|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Armed Citizens Change Society
Submitted by:
Robert Morse
Website: http://slowfacts.wordpress.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"I mentioned that gun owners are now considered mainstream in most of America. Yes, gun owners have finally achieved.. ordinary. Yawn. Measured across the nation, about one in eight adults have a concealed carry permit. More than a third of American families admit they have guns at home. This is significant because criminals act differently when citizens are armed. My neighbor who carries is obviously able to protect herself, but she makes the rest of us safer as well. This is how the theory works. Fewer criminals will be on the street once criminals encounter someone who shoots back. Thugs don’t like guns.. once their victims have guns too. This is more than theory. We have experience to prove it." ... |
Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/27/2015)
|
There's lots of peer-reviewed statistical documentation supportive of the positive effects of the "threat of a gun" as an effective deterrent to casual strong-arm crime. And the more armed citizens - particularly women - exist the more effective that "deterrence effect" is.
For decades its been axiomatic NRA conventions reduce crime - both violent and non-violent - during the convention extending beyond convention environs. Is it possible criminal elements "got the word" ? |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|