Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

More guns less crime in 09'

G

GojuBrian

Guest
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... in_09.html

Americans went on binges buying guns and ammunition in early 2009, worried that a radical leftist president and Democrat-dominated Congress would violate their Second-Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The effects? Less murder, robbery, rape, and property crime, according to an FBI report released Monday. This gives the young president and Democrat Congress at least one proud but unintended accomplishment for which they'll never claim credit.

Indeed, gun buyers were out in droves in late 2008 and early 2009. While it's easy to infer that increased gun ownership figures align precisely with the drop in crime in the same calendar period, you won't see that headline in the New York Times, despite their penchant for such inferences about increases in crime coinciding with increasing "guns on the street."


The gun-buying started shortly before, and then took off after, Obama's election. The Toronto Star reported a 15% increase of 108,000 more FBI background checks in October 2008 than during the same month in 2007. People were already anticipating the dire consequences of an Obama victory. Then, in November 2008, the number of FBI background checks on applicants buying guns spiked 42% from the previous year. The FBI performed 12.7 million background checks in 2008, compared to 11.2 million in 2007, a 13% increase.


More evidence of rampant gun-buying loads up in the states. Through June 2009, the Texas Department of Public Safety received a monthly average of 12,700 applications for concealed handgun licenses, up 46% from the average in 2007. Even the New York Times noted how gun sales were up in 2009; in a June story, it focused on its less sophisticated neighbors in New Jersey. Even in liberal Massachusetts, gun permits surged 15% over the last two years (after falling several years before that).


While background checks and applications for concealed handgun licenses don't directly equate to the number of new guns on the street -- some applicants are refused, and applications can include multiple guns at the same time of purchase -- the numbers do indicate that more law-abiding Americans had new or enhanced arms in the first six months of 2009. Most criminals don't subject themselves to background checks.


(This is a good place to note that "new guns on the street" is just a liberal scare cliché we should not carelessly adopt. These statistics indicate the real dynamic: gun purchases and concealed licenses acquisitions are made predominantly by law-abiding citizens taking their guns home with them from the store, for self-defense, hunting, and target-shooting purposes.)


But shouldn't more guns equate to more murders and other violent crime? Only if you live in liberal never-never land.


That certainly has not been the case in early 2009. Guns are purchased so that good people can protect themselves against bad people. And moreover, self-protection is a basic human right, despite the fact that our new wise Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn't bring herself to acknowledge that this summer.


The newspapers west of the Hudson River are chock full of stories in which law-abiding citizens protected themselves by using guns. And these are just the incidents that are reported. The Armed Citizen blog does a great job of capturing these stories in their raw form, and every thinking American needs to make his own inferences about the value of guns in these situations: They prevent people from becoming statistics. Go through the news reports compiled on the Armed Citizen blog and make your own count of people who refused to become statistics.


For instance, in May, eleven students in Atlanta avoided becoming murder statistics thanks to the bravery of one among them who had a gun in his backpack. He used it to kill one robber and injure another. Chillingly, the news reports describe how the robbers were counting their bullets to make sure they had enough to kill their victims. One of the robbers was about to rape a woman as well. That's at least thirteen fewer violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery) that did not need to be included in the FBI's crime report for the first half of 2009.


As 2009 winds down, the Democratic Party deserves an off-handed "thank you" for inspiring more law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons and protect themselves from bad people, at least in the first half of the year.


But even while giving them that tribute, it's important to reflect that the only direct result of their gun control efforts in the past -- the Clinton administration's regulation forbidding U.S. military personnel from carrying personal firearms -- resulted in the deaths of thirteen people and an unborn infant in Fort Hood.


Sadly, those deaths will add to an increase in the second half of 2009's statistics -- and renewed calls for gun control legislation, to be sure.
 
.
Does concealed carry support law enforcement?

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-G ... nforcement

FBI justifiable homicide data indicates that police officers may be safer in states where law-abiding citizens are empowered to carry concealed handguns in public.
Each year, the FBI publishes violent crime data collected from state law enforcement agencies. This publication includes justifiable homicide (JH) totals for both law enforcement and private citizens. Upon request, state-level JH is also available.

In its Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines justifiable homicide:
Certain willful killings must be classified as justifiable or excusable. In UCR, Justifiable Homicide is defined as and limited to:
· The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
· The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
Justifiable Homicides By Police
In 2007, about two-thirds (67.2%) of the U.S. population lived in 40 states with shall-issue concealed carry laws, where law-abiding citizens can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. These laws are also known as Right-to-Carry (RTC). Over half (55.8%) of all justifiable homicides by police occurred in these states.

States without RTC laws (10 states plus the District of Columbia) contained about one-third (32.8%) of the population and 44.2% of all police JH. With an average of 35 police JH occurring in each non-RTC state while RTC states averaged 7, this means that police justifiable homicides occurred about 5 times more often in non-RTC states.

Of the 398 police justifiable homicides in 2007, 243 were self-defense, and 22 were in defense of another officer’s life: 56.6% occurred in RTC states, and 43.4% occurred in non-RTC states. RTC states averaged 3.8 incidents in 2007, while non-RTC averaged 10.5.

Police officers in non-RTC states had to defend their lives from violent criminals nearly three times as often as officers in RTC states.

FBI data shows that in 2007, the average violent crime rate for RTC states was 400.5, and their average murder rate was 4.9 (per 100,000 population). The average violent crime rate for non-RTC states was 524.3 and their average murder rate was 6.8.

These data indicate that police officers’ lives in non-RTC states are in greater jeopardy from violent criminals who have no compunction about attacking police.
Justifiable Homicides By Private Citizens

Over four-fifths (80.9%) of civilian justifiable homicide occurred in RTC states, while non-RTC states had under one-fifth (19.1%). Both groups averaged about 8 justifiable homicides for 2007. However, when compared to police justifiable homicides, an interesting trend appears: In RTC states, for every 100 citizen JH there were 107 police JH, closer to a one-to-one ratio. In non-RTC states, for every 100 citizen JH there were 359 police JH, over a three-to-one ratio. In RTC states, civilian justifiable homicides were relatively more common when compared to the number of police justifiable homicides.

For civilians, 40.6% of all justifiable homicide occurred in self-defense (94 of 256) and defense of police officers (10): 81 (77.9%) of these occurred in RTC states–including all 10 defense of police officers; 23 (22.1%) occurred in non-RTC states.

In RTC states, a firearm was used in 81.6% of all civilian JH, 25.0% more than the 65.3% in non-RTC states. Considering that criminals were 30.9% more “successful†in completing violent crime––and 38.6% more “successful†in completing murder attempts––in non-RTC states, a firearm is an effective self-defense tool. An armed citizen is less likely to become a violent crime statistic.

In Right-to-Carry states, private citizens have greater freedom to defend themselves in public. Because the ratio of justifiable homicides by police and citizens is more balanced, and because the level of police defensive justifiable homicide is lower, one can only conclude that armed citizens are adept at self-defense, enough to provide a quantifiable level of protection for law enforcement. In non-RTC states, the reduced self-defensive capability of the citizenry correlates with higher rates of violent crime and a more dangerous work environment for police officers.
References
Violent crime and justifiable homicide data derived from Excel spreadsheet compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicide Report – 2007. Spreadsheet available upon request
 
Sonia Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
Wm Tipton

Sonia Sotomayor has said this:
It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,†said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state
Now, this seems to be innocent enough to some, or many, but the thinking itself completely undermines the meaning and the intent of our Constitution.
Firstly, if the Second Amendment DOESNT apply to every citizen of the United States and if it doesnt supersede state law, then to WHOM does it actually apply ?
What individual who lives in the USA does NOT live within a state or local municipality ?
If Sotomayor's absurd interpretation were actually accurate, then the Second Amendment has no meaning as the states could complete ignore the Constitution entirely and make up their own rules.

That said, we have to look at ALL of the Amendments now because why does Sotomayor's nonsense ONLY apply to the 2nd ?
If her reasoning is logical and consistent then this MUST apply to the other amendments as well.
So lets look briefly at the intents of some of these Amendments and see if it makes sense that the writers actually were claiming that the states had authority to ignore these rights...

1st Amendment - Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, to petition, and to assemble
Shouldnt this woman also have to believe that these freedoms are only prevented from being infringed upon by Federal government and that the states can adopt atheism or witchcraft as their state religion and impose those on the citizens of that state ? Of what use are the Amendments then to ANY U.S. citizen ? We may as well throw them in the trash and be done with it. Which we believe is the actual intent behind this thought.

4th Amendment - Interdiction of unreasonable Searches and seizures; warrants
Again, why is it only the 2nd that applies to Federal government according to Sotomayor ? Where does the Constitution SAY that the 2nd applies in some way that these others do not ?
If Sotomayor's reasoning is consistent then the States also should have authority to ignore this Amendment as well.
*IF* local and state authorities can ignore the 2nd, then certainly the same logic allows them to ignore the 4th and they can unjustly search our homes and our lives at any point they wish. But that IS where we are headed as a nation, isnt it ?

5th Amendment - Indictments; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.
I guess we can toss due process out the window *IF* the states can indescriminately ignore ANY Amendment to the Constitution.

6th Amendment -Right to a fair and speedy public trial, Notice of accusations, Confronting one's accuser, Subpoenas, Right to counsel

7th Amendment -Right to trial by jury in civil cases

8th Amendment - No excessive bail & fines or cruel & unusual punishment
Again, kiss all that goodbye...the state can just ignore it if they wish, apparently.

13th Amendment - Abolition of slavery, except as punishment for a crime.
I guess if Sotomayors logic that ANY Amendment can be ignored by the states then we could expect a return to slavery by an individual state if they so chose to ignore this Amendment ?

15th Amendment Suffrage no longer restricted by race
And apparenlty, by this womans logic, if the states wanted to they could refuse to let a person vote based on skin color.
Or gender...
19th Amendment -Women's suffrage


Sotomayors reasoning may seem to be acceptable to those who dont like guns, but can we expect it to stop there ?
Arent we already seeing unreasonable search and seizure in this country under the claims of 'anti-terrorism' ?

*IF* even ONE Amendment or right can be infringed upon by the local or state government then ALL are at risk.
Once precedent is set that the states can ignore ANY valid Amendment then ALL are subject to being ignored.
If that be the case then our Constitution and its Amendments are meaningless, worthless pieces of paper that serve only as the finest outhouse paper money can buy.
 
Very good points on Sotamayor, she's only giving her interpretation of the one particular ammendment she does not agree with. It's no secret she's very liberal.
 
GojuBrian said:
Very good points on Sotamayor, she's only giving her interpretation of the one particular ammendment she does not agree with. It's no secret she's very liberal.
The woman kills me with her complete lack of comprehension....at least I hope its that and not that shes actually bent on destroying our Constitution that has helped to provide HER with a lot of freedom and luxury...
 
Not to mention how she ruled in the case of the firemen who were discriminated against(they are white). That was overturned eventually though. She has said many disturbing things. I cringe to know that she is a supreme court justice. :rant :angry :angry2
 
Another thing that blows my mind is the attitude of some immigrants.
God bless em, I dont mind having them be able to find a better life away from some of these third world warzones they come from. Its nice thinking that a few more people might be able to raise families in peace and have a decent life.

What kills me is how some of them escape the horrors of their own countries, then when they get here the one thing that is basically keeping THIS country FREE so they even had a place to run to in the first place, the Constitution, is seemingly one of the things they apparently care the least about.

Its like some of them dont grasp the fact that while theyre voting for candidates they may like, that same politician is doing their best to TAKE AWAY the very freedoms that these people came here to get.

:screwloose
 
true they will show up, and we will be called not saved and so on for supporting the right to own a gun and defend ourselves.
 
I don't remember an verse which says "Thou shall be a victim". Turn the other cheek yes, and maybe turn it a few times, but when your life or your love one's life is at stake you defend life.

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14)
 
RyanT said:
I don't remember an verse which says "Thou shall be a victim". Turn the other cheek yes, and maybe turn it a few times, but when your life or your love one's life is at stake you defend life.

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14)

Sane people understand this. People who wish to distort the truth do not. We (sane people) understand that to defend someone is to love them. We defend out of love for peace, justice, and righteousness. If a bad guy is harmed while doing something that may cause another harm, it's his own fault.
 
GojuBrian said:
Sane people understand this. People who wish to distort the truth do not. We (sane people) understand that to defend someone is to love them. We defend out of love for peace, justice, and righteousness. If a bad guy is harmed while doing something that may cause another harm, it's his own fault.


Then the bad guy sues you and gets waaaayyy more from it than what he could get for the stuff he was carrying out of your house at the time. Don't you just love the world we live in
 
RyanT said:
GojuBrian said:
Sane people understand this. People who wish to distort the truth do not. We (sane people) understand that to defend someone is to love them. We defend out of love for peace, justice, and righteousness. If a bad guy is harmed while doing something that may cause another harm, it's his own fault.


Then the bad guy sues you and gets waaaayyy more from it than what he could get for the stuff he was carrying out of your house at the time. Don't you just love the world we live in
Actually in Ohio the laws are changing over time so that less and less is a criminal or his family going to be able to sue if he is killed or injured by the person hes assaulting or breaking in on.
We recently passed Castle doctrine laws here that protect us from being sued if we're attacked in our homes or cars. Hopefully they will soon expand it to anywhere we're lawfully allowed to be.
:)
 
NRA video.

[youtube:31uaex1k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncRKmUFR80I&feature=sub[/youtube:31uaex1k]
 
Back
Top