PDA

View Full Version : Concealed Carry Permits Rise, Police-Officer Killings Decline



crin63
12-22-2009, 01:42 PM
Of course the more people that are armed the lower crime will be.



Concealed Carry Permits Rise, Police-Officer Killings Decline
by David Alan Coia (more by this author)
Posted 12/17/2009 ET


The number of people applying for and receiving permits to carry concealed weapons has risen dramatically throughout the United States during the last two years, and it continues to rise, yet the number of felony killings of police officers has declined just as precipitously over the same period.

Inexplicable? “This is just the type of thing that was predicted,” economist John R. Lott told HUMAN EVENTS. Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime (Chicago University Press), pointed to research done eight years ago by David P. Mustard and published in Chicago University’s Journal of Law and Economics.

“States that enact concealed-carry laws are less likely to have a felonious police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths after the law is passed,” Mustard concluded in his 2001 journal article.

A sampling of concealed-carry permit (CCP) activity in various states illustrates the increase in demand for concealed weapons:

* Ohio: Sheriffs issued 33,864 regular CCPs in 2008, 53% more than in 2007 (73 temporary emergency licenses were also issued), according to the Buckeye Firearms Association.
* Oklahoma: As of June, the state had 78,000 CCP holders, with more than 21,000 CCPs issued in 2008 -- twice the number issued in 2007, according to The Oklahoman newspaper.
* Utah: The Bureau of Criminal Identification processed 2,548 CCP applications in February 2008 and 8,142 in February 2009. For March the numbers were 4,412 in 2008 and 10,878 in 2009.
* Forsyth County, N.C.: In the first six months of 2007 there were 1,362 applications for permits to buy pistols, the Winston-Salem Journal reported. In the same time period in 2008 and 2009, there were 1,974 and 2,935 applications, respectively.

Despite the increase in the number of legally carried concealed weapons, 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 2008, a decline of 17 killings from the previous year’s total, according to the 2008 U.S. Department of Justice report, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. Firearms were used in 35 of those killings, 25 of which were by handguns. Many other police officers died in the line of duty, but the majority of those deaths resulted from auto accidents during police chases.

The 41 killings is the lowest in recent decades, matched only in 1999 when there were 42 felonious killings of police officers, 25 of which were also by handguns.

“Letting law-abiding citizens carry guns reduces the rate at which criminals are carrying guns,” Lott said. Armed citizens increase the risk to armed criminals, who typically prefer to avoid life-threatening risk and so are less likely to use guns in the commission of a crime, he said.
Lott explained that where there is an increase in CCPs, there is also a drop in violent crime relative to property crime -- fewer armed robberies and more larcenies. Also, criminals tend to move from areas in which more citizens are armed, resulting in an increase in crime in counties and states that restrict gun ownership and CCPs.

“License holders, like gun owners in general, are not the extremists the anti-gun crowd tries to paint,” Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, told the Chillicothe, Ohio Gazette in June. “They are honorable citizens who want protection from real dangers. Responsible people carry a gun to protect them from a criminal attack.”

“To date [Oct. 2001] we have no examples of law-abiding citizens with concealed-weapons permits assaulting police officers,” Mustard wrote. “In contrast, there is at least one example of such a citizen coming to the aid of an officer,”

“Criminals tend to avoid activities that are risky to them,” said Lott. Chicago University Press this spring will issue a third edition of More Guns, Less Crime, which Lott has updated to include an additional decade of information. The first two editions sold more than 100,000 copies, according to the publisher.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=34849

sgtdmski
12-24-2009, 05:40 AM
Who would of thunk it. If you arm the citizens, the criminals, who prey upon the weak would be less likely to prey upon people afraid of meeting someone who was not weak but well-armed.

Certainly not the liberals, who believe the only way to end gun deaths is to make it illegal for the law-abiding to carry them. That way the criminal always has the advantage.

Thank God I now live in Alaska, where guns are part of the culture, and where criminals, have to be extremely well-armed to have more fire-power than the average citizen.

dmk

DragonStryk72
12-26-2009, 05:26 PM
i know, it's just crazy right? It's almost like criminals are afraid of people being able to stop them, like they have this fear of getting shot, either while robbing the person, or even while getting away.

People think the laws in Texas and Alaska are scary, and I'm like, "Well, duh! What the hell do you think the point is?"

the idea of laws, with punishments attached, is to deter criminals, and to set as examples those who are caught breaking the law.

NightTrain
12-26-2009, 10:41 PM
I wonder what kind of wondrous bullshit Bully Boy will come up with to explain this phenomena?

chesswarsnow
12-26-2009, 10:44 PM
Sorry bout that,


1. Happens quite often around here these days.
2. Criminals break into a house, and get a bullet for their trouble.
3. I hear about it alot now days here in North Texas.
4. Really no one here tears up when they hear about it either.
5. Sure its just stuff they are after, robbery etc. but what if they intend to do a home invasion?
6. And terrorize you, and make you go to the bank and draw out money before they whack you?
7. Trouble is when a person is home and being broken into, all you know is some ones trying to enter without being invited.
8. And its better to just shoot first then wait and see what its all about.
9. Now a days the stupid bad guys knowing this, it will deter some of the lame ass lazy bastards.
10. If it doesn't, then bye bye loser, no tears for you.:poke:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Joyful HoneyBee
12-27-2009, 09:45 AM
Anyone who would be brazen enough to break into someone's home while they are home is generally up to the worst kind of 'no good'. People who only want to take things tend to break in when no one is there and will often case the property extensively before they commit the break-in. Those who break into a home while occupants are sleeping typically will inflict harm to their victims, so they should be shot.

I agree with you Chessie....no tears for those criminals. We may never know their true intent, but we can know for sure that it wasn't for anything good.

Best lines of defense from home invaders include dogs that bark and guns that fire sure and true.

sgtdmski
12-27-2009, 02:15 PM
Anyone who breaks into my home will face the business end of my .357. With it beautiful silver finish and six inch barrel it makes many who see it pause for a moment, just long enough for me to make sure I am well aimed at center mass.

I am sorry but once you break in, you have lost all rights to warnings, I shoot after identifying my target. With a .357, I do not plan on just wounding you.

dmk