As expected Iowa has seen a big increase in applications for carry permits since the new law went into effect.
Of course gun control folks are worried about this, you know the old blood-in-the-streets reaction. But, ...Guess what happened after the new Iowa gun law went into effect? Yes, the law allowing you to carry your gun concealed or openly in public with a permit?
A whole lot of Iowans showed up to apply for the gun permits.
Not according to John Lott, who recently published the third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime." "The more [permits] issued, the more criminals are going to be afraid to attack other people," he told The Washington Times.What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The blood in the streets argument has been used in every state and it proves false in every state.
ReplyDeleteIf the definition of insane is repeating something over and over and expecting a different result, the gun control nuts ought to all be entered in NICS as mentally disturbed prohibited persons.
I don't buy that allowing concealed carry makes a consistent or significant difference in violent crime rates, because the number of guns available doesn't effect crime rates, and the amount of gun control enacted doesn't effect crime rates.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody really think that if concealed carry is allowed, that the violent criminals responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime are just going to say, "Oh, no! My victims might be armed! I'd better hang up my crime apron and go get a real job before I get killed!"
No, criminals will just have to be more careful picking their targets, but it's not going to DECREASE the number of crimes they commit. Since most defensive gun use (around 95%+)involves the victim displaying a firearm and the attacker running away, even if they do happen to choose their victim incorrectly, they'll still be free (and alive) to commit more crimes.
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, You're a cut above the others on the honesty scale. You are one of the few who admits that more guns does not translate into less crime based on the deterrant factor.
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't work the other way around.
A certain amount of the gun crime is done by folks who up until the moment of the action were not criminals. If you increase the pool of gun owners, you increase this as well. Simple math.
@Mikeb wrote:
ReplyDelete"A certain amount of the gun crime is done by folks who up until the moment of the action were not criminals. If you increase the pool of gun owners, you increase this as well. Simple math."
I absolutely agree. Now here's the question (since you didn't actually include any real math), how much does that really amount to? What percent of violent gun-related crime is perpetrated by previously law-abiding people? And what percent are those people out of overall gun owners? Wouldn't that be an important factor to consider?
And have you also considered that if you increase the pool of gun owners, there will be an increase in the incidents that people use their firearm to protect themselves from violent crime?
I propose, based on the available statistics, that the number of defensive gun uses by law-abiding gun owners is far and away higher than the rate of what you and I would agree are law-abiding gun owners that suddenly become criminals.
Therefore, the number of times firearms are used for self defense (and other good uses) far outweighs a minor increase in the number of firearm-related crimes.
All evidence points to an increase in the GOOD uses of firearms far outweighing the increase in what you are concerned about when more "good" people are carrying guns, don't you think?
...Orygunner...
Halfway through that comment I was with ya.
ReplyDeleteI even accept this: "the number of defensive gun uses by law-abiding gun owners is far and away higher than the rate of what you and I would agree are law-abiding gun owners that suddenly become criminals."
But that's not the only thing to compare the DGUs to. You have to include along with the "law-abiding-gone-bad" group the accidents and the criminal misuse of guns. That's because the criminals get their guns from you guys.
Now, I think you'll agree that the 2.5 million figure is nonsense, but whatever it is, I must insist that some of them were not necessary, and some were actually criminal actions themselves. What's left cannot possibly compare to all the misuse (good guys gone bad, accidents and criminal gun violence).
In other words, guns do more harm than good.