.jpg)
A large part of the reason most folks decide to carry a gun is personal protection. After that, they want to protect their family. Beyond that, they would really have to evaluate the situation before they would intervene. Did you know that by carrying a gun you help strangers everyday? Economists call it the substitution effect. When the possible number of people carrying a gun goes up, the criminals can't know who is carrying and who isn't. They sense that their job risk has gone up and they shift from confrontational crimes like robbery, murder, and rape to safer ones like car theft and burglary. They substitute one crime for another to increase their safety. Another form of substitution is going to a place where they know gun laws are tighter, and they are more confident that they won't run into a gun. Surveys of criminals behind bars indicate that they fear a civilian with a gun more than they fear a policeman with a gun.
If you apply for a concealed carry permit and get it, even if you don't own a gun or intend to carry it, you help your neighbor. The aggregate statistics for Colorado will show an increase in the possible number of people who could be carrying a gun and the criminals know this. Rest assured that they are aware of the spike in gun sales and permit applications since last November in every county of our state. In a 1996 study, David Kopel and Laurence Reed, writing for the Hoover Institution on the Stanford University campus said:
The clincher for me is to look at murder rates and rape rates per capita in the 50 states. 49th out of 50, nearly last, for murder is Vermont (beaten out of last place by South Dakota, go figure). It is also very last out of the 50 states for rape. Vermont is also the only state in the union that doesn't issue concealed carry permits because anybody can carry any gun any time they want to, concealed. That makes Vermonters very polite and peaceable people.
Comments
It isn't the "permit" that makes the difference... it is the presence of the GUN and a person with the guts, brains and training to use it effectively.
Dan, it is probably worth pointing out that Alaska has also gone "Vermont-style" with their CCW provision for residents. And, to the shock and amazement of nobody, we seem to be getting along just fine that way. (Oh, some people may not be too HAPPY about that, but even they aren't really surprised.)
Your statement "Vermont is the only state in the union that does not issue..." is technically correct, as Alaska will issue you a permit for the purposes of reciprocity with other states, but it is not required for residents within Alaska.
You've hit, and hit well, on another of the Brady Bunch's sore points here, the "general benefit" argument, which is credible enough to touch off the standard response tactic* among those who have made up their mind on the matter and do not want to be confused with the facts.
Which (please forgive me) brings me right around, again, to the point that statistics really don't matter. We've known about this particular "general benefit" effect since at least the latter 1960s, at least from a modern statistics point of view, but it has not stifled the disarmers' cries of "Look! A monkey!" in any measurable way since that time. Is it worth more effort?
Why not re-frame the argument around what it really is: since when, exactly, did it become acceptable that free men and women should have to beg ANYONE's permission to keep and bear the means of their own protection? Think about it: the very concept establishes pretty literally that your life is NOT YOUR OWN, that it belongs rather to those who could permit or deny you the "privilege" to exercise a basic human right. If you have to beg for the privilege of protecting yourself at any time, YOU ARE NOT FREE.
For anyone trying to persuade the ignorant, remember: the only responses to this basic question are the libertarian response and the authoritarian response: who is it that owns your life--the state, or you? It really is that simple. Any sort of dissembling, searching for "mitigating factors", trying to "balance the good", etc., is nothing more than an attempt to justify what people already know, implicitly, is unconscionable.
Does this matter? Consider: in the 20th century, more people were murdered by their own governments than were killed in all wars put together. These genocides were each preceded by civilian disarmament, which rendered the people helpless to their own slaughter. This is in no way secret knowledge.
Knowing this (people do know this, right?), what in the bloody blue blazes makes it anywise acceptable to suggest that we sign ownership of our own lives over to our own state? Because it's "ours"? Because "ours" is "better"? Because "it can't happen here"? Because "we've got the right people at the helm now"? Can anyone say any of that with a straight face? (If so, you just let me know how that works out for you in the end.)
We've had ample warning. The Founders warned us about it, and even gave us a toolkit of protections in the Bill of Rights (which we seem uninterested in enforcing). We have the benefit of history, which clearly shows that all government trends toward tyranny, just given enough time. "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Indeed. And we even have statistics, if that matters. Personally, I think we can get there faster without having to go to the fine points at all.
The real argument is about who controls your life. No matter how much fluff you can trot out to support your point, always remember what is grain and what is chaff. We have a powerful argument at our disposal. Use it!
_____________
* ad-hominem insults, intended to distract from the fact that no substantive counter-argument can be made. Sadly, the Brady Bunch have become grandmasters of this practice. Do not get derailed from your point!
Just to be clear, I think Dan is doing a great job addressing RKBA topics, bringing the worldview into the spotlight with dignity. I wish I had had access to this current crop of Gun Rights Examiners back in the days when I had not yet considered different ways of looking at things. I would have progressed forward from bumper-sticker logic much sooner, I assure you. :-)
Where is the DIGG button?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!