

Go ahead and compare the number of deaths caused by drunk firearm owners against the number of deaths in vehicle accidents where alcohol is a factor.

Our freedom from the possibility of dying a violent death because some idiot didn't engage his safety is more important than that idiot's freedom to carry.
Except for the ton of examples where someone with a CCW permit stops a robbery, assault or murder.
 
Kilo,

The test is not "perfect safety from a gun related incident or accident".  The test is actually "does CCW improve overal public safety, or not?".

I will be honest and say- I don't know for sure. Some of the data from US jurisdictions that have it, do seem to imply a correlation between CCW and lower crime rates, but correlation is not causation.
 
Its funny, the anti-gun lobby doesn't demand a perfect safety record from jurisdictions where they ban CCW or guns completely. However, people like Kilo demand a perfect safety record to justify the "privilege" of owning a firearm. That sort of hypocrisy makes perfect sense in the progressive sunshine and flowers world, but the rest of us in the real world see right through it.
 
Back
Top