Posted on 12/28/2011 8:39:20 PM PST by Nachum
It seems that if you're a New York Times reporter on a mission to prove something you think must be obvious and your research leads to the exact opposite result from what you smugly expected, you forge ahead and try to pretend that you proved your point anyway.
At least that how it seems to have worked out for Times reporter Michael Luo in a report appearing in Tuesday's print edition which tried to show readers how one state which allows residents to carry concealed weapons with a permit is allegedly allowing large numbers of dangerous people to possess them. But the way the math works out, North Carolina, the state which the Times investigated, is far safer than many jurisdictions without such laws, even given the problems cited with pulling permits from those who have committed crimes and should not still be holding them. Additionally, the murder rate among North Carolinians who don't have permits or associate with those who do is higher than it is among permit holders. Here is Luo's pathetic attempt to make a case which can't be made:
The bedrock argument for this movement is that permit holders are law-abiding citizens who should be able to carry guns in public to protect themselves. “These are people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our community,” the federal legislation’s author, Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, said on the House floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
ping
Whats always missing is counts on lives saved by concealed carry..
Because you cannot count them..
Not only lives saved but thefts thwarted, and wounds not realized.. mental and physical..
Deaths caused by concealed carry are extremely small.. if any..
NYC should dig a moat around it’s great festering concrete cesspool, they can stay inside and free Americans can stay out.
Surprise, surprise, CCW permits holds are safer. who woulda thunk?
Surprise, surprise, CCW permits holders are safer. who woulda thunk?
NYC and many other large urban areas are up to the eyeballs in barbarians. They cannot be trusted with freedom, but that is no reason to attack the liberties of decent Americans.
Then again, that places the argument on the basis of costs and benefits. While this position is a win for our side, because the benefits outweigh the costs as unwittingly shown by the NYT's attempt to show the opposite, a more principled argument is that free people should have the right to be able to defend their lives against criminal attack even if it could be shown that doing such was a net detriment. Which however it isn't. (Sorry, NYT.)
Which is a signal motivation for the gun-grabbers: they can’t admit that their own liberal policies have had a hand in producing the dysfunction, so they have to blame the instrumentality.
They’re a one-note band. It’s astonishing, but revealing, that their one-note still sways some fools.
It really is an actual mental illness.
I tend to adhere to the “make no law”.. part of the Constitution..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.