Kelly - If it helps, the actual rate of firearms being used by CCW holders is less than 2% annually. The majority of times a gun is said to have prevented a crime is when the bad guy sees it, and suddenly realizes that his victim doesn't want to be.

Vim - That's the beauty of the idea. Since the bad guys don't know, they're more hesitant to commit a crime. As a result, you get the reductions in offenses against the person like we've seen in CCW states.

Wendy - If it helps, Newsweek review the statistics a few years ago, and it showed that while the Police had an error rate (wrong person shot) of around around 11%, the armed citizen only errored 2% of the time. Not surprising when you realize that the Police typically aren't there when the crime first starts, and have to figure out who the good and bad guys are.

And as Bruddah said - although 48 states offer some form of CCW for non-police, states like Hawaii and New Jersey (and certain counties in California) are infamous for only giving them to politically connected people - kind of like the old "Special Officer" badges that were common paybacks for donations in Cook County politics for years.

This is the biggest argument for a "shall-issue" permit, where the once the applicant is determined to not be a criminal through background checks and has received the necessary training their permit issuance is automatic, instead of depending on how big a campaign contribution someone has made.

rj2001odyssey: CCW does not automatically equal "weak" gun laws. We're not talking about removing all the existing laws and selling pistols from ice cream trucks, just the ability for the individual to be able to defend his or her self with the same ability as an off-duty policeman or an elected official.

And as for "feeling more safe"? Obviously your search ended at the liberal site you link to, and neglected two important studies - the first (Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 - Fall 1995) showing 2.5 million uses of lawfully owned firearms, and another (Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt ) which showed 1.5 million uses of lawful firearms to prevent or stop a crime.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but we're talking about the LAWFUL uses of firearms, not the criminal ones. If you're going to fall back on "guns R bad" and only cite criminal activity then why not post on the Brady website?

As far your "nationwide law", I'm not going to argue with you, as your comment about "defending the country" and having to be in the military to own arms shows you for the totalitarian you are. In case you slept though US Government class in High School, the 2nd Amendment (like all the rest) applies to individuals, not the government or it's agents. As far as your being a self-proclaimed "hunter" reflecting on the issue, I refuse to acknowledge it having any bearing.

We're not talking about shooting game, we're talking about being able to defend one's self and family from an entirely different kind of animal, one far more deadly than anything you've faced down over a shotgun barrel.

And I found it humorous that you cite a Canadian study in closing. Ask them how their national firearms registration is going, or ask Australia how much their gun crime rate has increased since 640,381 personal firearms were surrendered and destroyed by their government.

(CA recently placed their national registry on hold, and despite many guns being surrendered or confiscated gun crimes have escalated. And Australia? Try a 300% increase in firearms homicides in one territory alone.)



Until you have faced a life or death moment of choice (yes, I have, right here in oh-so-blissfully-safe-Illinois), please refrain from using the tone of authority, and keep your opinions to Field and Stream.