Jump to content

proof conceal carry permit is cutting crime?


serpentracer

Recommended Posts

seems like the criminals are thinking twice...

http://www.wlwt.com/news/24992250/detail.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The FBI said fewer violent crime were reported to Ohio police last year, mirroring the national trend.

The bureau said Monday that the state's 5 percent decline in violent crime was accompanied by a 3.9 percent dip in property crime.

In Ohio, all of the violent crime categories were down from 2008, as were most types of property crime. Burglary was an exception.

Murder fell by 5.8 percent in Ohio, robbery by 5.4 percent, aggravated assault by 2.8 percent and rape by 10.9 percent.

Motor vehicle theft was down by 20.3 percent, larceny by 4.2 percent. Burglary rose by 1.6 percent.

The FBI said violent crime nationwide was down for the third year in a row, while 2009 was the seventh consecutive year with a decline in overall property crime.

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burlaries won't be cut by CHL holders so much because you can stake out a house and rob it while they are away. And plus with the economy, people get desperate. I don't have anything to back that up, just my thoughts. I do think that if there was a high chance that the person you were going to stick up for money had a gun, you'd think twice. unless you are high on drugs, most people don't want to risk dying over stealing someones car or money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that crime numbers aren't UP with the condition of the economy...

Guns and ammo sales are up too;) Hell some places can't keep ammo in stock.

I also wanted to add one of JRMiii's comments in here from another thread.

Another e-mail forward I wouldn't normally pass along, but I know the crew here enjoys this stuff. I can't verify the actual source or where this came from...
The Gun is Civilization

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...