One of the arguments is that allowing CCW will increase crime rates and present a danger to the community because of all the guns out there.
So if the majority of CCW holders are middle class and unlikely to commit crimes, why the cries of “Danger, danger!”?
I don’t favor unrestricted carry (or open carry for that matter). I do believe that a permit holder should demonstrate proficiency and have an understanding of when a weapon can or cannot be displayed or used.
It very well may prove true that middle class people with CHLs commit more crimes than middle class people without CHLs. I don’t know if that’s true and I don’t think it is; I think the rates are probably about the same. But just because middle class people are unlikely to commit robbery doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for all middle class people to carry around a gun all the time. More guns = more gun crime, more gun accidents, more gun suicides. CHLs don’t magically prevent any of that. (FTR and I hate having to say this all the time, but I think people should be allowed to own handguns and carry them concealed if that’s what they really want to do. I also think it’s generally a bad idea for people to exercise this right.)
Mandatory firearm safety instruction in public schools. Optionally taught through the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program.
This education should continue to be required through age appropriate channels through the end of secondary education as well.
Except the Eddie Eagle program is not effective.
What else you got?
More education of course. Eddie Eagle is but one avenue. Continue exploring training until a method that reliably works is developed.
Bone, your plan is obviously part of a political agenda independent from one aimed at gun safety. We don’t even have mandatory gun safety training for gun owners. I wonder why that is not your focus, since it is clearly the relevant population. Can’t you drop the political agenda for even a second?
Teaching kids about gun safety is independent of gun safety - that doesn’t make sense, but okay. You asked specifically for a proposal to reduce harmful gun incidents. This is one. Do you have any you’d like to offer?
Taking one approach does not preclude other approaches, however it’s much easier to require certain education for children in an environment designed to educate, rather than force adults to engage in activity. Children do grow up to become the relevant population - are you opposed to educating children about gun safety?
It’s not a political agenda, though it does align nicely. I teach my children about gun safety. I’m not engaging in a political agenda when I do so.
That study I linked to was done over 10 years ago. How many kids have been hurt or killed since then? Why does the NRA continue to pat its back over a program that it knows is ineffective? Doesn’t that bother you?
Guess what! We don’t need to wait, because we know of a method that reliably works. It’s called, “Don’t keep guns in the house if you have kids.”
It boggles my mind. You can’t claim to be in favor of gun safety if you eschew a method that’s proven to work in favor of a method that’s shown to be ineffective. At the end of the day, getting guns out of the houses containing children is flat out not an option for you folks, and Eddie Eagle is a feel-good program designed for PR and to help ignorant people sleep better.
I’m opposed to programs that cost money but don’t work, and you should be to.
A minority of Americans are gun owners (approximately 30%, give or take). Let’s ensure that those people are trained in and can demonstrate gun safety before we try to market guns to kids. You’re showing how unserious you are about doing something real.
I didn’t know that education was the same as marketing. Good luck with that abstinence! As for doing something real, I’ll be buying my oldest his first rifle this year and we’re gonna have a lot of fun while I teach him how to use it, seriously.
I have 3 kids, aged 4 through 8. Should I send them to the Eddie Eagle classes?
The number that is less than the number of people who were not assaulted, robbed, raped or killed because a firearm proved a deterrent.
Is your estimation of the intelligence and responsibility of the average citizen really that low?
How many of those were bystanders injured by someone carrying in public? As opposed to self-injury, hunting accidents, etc.? And, might I add, out of a population of over 300,000,000.
Okay, then I feel justified in considering the unknowable number of incidents that never happened because of the deterrence value of guns.
If you have a suggestion that doesn’t involve forbidding people who’ve never done anything wrong from owning and carrying guns, I’m all ears.
I don’t believe you’ve demonstrated that.
Why isn’t it enough to know that people who have concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the general population (and more law abiding that the average police officer)?
What do you need to control for? So what if the average concealed carry holder is a pudgy white middle class suburbanite? Do we have to check and see if they are more or less law abiding than the average pudgy white middle class suburbanite?
To hear some on the gun control side talk, the concealed carry permit holders are bloodthirsty massacres just waiting to happen. This is obviously not true.
You seem to be equating gun safety with sex education. Most people will fuck at some point, and most people possess the requisite equipment.
Most people will never own a gun, and nobody is born with the requisite equipment. That analogy is moronic, which is not particularly surprising.
Glad you’re purporting to teach your child gun safety. To be consistent with your proposal, though, you should round up all the neighbor kids and teach them gun safety, whether they want it or not.
Why does it matter what weapon is used to commit assault? In what way would it be relevant if aggravated assaults committed by concealed carry permit holders were all committed with a gun while most of the aggravated assaults committed by non CHL holders were committed with chainsaws?
In what way is a swimming pool a deadly weapon? Are people drowning each other in swimming pools at some measurable rate? Or are you just being idiot?
And I was attempting to index per capita. If 2 out of every hundred Texans is a CHL holder but only .5 out of every murderer is a CHL holder, then why can’t we say that CHL holders are less likely to be murderers than the general population?
It’s amusing how damned concerned Dumuri was about proper controls when trying to handwave non-preferred results away, while looking at straight percentages that he does like he suddenly doesn’t give a shit whether those two groups are otherwise equally at risk for the outcome of interest.
It depends on what you’re trying to do with this information. If all you’re doing is defending yourself against people who are claiming that CHL holders are bloodthirsty massacre [perpetrators] just waiting to happen, then fine, valid point. Having a CHL doesn’t make someone more likely to commit cold blooded murder or armed robbery or anything like that. People shouldn’t resort to hyperbole, absolutely.
If you’re pushing for more people to have CHLs and to carry handguns regularly in order to, say, stop bad guys with guns and make the world a safer place, like the NRA regularly does, then I think you need to show some net benefit to CHL holders, and I don’t think the stats support that.
On reflection, running coach’s only claim was that CHL holders are more law abiding than the general population. I should have read more carefuly. While I don’t think his cite did anything to prove his claim, I don’t dispute it either. My bad.
So you think this blurb about a study (that you haven’t seen yet) proves what you want it to prove. Not surprising.
It is very obvious to anyone reading this thread that you resort to insults because the only thing you have left is insults. You can’t prove what you know in your heart of hearts to be true (banning guns = teh win), you can’t convince the courts or the legislature to agree with you and more people are starting to think that banning guns is stupid.
Just to be clear, are you opposed to teaching kids about gun safety? Do you have any proposals to reduce harmful gun incidents?