Your cite showed a lot of statistics attempting to correlate lower crime rates with concealed carry laws, however the correlation does not prove causation, and, in fact, crime went down everywhere under Clinton, so it cannot be taken as definitive that concealed carry had anything to with it.
And I didn’t see any criminals expressing any fear of C and C. That’s an extropolation, not a fact.
Maybe I should have said it like this:
It has never been definitively decided that the 2nd amendent extends to private individuals. When people say they they have a constitutional"right" to own a firearm, they are asserting an opinion not a matter of settled fact.
Maybe it had something to do with the economy, and not any draconian gun laws that the Clinton administration advocated??? UncleBeer and ExTank have postulated upon this in other GC GD’s. Makes for excellent reading, IMHO.
Travis Bickle was a hero! He saved Jodie Foster! 
I agree that the economy is far more likely to have been a factor than gun control laws.
Are you talking to me? 
FN 12:
“Wright and Rossi (p. 151) interviewed felony prisoners in 10 state correctional systems and found that 56 percent said that criminals would not attack a potential victim that was known to be armed. They also found evidence that criminals in those states with the highest levels of civilian gun ownership worried the most about armed victims. James D. Wright & Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms
(1986).”
“…that was known to be armed” is not the same as might be armed.
It says they “found evidence” that criminals “worried more” in the shoot 'em up states but it didn’t say what that “evidence” was, or that those “worries” prevented criminals from committing crimes.
-Except that’s proof against your earlier tirade, D the (selective) C.
Since '86, the number of “shall issue” CCW states- meaning those states are now obligated to issue a permit if the applicant passes the qualifications- has risen from what, twelve? To something like 36 or 37 with Minnesota.
So the number of states issuing CCW permits has nearly tripled, at the same time you yourself acknowledge that crime has gone down.
Yep, blood has surely been a’runnin’ in the streets because of all them hot-tempered “Clint Eastwood wannabes”, eh?
Crime always goes down when the economy is good. Wait until Shrub’s coming depression really kicks in…then it’s going to be like the wild, wild west.
In California, yes, you must give a description and serial number of the guns you will be “carrying”. The ccw license is only good for the guns listed/registered.
The official count is 34(plus Vermont). We just got New Mexico, Colorado, and Minnesota in the past couple of months. Ohio is maybe next since if they dont, it will be like Vermont where anyone can carry without a permit due to a recent state court decision.
http://www.packing.org/state/report_basic.jsp?search=shall_issue
They cant!
Generally, ex-felons cannot own ANY!!! gun for the rest of their life(with very few exceptions). In my state, they also cannot own a bow and arrow either. Nor can they even live in a house which has a gun, meaning that their wife cannot own one either.
For the most part, (convicted felon) criminals cannot own, possess, nor carry any weapon in nearly every state, so you can now rest at ease, you dont have to worry about (previously convicted) criminals having a gun.
Furthermore, those convicted of even simple minor criminal mis-demeanors, are very rarely allowed to carry guns, even if they never ever went to prison. Most states will not issue a ccw license to anyone with a criminal record, or with a recent criminal record of any kind.
Lastly, federal law says that anyone who has EVER!!! been convicted of any type of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor 50 years ago, can never ever own a gun, and not even possess a single bullet.
This would be humorus if it was not so pathetic, I have had a Concealed pistol permit in michigan for well over a year and have never felt the need to be a hero nor the urge to harm anyone, if anything I have been much more passive.
If you do not agree with laws fine its your opinion, no need to try to insult people that DO abide by said laws.
Take care and seek some help please 
Sorry you are wrong, this was put to the supreame court last year and was proven to be a induvidules right to own a firearm, but thank you for passing on uninformed information as usual.
Sorry but you are NOT required to carry your green card, it is recomended though incase the NICS system is down.
Been there a few times actually. Wasn’t a lot of fun, don’t really care much about the issue. Being armed doesn’t seem to reduce the risk of being a victim of crime(assuming you conceal your armament) nor does an armed populace seem to create anarchy. I don’t think a popular uprising with hunting rifles and handguns is possible in the era of modern militaries, so I’m really ambivalent to the whole issue. Legalize, doesn’t impact me much, restrict, doesn’t impact me much except for the whole “I don’t like the government restricting ANY of my liberties” libertarian part of me.
So, no dog in that fight. It’s all akin to a religious debate IMHO. Everyone arguing over what the inspiration for the words in some ancient document was and no real way to settle it until/unless we can invent time travel or resurrect those guys. I like to stick to debates with more factual content instead of interpretative. Just a personal preference.
Enjoy,
Steven
Cite?
**Crime always goes down when the economy is good. Wait until Shrub’s coming depression really kicks in…then it’s going to be like the wild, wild west.
**
Crime sometimes moves parallel with the economy, but not always. The 60s was boom times, and the crime rate excalated to all-time highs due to other social pressures. By contrast, our grandparents lived with a lot more poverty than we do and they had to deal with less crime.
Lots of things aren’t constitutional rights. But if the states nevertheless choose to give you that right that’s their prerogative.