-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns
- Thread starter richc
- Start date
Mike S
NES Member
Great article. Thanks for posting.
This is everything you need to know right here..
"In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state."
This is everything you need to know right here..
"In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state."
That is a great article, from MSNBC no less! Copied and pasted to my Facebook.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,131
- Likes
- 430
Don't forget to vote in the poll in the article:
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_que...people-around-legally-carrying-concealed-guns
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_que...people-around-legally-carrying-concealed-guns
You can't believe shit they say. When the AWB was about to expire, they said you'd be able to buy AK's on every street corner. Do you know how long I stood on the street corner on Sep 14, 2004, looking for someone to come by selling AK's? Nothing. Not so much as a Tec-9.
Anti's: you can tell they're lying if you see their lips move.
anyone else surprised this is on msnbc?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
so true...Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,614
- Likes
- 11,817
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.
This pretty much says it all....I can't believe it was said on PMSNBC
This pretty much says it all....I can't believe it was said on PMSNBC
First, let me make it clear that the perp got what he deserved, whether he was facing toward, away, or standing on his head, and Corley is a hero. But, that said . . .
Why would you conclude that he had to be turned toward Corley if he was shot in the neck and torso? You can obviously see (and therefore shoot) someone's neck if they're facing away from you, and "torso" simply refers to the central part of the body, also easily shot from behind. The article simply says that he was shot in the abdomen (also possible from behind), then turned and was shot in the neck and torso. So, if he was facing toward Corley for the latter two shots then it would imply that he was facing away from him for the first and derrick_lui's point is valid either way.
Very. I'm sure someone over there will get fired for posting this.
When someone is waving a gun and demanding wallets, it's not unreasonable to shoot him in the back first...
Yes, absolutely - and I thought my initial statement would have made it clear that I agree with you. I'm just trying to piece together what really happened from the limited information provided in the article.
some of the comments in the poll page just boggle my mind. Do people honestly believe that if there were no guns, there would be no violence? ![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
I especially like the part where the article talks about how DC has the strictest gun laws yet also has the highest per capita gun homicide rate. Looks like that ban is working as well as the War on Drugs®.
I especially like the part where the article talks about how DC has the strictest gun laws yet also has the highest per capita gun homicide rate. Looks like that ban is working as well as the War on Drugs®.
Last edited:
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 35,990
- Likes
- 54,073
some of the comments in the poll page just boggle my mind. Do people honestly believe that if there were no guns, there would be no violence?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/23/world/la-fg-china-stabbings23-2010mar23
"Man stabs, kills 8 children outside school in China
The suspect, identified as a 41-year-old doctor with personal and professional problems, is in custody in Fujian province.
March 23, 2010|By Barbara DemickReporting from Beijing — At least eight children were slain by a man brandishing a knife outside an elementary school in the southeastern Chinese province of Fujian, authorities said Tuesday.
The suspect was identified as Zheng Mingsheng, a 41-year-old unemployed doctor who was said to be depressed over personal and professional failings, officials said at a news conference in Nanping, where the attack took place. He was arrested.
The rampage began at 7.20 a.m. as the children were waiting to go to school. According to unconfirmed reports by bloggers, the suspect was stopped by a gym teacher, a jogger and a security guard, one of whom knocked the knife out of his hand with a mop.
The victims were reported to be mostly first-graders. Three children died at the scene and five died later at a hospital, authorities said. At least five other children were injured.
This appeared to be the most serious stabbing rampage at a Chinese school since 2004, when a string of such incidents left at least 10 students dead. China has strict gun-control laws, but attacks involving knives are not uncommon.</i>
Exactly. If someone really wants to inflict bodily harm on other people, they'll find a way.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
BULL SHIT! We have looked into their numbers before and their definition of CCW holder is anyone who is not a prohibited person (ie; anyone who would NOT be denied if they applied).
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 1
The article is typical of the disingenuous reporting done by the media, which caters to the gun-control crowd:
> They fail to mention well-known gun control researcher John Lott, Phd, who has been researching gun control for 25 years (his third edition of More Guns, Less Crime is coming out soon) but mention an obscure anti-gun researcher:
"But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime."
> They allow the persons for the anti-gun groups to attribute motivations to the NRA (a common political propaganda trick), but reciprocal remarks by the NRA were either not made or reported.
> Their statistics on concealed-carry holders who shot others ( a total of 151 since May, 2007) are extremely disingenuous - former security guards, police officers, military veterans, are mixed up with those with criminal offenses who should not have received a permit, someone who claimed he though his Florida permit was valid in California, etc., etc. in other words, either persons that no system would have vetted out, or did not meet the criteria to receive a permit.
> In contrast to their position that individuals should not have carry permits, citing the 151 fatalities since May, 2007 (approximately two years) - they fail to mention that (sadly) 300+ police officers commit suicide each year. Perhaps even well-screened police officers should be disarmed as well?
> they failed to mention that Florida had a statistical tracking unit for the first four years after they passed their concealed-carry law. It was disbanded after that due to the incredibly low number of firearms offenses.
> Studies that support concealed carry are minimized, as are the facts that support concealed carry. Again, an agenda-reporting trick :
"Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. (Obviously, they never read John Lott's work.)
In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006."
The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales....Because the gun death rates parallel an overall drop in crime, Hemenway suspects that the decline “has nothing to do with concealed-carry laws.”
> the gun-control crowd uses hypocritical logic when it supports their position:
"Currently, reciprocal arrangements are left to the states, and critics of the Thune amendment labeled it a trampling of states’ rights because it would have forced one state’s training and other standards on states that may have tougher rules. ... But others, including Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Arulanandam of the NRA, say gun-control advocates had no such concern for states’ rights when they pushed for federal laws to ban specific weapons and mandate background checks. They foresee that argument crumbling and say it’s only a matter of time before right-to-carry reciprocity is the law of the land."
In short - the reporting, such as it is, is somewhat typical of the mainstream media and just shows why they have lost credibility with the public.People know when they are being lied to.
Along those lines, some of the new postings on John Lott's blog - http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/ - are about the recent health care bill
> They fail to mention well-known gun control researcher John Lott, Phd, who has been researching gun control for 25 years (his third edition of More Guns, Less Crime is coming out soon) but mention an obscure anti-gun researcher:
"But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime."
> They allow the persons for the anti-gun groups to attribute motivations to the NRA (a common political propaganda trick), but reciprocal remarks by the NRA were either not made or reported.
> Their statistics on concealed-carry holders who shot others ( a total of 151 since May, 2007) are extremely disingenuous - former security guards, police officers, military veterans, are mixed up with those with criminal offenses who should not have received a permit, someone who claimed he though his Florida permit was valid in California, etc., etc. in other words, either persons that no system would have vetted out, or did not meet the criteria to receive a permit.
> In contrast to their position that individuals should not have carry permits, citing the 151 fatalities since May, 2007 (approximately two years) - they fail to mention that (sadly) 300+ police officers commit suicide each year. Perhaps even well-screened police officers should be disarmed as well?
> they failed to mention that Florida had a statistical tracking unit for the first four years after they passed their concealed-carry law. It was disbanded after that due to the incredibly low number of firearms offenses.
> Studies that support concealed carry are minimized, as are the facts that support concealed carry. Again, an agenda-reporting trick :
"Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. (Obviously, they never read John Lott's work.)
In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006."
The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales....Because the gun death rates parallel an overall drop in crime, Hemenway suspects that the decline “has nothing to do with concealed-carry laws.”
> the gun-control crowd uses hypocritical logic when it supports their position:
"Currently, reciprocal arrangements are left to the states, and critics of the Thune amendment labeled it a trampling of states’ rights because it would have forced one state’s training and other standards on states that may have tougher rules. ... But others, including Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Arulanandam of the NRA, say gun-control advocates had no such concern for states’ rights when they pushed for federal laws to ban specific weapons and mandate background checks. They foresee that argument crumbling and say it’s only a matter of time before right-to-carry reciprocity is the law of the land."
In short - the reporting, such as it is, is somewhat typical of the mainstream media and just shows why they have lost credibility with the public.People know when they are being lied to.
Along those lines, some of the new postings on John Lott's blog - http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/ - are about the recent health care bill
Last edited:
No, they will just make up some numbers and try to refute this... No one will question their source or validity and it will get twice the circulation as the positive article.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Similar threads
