free carry poll
- Thread starter czc3513
- Start date
Neal in GA
New member
The criminals are already armed. It would make no difference to them. It would only matter to the law-abiding citizens, and it's accepted knowledge that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less crime.
There is already ample evidence that the crime rate goes down when gun ownership goes up.
Look at the "right to carry" states... per capita rates are down by large margins... Especially Florida which passed a right to shoot the car-jackers "No questions asked"...
Read John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime
Look at the "right to carry" states... per capita rates are down by large margins... Especially Florida which passed a right to shoot the car-jackers "No questions asked"...
Read John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime
I only support the second amendment because I believe that the right is a natural right, aka the right to defend yourself.
I do not think that crime rates would go down first.
I think that MORE criminals would take arms, and that they would outgun law enforcement.
Eventually, the sheep would take arms, and defend themselves and their property.
Or the government will fall to anarchy, lol.
I do not think that crime rates would go down first.
I think that MORE criminals would take arms, and that they would outgun law enforcement.
Eventually, the sheep would take arms, and defend themselves and their property.
Or the government will fall to anarchy, lol.
the crime rate argument bugs me....using it to support gun rights implies that if there was solid, irrefutable evidence that gun rates would skyrocket it would justify their prohibition
I think it's more important to tell antigunners to focus more on the criminals as opposed to the weapons they use to commit thier crimes. More education, better parenting, stronger research into the psychology and sociology of criminals (because there is evidence that many lifelong criminals have genetic abnormalities that could be contributing to their violence), and a stricter focus on crimes with actual victims would go a long way toward curbing the crime rate.
But the crime rate argument worries me because any good statistician can turn the numbers right around.
I think it's more important to tell antigunners to focus more on the criminals as opposed to the weapons they use to commit thier crimes. More education, better parenting, stronger research into the psychology and sociology of criminals (because there is evidence that many lifelong criminals have genetic abnormalities that could be contributing to their violence), and a stricter focus on crimes with actual victims would go a long way toward curbing the crime rate.
But the crime rate argument worries me because any good statistician can turn the numbers right around.
Worm
He did the research, and wrote the book, without prejudice, and the book's title reflects his findings...
He is certainly "any good researcher" and there is no legitimate reason to insinuate he is dishonest in any way.
Any good researcher will tell you that correlation does, in fact, imply causation, if the causation takes place in 32 different places, at different times, under different conditions with similar results.
Mr. Lott is an economics statistician and was not a gun enthusiast when he became curious about the subject of the correlation of guns with crime.
He did the research, and wrote the book, without prejudice, and the book's title reflects his findings...
He is certainly "any good researcher" and there is no legitimate reason to insinuate he is dishonest in any way.
No, correlation cannot prove causation. I'm sure you could establish a strong correlation between a country's comparatively high GDP and the amount of, say, chocolate consumed per capita. Probably a stronger correlation than between crime and guns. But to assume that by doubling the amount of chocolate consumed you can increase the GDP is silly.
Correlation might imply causation, but an implication is not necessarily true.
