More Permits Mean Less Crime

[cranners99]

Over 11 years old now, I wonder if it still holds true?

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/More_Permits_Means_Less_Crime.htm" Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

[Bill of Rights]

I'm no scientist, no statistician, and I've looked at no specific data, but while I obviously agree with Lott's contention "More Guns, Less Crime", which also was the title of his book, I differ when the statement is changed by substituting "permits" for "guns".

Considering that FL requires that if you carry, your weapon cannot be seen, considering that many people there would likely carry more often if the laws were further relaxed (and thus people saw others carrying more), and considering the city that reported an increase in women getting firearms and training saw an enormous decrease in rapes the following year (I'd cite which, but I don't recall it, it was a several months ago when I saw it), I have to wonder: If a populous state was to completely remove ALL firearms laws related to everything excepting the commission of a violent crime with a weapon (i.e. "Armed Robbery" being a different and more strictly-dealt-with crime than "Robbery"), how would these results change?
I know the Brady Bunch will read this idea and start their usual spouting of "The gun nuts want everyone in the country armed!" "Blood running in the streets!" "Fights over parking spaces will turn into murder scenes!" "The sky will turn black as sackcloth and the moon will turn to blood!" "Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!", and barring my pseudo-humor in the preceding, we all know that the first three have all been disproven each time the laws *are* relaxed. Remember "Florida, the Gunshine State" and all the "Wild West" nonsense?

The criminals already carry, because for them, there are no laws that need obeyed, short of the law of survival. They don't care about anyone's needs but their own, and thus, no law will stop them from carrying and using their guns against the law-abiding public who work and earn the living that these predators steal.

I'm not saying much of anything new, and as usual, I'm preaching to the choir, but it disgusts me that the RKBA, which "shall not be infringed", has over 22,000 "infringements" on the books already, and I don't see a whole lot of progress from our side at getting Brady repealed and telling places like Chicago and DC that if they want strict, unConstitutional gun laws, they can leave the US just like they left the law of the land behind.

Blessings,
M

[SOCIAL LIBERTARIAN]

I'm no scientist, no statistician, and I've looked at no specific data, but while I obviously agree with Lott's contention "More Guns, Less Crime", which also was the title of his book, I differ when the statement is changed by substituting "permits" for "guns".

Considering that FL requires that if you carry, your weapon cannot be seen, considering that many people there would likely carry more often if the laws were further relaxed (and thus people saw others carrying more), and considering the city that reported an increase in women getting firearms and training saw an enormous decrease in rapes the following year (I'd cite which, but I don't recall it, it was a several months ago when I saw it), I have to wonder: If a populous state was to completely remove ALL firearms laws related to everything excepting the commission of a violent crime with a weapon (i.e. "Armed Robbery" being a different and more strictly-dealt-with crime than "Robbery"), how would these results change?
I know the Brady Bunch will read this idea and start their usual spouting of "The gun nuts want everyone in the country armed!" "Blood running in the streets!" "Fights over parking spaces will turn into murder scenes!" "The sky will turn black as sackcloth and the moon will turn to blood!" "Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!", and barring my pseudo-humor in the preceding, we all know that the first three have all been disproven each time the laws *are* relaxed. Remember "Florida, the Gunshine State" and all the "Wild West" nonsense?

The criminals already carry, because for them, there are no laws that need obeyed, short of the law of survival. They don't care about anyone's needs but their own, and thus, no law will stop them from carrying and using their guns against the law-abiding public who work and earn the living that these predators steal.

I'm not saying much of anything new, and as usual, I'm preaching to the choir, but it disgusts me that the RKBA, which "shall not be infringed", has over 22,000 "infringements" on the books already, and I don't see a whole lot of progress from our side at getting Brady repealed and telling places like Chicago and DC that if they want strict, unConstitutional gun laws, they can leave the US just like they left the law of the land behind.

Blessings,
M

Great post! I agree! :thumbsup: