Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it
is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're
criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number
of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may
be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.

Right! Most homicides seem to be gangsta's killing gangsta's though
there are sometimes collateral casualties.

I'd prefer "deterrent" to "credible threat". Predators look for easy
prey. See prolific writings by Massad Ayoob if you want cites.
Becoming a gunsel reduces one to the level of the criminal scumbags.
Killing must be a last resort for responsible citizens. It is not a
solution in general and is quite rarely a necessity in particular.
That said, peaceful citizens able to defend themselves are less easy
prey and we must retain the right to not be easy prey.


One should not forget the "halo" effect either of an area with many
legally armed citizens.

The bad guys are unable to determine who is carrying, so tend to find
other crimes to commit that dont involve direct contact with their
victims.

some years ago, Detroit had a very large and growing rape rate.
The chief of police at that time, offered free firearms training and
safety classes to women, and many hundreds took advantage to take
them.
The newspapers and media carried the story in depth about how many
women were now trained in use of firearms, and they were buying guns
to keep at home.

The rate of rapes in homes dropped like an anvil down the well.

The rape rate outside the home rose nearly an equal amount.

See..Michigan didnt have much of a CCW process and it was nearly
impossible for a woman to get one.

This is the same reason armed robberies dropped like a stone in
Florida after they started their CCW issuing. However it DID go up a
significantly large amount amoung tourists driving rental cars.
Criminals realized that those people would be unlikely to be armed.

It got so bad that they removed the car rental decals from rental
cars, to make it harder for the criminals to profile a helpless victim

Then armed robberies again dropped like a rock.

If you are a criminal, and you know your area has many many
outstanding CCW weapons carriers..are you willig to tae the chance
youcan pick them out in a crowd of potential victims?

Gunner

At first glance that is a plausible argument. If more citizens carry guns
criminals will limit their crimes because they are afraid of picking on an
armed citizen. Sounds good but in reality that is bull****. Why? Because
statistically it doesn't work. There are not enough armed citizens to make a
dent in the behavior of criminals. How often is a person with a CCL actually
going to have a confrontation with a criminal? How many armed citizens have
the chance of coming in contact with a "scumbag? Aren't normal citizens
usually not where low life people hang out? Then you have the problem of
people with gun permits who have no business having them. Even though I live
in California I have seen the people in my county who are getting permits
and it's scary. Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves. Bottom line; you don't have
enough people with permits to make any difference to the crime rate, and the
people with permits are too lame to do much good anyway, so Goober's
argument is kaput.


Hawke