Will more handguns being carried for self-defense save more lives or cost more lives?

[Starboard Tack]

Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.
Of the 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2005, only 147 were shot in
justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.

Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.

A study reviewing surveys of gun use in the U.S. determined that most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. How about using and honest and reputable source?

[rrneck]

2. Hey, LCAV's honest.

If you don't believe 'em just ask em. The bulk of their sources are from paid shills ginning up talking points for lobbyists.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Do you have a specific point you disagree with?

Or are you just name calling? Come on Mr. Neck you can do better than that.

[rrneck]

8. Youre using a disreputable source

to prove a meaningless point.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Thanks again for your in depth analysis. Remember, all you post is public record.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Maybe your credibility would be enhanced by citing false data and assumptions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. No, I won't do what your poll or LCAV does.

[RC]

10. You mean like the NRA?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. I'd settle for some more academic and verifiable

[rrneck]

3. Wow. Another meaningless poll. nt

[Starboard Tack]

6. Another meaningless response.

Do you have nothing better to do with your Saturday than respond to meaningless polls?

[rrneck]

9. LOL You posted it.

And the "whole world" is reading it.

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

14. I know. Isn't it great. Look at the poll. Very interesting.

There are some who just don't give a fuck who gets killed as long as their individual "rights" aren't compromised. Makes you wonder about the company we keep.

[gravity556]

15. So why do you hate individual rights so much?

You're willing to see innocent people have their rights suspended so that criminals can carry on about their "business" without having to worry about some uppity innocent victim preventing that criminal's business with an icky gun? You are actually on the side of "dead innocents, as long as no one exercises rights you disapprove of"? That's rather revealing that you consider the lives of shitbag criminals to be inviolate, but consider the rights of the law abiding to be disposable when you find them to be distasteful. Disappointing, but not all that surprising.

[Starboard Tack]

17. I love individual rights, but not when they are so out of control as to threaten public safety

That's when we need to rethink how far we really want to stretch our individual rights.

[rl6214]

22. Yeah, let's just repeal the 2nd amendment

It's outdated anyway.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Thank you. I've been saying that for quite a while.

I must say, I thought you'd be one of the last to come around. Life is full of surprises.

[rl6214]

48. Yeah, I didn't think I needed to post that little sarcasm thingy

I knew you would understand.

I just wanted everyone to see the anti-gun zealot that you are.

[Starboard Tack]

62. You call a solution seeker and problem solver an anti-gun zealot.

Do you not think long guns are real guns? Happy hunting.

[rl6214]

95. Solution seeker and problem solver?

I call someone that wants to repeal the 2nd A an anti-gun zealot.

[Starboard Tack]

100. I guess you still use Windows ME

I changed my light bulbs to LEDs. Does that make me an anti-electricity zealot?
I am zealous in my desire to find solutions to obvious problems. I am not zealous about 2A, one way or the other. So, why don't you join in and contribute instead of name calling.

[rl6214]

101. Does that offend you, being labled an anti-gun zealot?

[Starboard Tack]

103. It isn't true. I am not anti-gun. I support private gun ownership. I oppose toting in public

Do you understand the difference? It really isn't complicated.

[rl6214]

104. What is "toting"? I see you post this all the time.

Does it offend you if someone is carrying concealed that you must resort to name calling?

[Starboard Tack]

106. Toting is an English word meaning carrying. Sorry if you are unfamiliar with it.

Synonyms are bear, cart, convey, ferry, haul, lug, pack, tote, transport.
There is nothing offensive about the word. I am not responsible for the limitations of others' vocabulary.
Tote is a very common, simple, four letter word. It is most commonly used to denote the carrying of something on one's person, rather than using a cart or vehicle. Tote bags are very common.
Therefore, it is an accurate word when used in the sense of carrying a personal firearm.
I hope you are no longer offended by my use of the word, but I have noticed in the past that some handgun toters seem to be embarrassed by it. Interesting.

[PavePusher]

32. "so out of control as to threaten public safety"

Lawful gun owners are an important source of public danger?

Interesting, here I was think it's the folks with criminal records who represent by far the largest threat. And you want to restrict one of the defenses against them. Facsinating...

[Starboard Tack]

60. You don't get it. Do you?

I don't want to restrict anyone. It isn't about lawful or unlawful gun owners. It's about removing a social cancer, eliminating it. I'm not saying it is 100% possible or achievable, but if we don't try, then we shouldn't cry. Do not expect those you call "criminals" to give up theirs while you and others strut around with yours. Has it ever occurred to you that those you call "thugs" don't see themselves in that same light and many see themselves as better than you. Others see themselves as no different to you.
Me, I see all routine toters, lawful or unlawful, as potential threats to themselves, each other and everyone else. On an individual level, I would feel less concerned about an ex-felon carrying to protect a family member who has been threatened, than I would about a neo-nazi with a legal CCW permit.

[PavePusher]

68. In short, you DO want to restrict us....

and you hold criminals and non-criminals as equals.

We're done here.

[Starboard Tack]

69. I don't live in a black and white world.

An ex-felon who has served his sentence is not a criminal and should not be discriminated against. Most criminals never get caught as most crimes go unnoticed or unreported.

[PavePusher]

71. My concern was not with your ex-felon comment. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Good day to you.

[Starboard Tack]

72. When it comes to human life, all is sacred.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

114. I disagree entirely with that.

All human life is not sacred, and in fact, some human life is a total waste of skin.

Equating me with Ted Bundy for example is absurd. My life is worth far more than his was.

Some human beings are simply broken as designed, or if you prefer the acronym, bad. They should be removed from society and the gene pool. Simple as that.

[beevul]

49. You have yet to demonstrate...

You have yet to demonstrate that they (individual rights, specifically where guns are concerned) are so out of control as to threaten public safety in the NET sense.

That is something you assume.

You'll have to prove that.

[Starboard Tack]

61. I think 100,000 shooting deaths and injuries a year is ample demonstration.

The monetary cost to taxpayers is in the tens of billions.

[beevul]

97. Oh I'm sure you do.

But are you balancing that against the number of guns in private hands, and how many private hands they're in, or are you simply taking that number at face value with no context?


80+ million gun owners...


300+ million guns...


15k firearm related homicides annually.


MOST people that own guns, aren't shooting, killing, or injuring people with guns.

That kind of destroys your "individual rights threatening public safety" meme.

[Starboard Tack]

99. And your solution would be what? Or do you not consider it a problem?

We all have the right to have sex too, but public safety is threatened by foolhardy practices. Progressing from owning a gun to toting a gun, is like progressing from healthy sex to contracting HIV. Well, we figured out ways to help people live with HIV and most are living long and relatively healthy lives, but every one of them wishes he could go back to living without it.

We all have the right to smoke tobacco, but public safety is threatened by habitual smoking. Billions of cigarettes are smoked daily, but only a few hundred people die. I see habitual toters in the same way as I see 2 packs-a-day smokers.

These are all problems, like it or not. Increasing the problem does not solve it.

[rrneck]

102. You figure out

a cure for death yet?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Thanks once again for proving my point.

I would prefer no "legislative modification". It never occurred to me as being necessary before reading posts by extremists.
"I think writers who abuse hyperbole should be taken out and shot. (credit to slackmaster)"
That says it all.

[Starboard Tack]

109. You may want to check with fellow members before quoting them

Especially when you credit them for advocating violence. That makes 2 DU rules you broke.

[beevul]

110. I think your snark meter failed you.

That, or you're pretending that that was said in seriousness (it wasn't).

You tell me, which is it?

I broke no rules.

Beyond that, you didn't touch the rest of the post.


Feeling checkmated?


On edit: Did it ever occur to you, that when you view something as extreme, as you've made inferences to numerous times in this forum, perhaps its because YOU are the extremist?

I'll just bet not.

[Starboard Tack]

111. You called out another member and accused him of advocating violence

You don't call that being serious?
What post?

[beevul]

112. Bwaahahahahaha,

"You called out another member and accused him of advocating violence."

Bwaahahahahaha.

No, I didn't. Really.


Re-read that a few times, and you'll figure it out lol.

Maybe.

[Starboard Tack]

113. Reread what? Oops!

[AtheistCrusader]

50. That they are 'out of control' is your opinion. Much indistinguishable from your asshole.

[rrneck]

16. Do you realize

There is no correlation between what you say and whatever the poll is supposed to show?

This is little more than a bit of surrealist performance art.

[Starboard Tack]

20. And as an artist yourself, I'm sure you appreciate it.

Otherwise you would have been tempted to slip into realism mode and actually point out the lack of correlation.

[rrneck]

23. I didn't say it was good art.

It has no content. There is no relationship to society at large. We don't know whose lives are being saved or lost or why. We don't know the circumstances of the shootings. You are not measuring a meaningful data set.

What you are doing is offering a disembodied set of numbers as a target for people's projections, especially your own.

Your silly polls function much like a Thomas Kinkaid painting. They're just schlocky emotional pap for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves. I hope some day you'll work your way through all these emotional talking points and try to discuss the issue.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Hey, I agree with you on Kincaid, but as they say "Eye of the beholder..."

The preamble is just a preamble, a warm up to the main event. Don't get bogged down with it. The poll is what counts, not so much in the numbers, but the revelation. I am one of the few in this forum who are not emotional about the topic. I admit that I occasionally have an emotional response to fringe elements who support shooting folk in the back, or for window breaking, or for racist comments. I am human, after all.

[rrneck]

30. Bullshit.

It's a poll. A worthless poll in any empirical sense. The only point you're trying to make is the validation of your own feelings because that's what it's designed to measure.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

39. Ohhhhhhhhhh.

Weeding out pseudo liberals are we? With anonymous polls.

:rofl:

Why don't you Google "one true Scotsman fallacy". Or ask your little buddy in R/T. He's an expert on those.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

74. Well then

why don't you tell us who the scum is since I'm not seeing them.

[Marengo]

58. Another self-appointed political commissar...

Who appointed you as the arbiter of democratic/progressive values?

[rrneck]

47. By the way...

BEAUTY is in the eye of the beholder. TRUTH on the other hand, at least the truth you're trying to simulate, is not established by emotional appeal.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Only carried, or used to blow someone away?

I love polls.

[Starboard Tack]

27. You'll have to figure that one out

[ileus]

18. firearms carried for self defense are just that...all other uses would be illegal.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Really? Do cops carry for self-defense?

[ileus]

41. I think most LEO's will tell you yes.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Then that would be an excellent reason to disarm them first.

LE is there to protect and serve the public.

[rrneck]

75. LE exists to enforce the law.

Note the term enFORCE. That means some people have to be compelled to abide by the law who may go to great lengths to avoid punishment. Hence the need for self defense equipment.

[Starboard Tack]

78. That is a huge problem, confusing LE with the purpose of a Police Officer

This is what Duluth MN considers the purpose of the police to be. Fairly typical.

POLICE OFFICER
PURPOSE:
To ensure preservation of peace and public safety through the enforcement of local, state, and Federal
laws, and by providing support and assistance during emergency or crisis situations.
www.duluthmn.gov/employment/.../Job.../Police%20Officer.pdf
Not even a mention of firearms or self-defense in there.

When I attended police college, many years ago, the first and most important thing that we learned was the definition of a police officer, which, for your enlightenment, went as follows.
A police officer is a citizen, locally appointed, to protect life and property, prevent crime, detect crime and apprehend offenders and last, but not least, to keep the peace.

We were trained to defend ourselves without the use of weapons, which were to be used as a very last resort.

[rrneck]

81. From your post:

POLICE OFFICER PURPOSE: To ensure preservation of peace and public safety through the enforcement of local, state, and Federal laws

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

84. You find that funny? See anything about toting sidearms to accomplish that?

Are you getting it yet?

[rrneck]

85. I find you funny.

From the same post:

We were trained to defend ourselves without the use of weapons, which were to be used as a very last resort.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

88. That is correct and the weapons were not guns.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

115. No it isnt.

"Protect and serve" is a flowery motto with no legal significance or obligation. The job of law enforcement is to enforce the law - nothing more.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Yes. And in Washington State they are held to a higher bar for reasonable use to fire at someone, th

an I am.

We have two statutes for justifiable homicide/excusable homicide. One for police, and one for joe home user. The bar for police is higher. It is still self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Using a gun in self-defense is not necessarily the reason for carrying one.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Sure. I've carried as part of a haloween costume.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

116. Its the only reason I carry one.

Any other reason is illegal.

[pipoman]

55. Yes, as well as the occasional offense

this is the difference between law enforcement and concealed carry. There is no legal basis for a concealed carrier to use their weapon offensively, nor is there a need. Concealed carry is for the defense of the carrier not the defense of the public...a fact known by the opposers, but usually not acknowledged by them.

[Starboard Tack]

65. I think you are wrong. Cops carry to protect the public.

That is their primary reason.

[Kennah]

76. "The handgun is the primary weapon for defense against unexpected attack."

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
FBI Academy
FBI Firearms Training Unit

"The handgun is the primary weapon in law enforcement. It is the one weapon any officer or agent can be expected to have available whenever needed. Its purpose is to apply deadly force to not only protect the life of the officer and the lives of others, but to prevent serious physical harm to them as well."

"... no law enforcement officer should ever plan to meet an expected attack armed only with a handgun."

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

[Starboard Tack]

79. The FBI is not a police force in the conventional sense.

In general, FBI field agents deal with investigating serious felonies in plain clothes. They are not uniformed patrol officers, who are part of the community where they live and work (or should be).

I am not against certain LE being armed, but I am opposed to the routine handgun toting of uniformed police officers and civilians.

[Kennah]

83. Not for general policing ...

... but they maintain a world class training institute for LE of all stripes and uniforms, world class SWAT teams, and a Hostage Rescue team that rivals those of the Special Forces. Therefore, one cannot disconnect them from conventional policing.

I do know that you're opposed to police and citizens having guns, but I was responding to your assertion that police carry guns to protect the populace, which does beg a question.

You asserted that the police carried guns to protect the population, but you're opposed to police carrying guns. Why are you opposed to the police protecting the population?

[Starboard Tack]

86. OK, let me try once again to explain my position on guns

1. I am not against guns or gun ownership by anyone.
2. I do not oppose police and LE in general from having access to guns.
3. I support the basic right of anyone to own a gun for hunting, sport and defending home and family.
4. I support the rights of democratically elected local governments to enact laws allowing or prohibiting the public use and carrying of guns.
5. I support the police using firearms to protect the populace when necessary. An example would be when apprehending a person who is actively a threat to the life of a citizen, including police officers.
6. I oppose the routine carrying of firearms on one's person, be it a police officer or citizen.
7. I subscribe to the UK model regarding arming the police, imperfect as it may be. It works better than any other I have seen. I think it is essential to good police work that officers on patrol have a close relationship with those who live in the community in which they serve. This is severely hampered when your average cop is carrying a loaded weapon.
8. I have zero interest in banning guns of any type. As is said so often "Guns don't kill. People do."
9. I do have an interest in working to find solutions to problems and I find 100,000+ injuries and deaths caused by gun use to be a huge problem. I also find the associated costs to be a problem.

I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

[Kennah]

91. Can you explain why ...

... a huge increase in private citizens licensed to carry guns--a million perhaps at the start of 1987 to between 5-6 million today--has not led to a huge increase in violent crime involving firearms?

[Kennah]

92. Also, you do realize that we are royally pissing off some people ...

... who see the gun issue as the divide between left and right, while you and I seem to be proving that the gun issue, and it seems just one point in the gun issue, can be the divide between two who otherwise seem to be very much in the same camp on the issues.

[rrneck]

98. Completely incoherent. nt

[Starboard Tack]

87. OK, let me try once again to explain my position on guns

1. I am not against guns or gun ownership by anyone.
2. I do not oppose police and LE in general from having access to guns.
3. I support the basic right of anyone to own a gun for hunting, sport and defending home and family.
4. I support the rights of democratically elected local governments to enact laws allowing or prohibiting the public use and carrying of guns.
5. I support the police using firearms to protect the populace when necessary. An example would be when apprehending a person who is actively a threat to the life of a citizen, including police officers.
6. I oppose the routine carrying of firearms on one's person, be it a police officer or citizen.
7. I subscribe to the UK model regarding arming the police, imperfect as it may be. It works better than any other I have seen. I think it is essential to good police work that officers on patrol have a close relationship with those who live in the community in which they serve. This is severely hampered when your average cop is carrying a loaded weapon.
8. I have zero interest in banning guns of any type. As is said so often "Guns don't kill. People do."
9. I do have an interest in working to find solutions to problems and I find 100,000+ injuries and deaths caused by gun use to be a huge problem. I also find the associated costs to be a problem.

I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Sophistry.

A police officer is not enabled/empowered by a firearm, they are so by their commission as a public officer.

When a police officer apprehends someone, they do not do it by justification of force. They have the right to apprehend people under resonable suspicion, within the specifics of the law. The firearm is to protect the officer while discharging that duty.

[rl6214]

96. Here is where YOU are wrong. Police have NO DUTY to protect

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By LINDA GREENHOUSEPublished: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

117. Nope - you're wrong.

Cops carry to protect themselves. That is the primary and in fact, ONLY reason.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. None of the above.

There has been no conclusive, scientific evidence that adding more firearms to those already in circulation in this country, will effect any change in murder or suicide rates.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Hey, it's a poll. Do you have any ideas or independent thoughts?

It's not a science experiment. You are allowed to have an opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. He just gave you one.

I mean goddamn. Do you read?

[petronius]

26. A Suffusion of Yellow (nt)

[Starboard Tack]

31. Are we to assume from your response that you voted

"Irrelevant how many die. My Second Amendment rights come first."?

[petronius]

33. No, actually, you should not make that assumption

Consider that you included four choices... :hi:

[Starboard Tack]

36. OK, just wondered. Th yellow thing and all

[petronius]

38. I don't follow - why would yellow suggest that choice in particular?

:shrug:

[Starboard Tack]

66. Did you look at the poll? Yellow was used to denote that choice.

Really not a big deal.

[petronius]

82. No, I didn't expand the thread after the first look - but that wasn't the reference...

:)

[Euromutt]

89. It's a Dirk Gently reference

In The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, Dirk possesses an "I Ching calculator," made cheaply in some unspecified south-east Asian country (though sold for £20). It also functions as a regular calculator, but is unable to display any result higher than 4, instead displaying the phrase "A suffusion of yellow" on the LCD screen.

Since there were four possible answers to your poll, I suspect Petronius' answer was intended to indicate "none of the above" (i.e. a result higher than 4).

[Starboard Tack]

107. Aha. Thank you for the explanation.

I'll try to remember "none of the above" on any future polls. I'm quite new at all this, as you may have guessed.

[mmb713]

34. Most defensive uses of guns do not result in a homicide

Your stats are all screwed up. Most defensive uses of firearms do not result in a fatality, or even a shot being fired. Just brandishing a gun usually stops the crime. And you have no statistics on how many crimes were prevented just because the perp thought the victim might be armed, crimes that never happened because the criminal feared armed resistance. The hot burglary rate in the UK is higher than it is in the US precisely because criminals know that many Americans own firearms. Requiring a corpse to prove lawful self defense is a pretty sick bar to raise.

[mmb713]

37. Another stat you left out

How many of the unjustifiable homicides were committed by concealed firearm permit holders? Why do you want to disarm them when you have no facts to show that they are the problem? They aren't the ones committing the homicides so why go after them?

[safeinOhio]

70. On the other hand

Most armed robberies and stick-ups also do not result in a fatality, or even a shot being fired. Just brandishing a weapons usually results in the money, car or whatever being taken from the victim. It's because the victim feared an armed attack.

welcome to DU :hi:

[Starboard Tack]

77. Do you realize how ludicrous your argument is?

Most defensive uses of firearms do not result in a fatality, because they are not really defensive. Brandishing a gun may seem defensive in your mind, but it is actually an offensive armed assault. If the other person is armed with a gun, then a shootout is likely. If the other is unarmed, then the gun is not justified, unless you are under imminent physical threat.
You and those like you must decide what the true reason is for carrying handguns around. Is it for self-defense or to prevent crime? Those are very different reasons.
Last I looked, burglary was not a capital offense. Burglars and homeowners in the UK are content not to be armed. Interesting concept isn't it, to put human life above material objects, money and consumer crap.
One day we will grow up. Every camel is susceptible to the last straw.

[ileus]

40. My EDC's are safety devices meant for saving lives...

[gejohnston]

42. these people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYB5A1TyKMM

[krispos42]

43. Net savings of innocent life.

Funny how that's not an option.

[spin]

44. A glaring fallacy with your post is that you totally ignore the fact ...

that a successful DGU does not require killing an attacker. The majority of DGUs do not involve any shots being fired.

Most people who have a CCW carry compact handguns often in a caliber that is not all that lethal such as a .380 or a .38 special. Even if they shoot the attacker and successfully stop his attack, he is quit likely to survive.

For example when my mother successfully stopped an attacker who rushed her as she walked home from work, she fired two shots from a tiny S&W LadySmith revolver over his head. He ran. This incident occurred in a rural area in the 1920s. If the same incident happened today it would not be counted as a successful DGU as while it MIGHT be reported to the police it would never be entered into a database that would be used as part of a study.

An officer would respond and take down the information and file a report which would be lost in the big pile of reports dealing with theft, burglary, DUIs, assaults, etc., etc., etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Non-reported use is the one stat that would make things much more quantified

And gathering that data in a manner that both sides would find acceptable would be a task for Sisyphus

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I think I understand why some object to Kleck's numbers. I don't see why anyone would object to the

DOJ's numbers.

Well, except for that whole 100,000+ lawful DGU's per year number. I guess that would upset some people who have no leg to stand on.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Problem is DOJ does not and arguable can not collect are those that do not involve discharges

Not sure they get all those where weapons are fired and no one injured.

[Callisto32]

54. Interesting...

you use your poll choices to strawman the other side of the issue....

hmm....

This NEVER happens in RL, you seem to have stumbled upon something truly unique and exciting! I believe we will call it "loading questions..."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

59. It will save more innocent lives.

[Simo 1939_1940]

73. Verifiable stats for both Texas & Florida *prove* that concealed

carry permit holders have an extremely low conviction rate for violent crime. Unless you're going to take the bizarre position that CCW permit holders in other states are more violent, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that concealed carry yields a net savings in lives - even if defensive gun uses are somewhat overstated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x422366#422581

By the way, it's probably the muscle relaxers I'm on - but I voted incorrectly. So there should be one less "cost lives" and one more "save lives".

[GreenStormCloud]

80. Are the lives of innocent people of the same value as those of violent criminals?

I would have phrased the question: Will more handguns being legally carried for self-defense save more innocent lives or cost more innocent lives.

If a violent criminal dies from some one shooting him in self-defense then that is a net gain for society.