No way. I'd say the ratio has to be about a million to one in favor of the crimes. And that's being generous.

 

And that situation would most likely involve some out of control, gun totin' weekend cowboy.

 

BF, refer to post 58. Do you really have an argument against this point? I do not remember the last time a person with a concealed carry permit commited a crime with their weapon. You can guarantee these events would make the news. The ratio is in favor of the crimes in your above statement due to the fact that guns are a million to one in the hands of criminals daily vs. the hands of law abiding citizens.

No way. I'd say the ratio has to be about a million to one in favor of the crimes. And that's being generous.

 

And that situation would most likely involve some out of control, gun totin' weekend cowboy.

No way, my friend. The reason you think that way is because that's how the media likes it. They don't let you know of the facts of those crimes thwarted by guns.

No way, my friend. The reason you think that way is because that's how the media likes it. They don't let you know of the facts of those crimes thwarted by guns.

 

Its really very simple! All anyone has to do is look at the crime statistics in states with 'shall grant' laws. Look at pre and post numbers, then come talk to me about the dangers. RTS is exactly right here.

 

:thumb:

Its really very simple! All anyone has to do is look at the crime statistics in states with 'shall grant' laws. Look at pre and post numbers, then come talk to me about the dangers. RTS is exactly right here.

 

:thumb:

 

Post them if you don't mind.

BF, refer to post 58. Do you really have an argument against this point? I do not remember the last time a person with a concealed carry permit commited a crime with their weapon. You can guarantee these events would make the news. The ratio is in favor of the crimes in your above statement due to the fact that guns are a million to one in the hands of criminals daily vs. the hands of law abiding citizens.

What you were talking about (in post #58) and what RTS was talkiing about (in post #57) are two differnt things. My reply (that you quoted) was referring to RTS's post. We weren't talking about concealed carry crimes of passion.

 

My point was, that the number of crimes committed with guns far exceeds those prevented by guns. That's all I was saying. Whether that's because there are so many guns out there or not, it's still the case.

 

When you cut to the chase, allowing guns in schools is just a plain dumb idea.

Its really very simple! All anyone has to do is look at the crime statistics in states with 'shall grant' laws. Look at pre and post numbers, then come talk to me about the dangers. RTS is exactly right here.

 

:thumb:

I looked at the statistics. Absolutely no statistics to support a decrease in crime because of conceal carry laws. I could find no correlation between conceal carry and changes in per capita violent crime between states.

What you were talking about (in post #58) and what RTS was talkiing about (in post #57) are two differnt things. My reply (that you quoted) was referring to RTS's post. We weren't talking about concealed carry crimes of passion.

 

My point was, that the number of crimes committed with guns far exceeds those prevented by guns. That's all I was saying. Whether that's because there are so many guns out there or not, it's still the case.

 

When you cut to the chase, allowing guns in schools is just a plain dumb idea.

Don't agree, but hey, if you want to continue to let places like schools essentially be a shotting gallery for the criminals and the victims be nothing more than sitting ducks, it's your prerogative I suppose.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 15 in 1991 to 40 today. In 2006, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 26%, murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%.

What you were talking about (in post #58) and what RTS was talkiing about (in post #57) are two differnt things. My reply (that you quoted) was referring to RTS's post. We weren't talking about concealed carry crimes of passion.

 

My point was, that the number of crimes committed with guns far exceeds those prevented by guns. That's all I was saying. Whether that's because there are so many guns out there or not, it's still the case.

 

When you cut to the chase, allowing guns in schools is just a plain dumb idea.

 

Public school, maybe. Responsible 21 year olds trained in CCDW, I have to disagree.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 15 in 1991 to 40 today. In 2006, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 26%, murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%.

 

That was just a coincidence rts:rolleyes:, I am sure that there is no correlation. I mean, why would you be 50% less likely to committ robery a CCDW state?:lol:

Responsible 21 year olds trained in CCDW, I have to disagree.

I don't care how "responsible" they are. The scenario we first talked about can still happen. And it can only happen if guns are allowed in the classroom.

I don't care how "responsible" they are. The scenario we first talked about can still happen. And it can only happen if guns are allowed in the classroom.

 

You are talking about what CAN happen, while we are talking about what IS happening.

That was just a coincidence rts:rolleyes:, I am sure that there is no correlation. I mean, why would you be 50% less likely to committ robery a CCDW state?:lol:

A new study by a law researcher at the University of Chicago shows that when states pass “right to carry” laws for concealed weapons, criminals respond to the possibility that their victims may be armed by committing more property crimes and fewer violent crimes against people.

 

“Criminals respond substantially to the threat of being shot by instead substituting into less risky crimes,” says author John Lott, a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School.

I don't care how "responsible" they are. The scenario we first talked about can still happen. And it can only happen if guns are allowed in the classroom.

 

WOW! Cost vs. benefits. Lets look at the benefits of solving problems that ARE happening, vs. potential cost of something that Could happen.

A new study by a law researcher at the University of Chicago shows that when states pass “right to carry” laws for concealed weapons, criminals respond to the possibility that their victims may be armed by committing more property crimes and fewer violent crimes against people.

 

“Criminals respond substantially to the threat of being shot by instead substituting into less risky crimes,” says author John Lott, a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School.

 

So your study concludes less people would be injured or killed?