Skip to comments.Right-to-carry guns is proven way to reduce the crime rate
Posted on 03/24/2004 10:06:10 AM PST by B4Ranch
Right-to-carry guns is proven way to reduce the crime rate
Web-posted Mar 24, 2004
Some Daily Oakland Press readers had mixed emotions last week when we reported a Farmington Hills woman had frightened away would-be robbers because she was legally carrying a gun. They praised us for printing the story, but wished we'd put it on the front page.
It may be the first such local story we've printed or known of - and that was because the chief of police there wisely brought it to public attention.
The successful threat of a weapon in the hands of a potential crime victim is an event that rarely becomes public.
This surely was not the only such happy ending since Michigan residents were permitted by the state Legislature to exercise a constitutional right to keep and bear arms about five years ago.
Before the law was passed people outside the law enforcement community rarely were granted concealed weapons permits. The main qualification of too many who did get them was political clout of some kind.
Regular people typically didn't bother to apply.
Those in opposition feared we'd set off a bloodbath. Their theory was we'd all become armed and we'd start shooting each other at the slightest provocation.
We even had made some schools "gun-free zones," thus telling violent criminals they're safe. Many school massacres most likely could have been prevented or stopped had someone on the premises been armed.
Guns in the house are not necessarily a great hazard, either. National data at the time of the debate showed just 44 gun-related deaths at home of children under 10.
You can bet opponents of the change would be shouting "I told you so" if it had been followed by so much as an upward blip in handguns involved in crimes, household accidents, domestic assaults and so forth - all the things that were confidently predicted.
One of the reasons nothing changed is because the vast majority of those who were granted licenses under the new law already owned the guns and had been carrying them as they saw fit. They just wanted to be able to go about their business without being lawbreakers.
But elsewhere, widely publicized liberalization of so-called right-to-carry laws actually has been linked to a reduced crime rate. Would-be felons apparently think twice before taking somebody on.
Florida had passed a similar law before Michigan acted and noted a sudden increase in crimes against tourists - people driving cars with rental-company decals or out-of-state license plates.
The assumption is the bad guys figured those drivers would be much less likely to be armed and dangerous than a Floridian.
In Great Britain, the crime rate increased over the decades, tracking right along with a steady crackdown on the citizen ownership and carrying of weapons.
Farmington Hills Police Chief William Dwyer has done us all a favor by reminding us that the right-to-carry law is there and can protect us. And he is reminding would-be criminals of the same thing.
Pretty cool for an admin to retain his street smarts.
I almost got choked up seeing harpseal still on your ping list. Please leave him on, so he knows he's not forgotten.
There you go.
Then Florida passed a number of interstate compacts which allow reciprocity with other states and CCW permits. Suddenly a Georgia tag didn't guarantee an unarmed and helpless tourist. To date, I can travel from my home in Miami, FL to almost anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line and be lawfully armed. I'm not sure about South Carolina, however. A couple of years ago we travelled to Austin Texas and back to pick up our new pup. I was armed the whole way and never felt safer.
Wouldn't it be nice if such positive uses of a gun were given more press? We ought to require papers to validate stories such as this and then run it somewhere on either the front or back of every paper in town.
Where do they (news outlets) get the impression that part of their mission is to keep people in the dark? I thought their purpose was to shed light on events, both good and bad.
When guns are put to good use and it's not reported, it is a violation of the trust we hold in them and perhaps, by pointing this out, they'll see things differently in the future. Otherwise, they remain nothing more than an agenda driven rag or television show whose credibility is their biggest liability.
Sales of papers down? Ratings on your "TheNewsComesFirst" show down? People want news, raw and accurate--not agenda driven, PC crap. How refreshing it would be to tune into a news show that actually put the 'news first'.
When are you and the rest of the good journalists going to start including the words "United Nations" and "New World Order" in your pieces about gun control? I continually ask myself, "Do they even know where the push is coming from? Do they know who is at the top of the push? Why are they afraid of putting out all the facts?"
I'd appreciate a long answer if you have the time. Tell me what is going on in your industry and why those words are forbidden by the Chief Editor of Gun News Daily, the Owners or whomever has the last word on whether you'll have a job tomorrow should you tell the whole story.
Until now I have thought that someone in probably, the advertising department, and probably a strong Democrat doesn't want to see an anti-UN statement. Would this cause a cash flow problem? Is someone afraid of outside powers should you bring out the facts or is their a concern that gun owners aren't sophisticated enough to handle an anti UN sentence.
..a list of those at the top of the push. Put a cherry up there for me rather than a globalist. Kerry's love affair with the UN has given me enough ____________(fill in the blank, I couldn't come up with a word) to want to oppose the uniting of something when it probably shouldn't be united.
When it comes to us (US), I think we ought to just have one of those 'seeing each other' affairs with the rest of the
Globe World- 'lest we lose our Vir-sovereignty.
Might this may fall into the "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" category? If so, how much closer can you get?
Being born in upper Manhattan, now living in the Bronx, if the city gets hit with a WMD, God forbid, that might get the UN out of the US for starters.
Well, you still owe me the pint, but thanks for the ping. ;-)