Ccw usage:perception is reality!!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

From listening to the criminologists at their conference, I got the view that the idea that CCW/CHL caused dramatic drops in crime hasn't been proven. However, they seem to agree that the dreaded increase in crime or blood in the streets has happened.

[Donn_N]

First off, someone's perception is not reality. Reality is reality; a perception is a persons opinion. Just because someone thinks something doesn't automatically make that a scientific fact or "reality".
So no, perception is not reality, not even close. That is a cliche term that is overused and non-sense.

Of course no one in their right mind actually thinks that perception is always reality (although it certainly is at times) and that isn't what the phrase means. It simply means that often times people base their actions on their perceptions which to them are reality.

From that perspective, the phrase is true.

Perhaps the phrase should actually be "a person's perception is his reality". Of course, that isn't a catchy.

[Double Naught Spy]

I disagree... There are WAY to many variables to consider when looking at raw data from 10 or 20 years ago. The facts are facts, but I dont think one can conclude that CCW had ZERO impact on the crime rate from the data alone.

Cool, then do the magical thing and show us that it actually reduces crime in a manner that is statistically significant. If you can't show that overall violent crime has been reduced by concealed carry outside of normal variance, then how will you show it? Personally, I would like to see it. It would be a true boon for the concealed carry community, but nobody has been able to actually show cause and effect with concealed carry that is statistically significant. Usually, they just claim, as above, that the crime rates drop with concealed carry. When the stats get run relative to other years and crime trends, all of a sudden the supposed population-wide benefit disappears.

Mind you, concealed carry isn't going to affect the stats dramatically for those instances where people are able to defend themselves with firearms where they don't need concealed carry. For example, with the exception of some unique laws in New York City, just about all law abiding citizens of adult age may have firearms in the home and use them to protect their homes. Similarly for being on their property. So we are looking at stats of how concealed carry has reduced the overall crime rate away from home, or in many states, away from the automobile as well since folks are allowed to carry in their cars without a permit.

If concealed carry is affecting crime away from the home, then can you show that it isn't driving crime to the home?

The problem is, as near as I can tell, the very low percentage of folks actually carrying on the street is quite marginal to the criminal element. They simply do not encounter enough armed people to create a serious change in the overall behavior of the general criminal population. No doubt, some criminals will opt not to inflict a violent crime on one person that they may feel is armed, but that doesn't stop them from inflicting the same crime on somebody else.

Notice that concealed carry is supposed to lower violent crime rates. It certainly hasn't lowered domestic violence. It hasn't lowered workplace violence. Depending on the state and stats, road rage is up in many areas, even those that have concealed carry.

Now, the one statistic that can be shown to be worthwhile are the number of people have actually (reported, not extrapolated) defended themselves with a firearm when they were carrying when and where only having a permit has made it possible for them to carry. However, in each case that such events happen, a crime has also happened and the statistic is added.

Gun people want to believe that concealed carry reduces overall violent crime rates. It has been a selling point for concealed carry legislation. They have the data, out of context, that support their views, but those data are invalid without context.

The the change is greater than zero, so far it hasn't reared its statistical head outside of the normal variance that would be expected.

Concealed carry doesn't seem to be causing bad guys to get legal paying jobs.

[Dallas Jack]

Notice that concealed carry is supposed to lower violent crime rates. It certainly hasn't lowered domestic violence. It hasn't lowered workplace violence. Depending on the state and stats, road rage is up in many areas, even those that have concealed carry.

The true number of the use of concealed carry to prevent a crime will never be known same as the number of rape cases. All cases are not reported. There have been people on this site that have used their handgun and or threat of gun to thwart a mugging or robbery. And never called the police.

I know, this is the internet but I am not going to call them all liars.

As far as domestic violence, I have never heard a claim that it would lower domestic violence. I have heard the claim that having a gun would give a woman a chance against a larger attacker. Whom ever it may be.

And workplace violence, most companies prohibit bringing a gun to work. There is a bill (Senate bill 730) in Texas trying to make it's way into Law allowing one to lock their gun in their car when at work. My last job would not allow you to bring a gun onto the property. Firing offense.

Dallas Jack

[MADISON]

I choose not to be a victon !!!
I grew up in a bad part of town and had to carry and use a firearm to stay alive. When I moved out the word was out, "Don't mess with him or he will kill you".
I carried OPEN and CCW at te time.

[Sixer]

Cool, then do the magical thing and show us that it actually reduces crime in a manner that is statistically significant. If you can't show that overall violent crime has been reduced by concealed carry outside of normal variance, then how will you show it?

I don't have time to write a book about it...but John Lott has in Confirming More Guns, Less Crime . A quick abstract from his book notes -

"Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year. "


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=372361

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261047,00.html

Of course, this does not settle the debate or provide an absolute conclusion either way. But this....

The notion that concealed carry drops crimes rates, especially violent crime rates, is pretty silly. It is a lot of wishful thinking and rose colored glasses.

... is nothing other than your opinion and certainly not to be confused with a fact.

[cmazz]

Yeah, what he said

[glock06]

For Gangbangers and BG's their perception is their reality.

If 3% good guys carry and we assume the BG's are 3% then the chance of both meeting are VERY REMOTE--0.10%

Thus it must be the BG's perception that changes their behavior.

The local sheriff is in our hunting club. How many citizens actually carry?? Very few.Yet his jail is full of BG's who yack and yack and say somebody didn't do this or that because someone else was armed and dangerous.

I for one will continue to carry so that I may protect my loved ones and promote the REALITY of lethal force against evil should my future ever confront that possibilty.

I think the more BG's that get to worrying about instant death resulting from their confronting innocents, the more violent crime will be suppressed. Ultimately,I want to influence their perception!!