Allowing citizens to have weapons cuts crime

The Sun News ^ | Aug. 29, 2006 | Rick Daniel

[neverdem]

10-YEAR RESULT

Over the past 10 years, South Carolina has become a much safer place to live, work and raise a family. Since the General Assembly wisely chose to allow good citizens to carry guns for self-defense, the violent crime rate has sharply declined. And although the mainstream news media largely avoid reporting such facts, the truth is more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime.

Prior to passage of the Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act, few South Carolinians were allowed the ready means to protect themselves from vicious criminals. In fact, applications for concealed weapons permits were summarily denied unless the State Law Enforcement Division was convinced of the need. Under this outdated and highly discretionary system, money or worldly goods were often given higher priority than personal safety.

That all changed when then-S.C. Rep. Jeff Young of Sumter decided to take up the cause of self-defense. Young's extraordinary leadership bolstered by members of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of South Carolina helped persuade more than two-thirds of the S.C, House to advance the concept. The train was on the track and South Carolina was well on its way towards becoming a safer place.

The citizen safety measure passed the House with little disagreement, but when it reached the Senate, opponents of individual rights were waiting. The mostly Democratic opposition, led by S.C. Sen. John Land and his closest allies, immediately began warning about the dangers. According to their confused logic, good citizens could not be trusted to handle firearms in public. They seemed to suggest the mere presence of a gun would somehow turn an honest person into a homicidal maniac.

Thankfully our friends, like then-Sen. Joe Wilson of Lexington, knew better. Again, with strong grass-roots support, Wilson was able to convince the Senate majority to recognize the basic individual right to self-defense. Although the other side predicted that blood would run in the streets, our clear thinking prevailed. And in the closing minutes of the 1996 legislative session right-to-carry became law.

The first permits were mailed out a few months later, around Thanksgiving. Since that time well over 50,000 more have been issued. The best news in all of this is that statewide our violent crime, which had been on a frightening rise, suddenly began to drop. And its decline has continued. Research conducted by various scholars, including professor John Lott of the University of Chicago, suggests that it's no coincidence.

The indisputable conclusion drawn from Lott's research is that in every case liberalized right-to-carry laws have caused violent crime rates to plummet. It's not difficult to understand why this happens. As a whole, street thugs and other criminal opportunists are cowards. They fear an armed populace. And although violent crime will always be with us, the deterrent effect of a reasonable concealed weapons law does indeed benefit society as a whole.

So, on this 10th anniversary of the Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act, we should applaud its common sense approach to crime control and community safety. As more people take responsibility for their own safety, the folks living around them will gain a real and tangible benefit. More guns in the hands of good people clearly makes the streets safer for everyone except those who seek to do us harm.

The writer, former president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, lives in Columbia.

[HarleyLady27]

To: P8riot
Okay once again I'm gonna 'try' to understand this.
The Mayor of New York City, whose authority ENDS at the city limits hires some Private Investigators

The private investigators, who have NO legal authority, then travel 471 miles to Danville Virginia on the orders of the Mayor of New York City.

Said private investigators then knowingly and wantonly, and on the orders of the Mayor of New York City, attempt to make an illegal straw purchase of firearms from a Gun Shop.

Said private investigators are successful in their fraudulent purchase of firearms, as they duped the the owner/clerk into selling them a and/or some firearm(s).

Said private investigators then travel 471 miles back to New York City with these ILLEGALLY obtained firearms and in the process crossed numerous state and/or county lines of various legal jurisdictions - where again, they have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY.

Upon arriving in New York City, they then transfer possession of these illegally purchased firearms to the Mayor of New York City - which he gleefully and knowingly accepts.
Lastly, in the other cases, said private investigators traveled even further on the orders of the Mayor of New York City, to Georgia, to make additional ILLEGAL straw purchases of firearms.
Now I'm pretty sure that about sums it up. As such, my question is.....

Why isn't the Mayor of New York City, and said private investigators in Federal Custody at this moment and being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for breaking about a gazillion Federal Firearms Laws??
Come on AG Gonzo and BATFE, why isn't Bloomie in God Dam JAIL!! He and his cronies should be in the federal lockup and should have been arrested a minute after his press conference announcing this ILLEGAL 'sting'.

4 posted on 08/27/2006 12:08:23 PM EDT by Condor51 (Better to fight for something than live for nothing - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View

---

I copied this from FR the other day, because I have alot of problems with this....

My opinion is that Bloomy needs to be in jail for a vast amounts of law-breaking, yet he wants to run for POTUS and anyone that is involved with Amendment 2, feels that he wants to do away with that Amendment....as far as I'm concerned I'll repeat Charleston Heston: "IN MY COLD DEAD HANDS"

I will volunteer any amount of time to make sure this person does NOT become ever POTUS along with the slimy hag out of the same state....!

[mountainlyons]

I also would make a change.
Stopping government theft of personal property such as guns and stopping illegal government suspension of Constitutional rights stops crime and the criminal democrats hate it.

[mosaicwolf]

How about the friendly US nation back circa 1862?

[activationproducts]

A friend of mine spent a year in Iraq as a reservist doing convoy security. He said that Iraqis don't really see themselves as Iraqis but rather, Shia, Sunni, Kurd, etc. Hence the notion of national identity in Iraq is nothing like it is here in the US.

I can own as many guns as I want as can my law abiding neigbor with whom I may deeply dislike and constantly disagree with. The difference is that in our society we strive to extend equal right to all law abiding citizens and have developed non-violent mechanisms to resolve conficts. Iraqis do not enjoy the benefits of such a society.

In a society in flux such as Iraq stabilization is going to be difficult and bloody. In our society we have already passed that point and can recognize the right of individuals to keep and bear arms without being subjected to widespread firefights.

[TimesDomain]

It is also much safer when nobody registers a weapon! The true criminals won't be able to find out which honest citizen is armed.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Which Franklin quote? 'An armed society is a polite society' is properly attributed to Robert Anson Heinlein in IIRC Beyond This Horizon.

[Dead Corpse]

Alaska style carry laws for ALL 50 States.

It's the Constitutional thing to do...

[Dead Corpse]

The second amendment does not prohibit felons or certified lunatics from gun ownership.

There is a process already in place for incarcerating or committing those you mention. No further gun laws are necessary and are only aimed at making legal arms ownership more difficult.

[hadit2here]

Surely they don't fit in the same category as cowardly street thugs and criminal opportunists, do they?

According to some historical figures:

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class... save Congress."

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
--Mark Twain

And who would certainly know better than most anyone?

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two men are called a Law Firm, and three or more are called a Congress."
-- John Adams

[JamesP81]

Which Franklin quote? 'An armed society is a polite society' is properly attributed to Robert Anson Heinlein in IIRC Beyond This Horizon.

My mistake then. I always get that one confused for some reason, all the more unforgiveable considering that I'm a scifi buff...

[HawaiianGecko]

People really CAN be trusted with the reins of government, self-rule and determination. But it's got to be the real deal, not a fait accompli by hucksters.

I agree with you on that. I just feel a need to challenge sound bites like the one that launched my original post. "An armed society is a polite society."  That may very well be true, but I'd like a bit more justification than a jingle.

I cannot think of any society where the majority of adults are armed that proves that statement. Forty five million Americans (14%) own all 198 million guns so we're not an example. Japan allows no ownership and has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. Iraq seems to have more arms than the United States military and maybe they say "I'm Sorry" before they shoot someone, but I still wouldn't call that polite.

I'm surrounded by and run with very responsible gun owners daily.  I also read regularly here in FR, comments like "That robbery at McDonalds wouldn't have happened if someone in line had his Glock with him and put a cap in that guy's ass."  Yeah, that's the ticket. Just what I want to see, a shootout at the Happy Meal corral. 

I simply don't believe that an armed society causes a polite society. It's more likely a polite society can allow it's people to be armed.

 

[Dead Corpse]

For someone who supposedly has a family steeped in the firearms business, you could damn near write press releases for Josh Sugarman.

83 million gun owners last time I saw a decent stat on it and over 240 million guns. Japan may have a low gun crime rate, but suicide is through the roof and you still have the Yakuza running the underground. Iraq had millions of AK's laying around, but no basis for individual responsibility ingrained in them and rampant religion/government backed militia's.

And yes, there are news stories everyday (mostly ignored by the CNN crowd) where a single gun owner takes out a goblin BEFORE they can create more mayhem. I'd rather a gun owner shoot a goblin while ordering a Happy Meal than have to sit on my hands while said goblin shoots my family in the area Luby's cafe.

[10mm]

"Now I'm an advocate of the second amendment, but just exactly how does that square with Iraq where all citizens are armed?"

It's the Islam.

[oxcart]

[Still Thinking]

My opinion is that Bloomy needs to be in jail for a vast amounts of law-breaking

He and Elliot Spits-her can be cellies and take turns being on top, IMHO.

[samm1148]

"We gotta change the mindset that government allows us to carry weapons. That's half the battle."

You beat me to it. The government inhibits the free constitutional right of law abiding citizens to own weapons. I'd add to that: It is immaterial rather guns cut crime or not. If a law abiding citizen wants to own a machine gun as far as I'm concerned that is okay. I'm in no fear of my law abiding neighbors. I am in fear of the criminal subclass that the government patently refuses to do anything about: Control criminals; not guns.

[Eastbound]

Heh! Timely quotables. Thanks!

[BJungNan]

Now I'm an advocate of the second amendment, but just exactly how does that square with Iraq where all citizens are armed?

A) You are on a bus and a guy starts shooting passengers. You have no gun. What do you do?

B)You are on a bus and a guy starts shooting passengers. You have a gun. What do you do?

That should pretty much explain how guns in the hands of the right people saves lives - provided you answered the questions correctly (see answers below). .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Answers:
A: After witnessing and hopefully surviving such an event, you immediately begin to lobby for right to carry legislation.

B. You shoot, take the guy out and save lives.

[Boston Blackie]

The second amendment does not prohibit felons or certified lunatics from gun ownership. Therefore, it seems sensible that certain prohibitions or fine tuning may be a wise thing.

Fine tuning might be a wise thing but in too many states that has turned out to mean that criminals have guns and honest citizens are denied access to same.

[HawaiianGecko]

83 million gun owners last time I saw a decent stat on it and over 240 million guns.

BATFE claims nearly 50% of household have a firearm. About 3 people per household brings it to 1 out of 6 or 15% or about 45 million.  Your number of guns may be correct, but it is not germane to the point I was making. 

Japan may have a low gun crime rate, but suicide is through the roof.

You're just going to have to explain the significance of that line to...  "an armed society is a polite society."

Iraq had millions of AK's laying around, but no basis for individual responsibility ingrained in them and rampant religion/government backed militia's.

Are you an Iraqi whisperer or something? Iraqis have no sense of individual responsibility? Can you site psych studies for me to read on this? Are you saying we are trying to establish law, order and democracy in a land of people "ingrained" with irresponsibility?  But, the over-arching point is "who cares?" The original post didn't say "an armed society of people who have responsibility ingrained in them and are not religious or member of a militia, is a polite society."

Still, show me a society where being armed is the cause of it being polite.  The Brits are an extraordinarily polite people, but their manners have nothing to do with firearms either in favor or against. Of course they may have an astounding rate of suicide the bearing of which, on this subject I have no clue, but you seem to understand why so I'm adding it for the edification of you and others.

For someone who supposedly has a family steeped in the firearms business, you could damn near write press releases for Josh Sugarman

This is the line I like the most. Yeah, the DNA in my family looks more like rifling than a double helix, yet none of us believe that firearms develop personalities.  Why you would compare me, a gun owning, gun toting, card carrying member of the NRA to Sugarman speaks volumes about something, but not me. No rational person could derive that from any of my posts. I'm more of a fan of Dr. Kleck.

Your post neither answers nor addresses my request for a sensible explanation of "An armed society is a polite society." So forgive me if I assume you have no proper response to my inquiry.