Here's the proof

[Seth]

Survey Shows Increasingly Positive View Of Concealed Carry

10:59 PM 04/17/2015


A survey conducted by John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center shows a profoundly favorable view of concealed carry as a tool for a safer society.

When asked, “In the United States, are guns used in self-defense more often than they are used in the commission of a crime?” North American respondents agreed answering 88% yes, to 12% no.

Respondents, at a rate of 91%, felt that gun-free zones were more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them. Gun-free zone was defined as an area where “civilians are banned from having guns.”

Suicide, especially among males, in the United States is usually committed with a firearm. However only 28% the survey respondents answered “yes” when asked, “Would you say that, in the United States, having a gun in the home causes an increase in the risk of suicide?”

Firearm murders have been steadily declining in the United States and concealed carry has been making rapid gains. The National Rifle Association estimates that each year up to 2.5 million crimes are prevented or deterred by an armed citizen.

Survey respondents overwhelmingly felt, 91% to 9%, that “concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding that the typical American.”

Additionally, 81% of respondents felt that “allowing people to carry a permitted concealed handgun” would decrease the murder rate.

A Gallup survey conducted in 2014 indicates that Americans are increasingly recognizing that a gun in the home makes the home safer.

That survey alos asks, “Do guns make homes safer?” In 2000, only 35% of people felt that a gun in the home made that home safer and 51% felt that a gun contributed to a more dangerous environment. In 2005 the survey indicates a split decision with 45% answering “safer” and 45% answering “more dangerous.” In October 2014, the consensus was overwhelmingly pro-gun with 63% of respondents indicating a gun in the home made that home safer and only 30% felt a gun present made the home more dangerous.

Critics of the Second Amendment often argue that the “right to keep and bear arms” is only reserved for a “well regulated militia,” trying to tie the language of the amendment to the concept that a militia is a government entity or something outdated and made obsolete due to police force protection.

Courts have decided that the police are under no obligation to protect an individual or even respond to an incident. In the recent Ferguson riots, police stood by while businesses were looted and destroyed.

The courts have also decided that the Second Amendment extends to the individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008.

Public perception of owning firearms is increasingly positive through the empirical results of gun ownership increasing and crime decreasing. Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” is proving to be true, if not prophetic.

[JimC]

Moving this to the gun club...

[cronus]

Americans increasing positive about kitting out and walking around with concealed gnus is not a good omen.

[Collector1337]

Americans increasing positive about kitting out and walking around with concealed gnus is not a good omen.

Your right... it's a GREAT omen.

I love knowing that criminals have to think twice about victimizing someone because they might get shot. Call it an "occupational hazard."

That's the way it should be.

Take away that occupational hazard and make a criminal's job safer and easier?

WHAT A FUCKING STUPID IDEA!

[Tero]

3 in 4 Kansas poll respondents oppose new gun law
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-w ... 96501.html

NRA money talks. You just have to buy out each round of politicians. There are always more.

[JimC]

3 in 4 Kansas poll respondents oppose new gun law
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-w ... 96501.html

NRA money talks. You just have to buy out each round of politicians. There are always more.

I wonder if US gun and ammunition makers can claim a donation to the NRA as a legitimate business deduction for tax purposes?

[Seth]

3 in 4 Kansas poll respondents oppose new gun law
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-w ... 96501.html

NRA money talks. You just have to buy out each round of politicians. There are always more.

I wonder if US gun and ammunition makers can claim a donation to the NRA as a legitimate business deduction for tax purposes?

I don't think so. The NRA specifically tells members their donations are not tax deductible because the NRA is not a 501c3 organization. By not being a 501c3 it does not have to abide by the IRS rules about political activity that limit charitable organizations.

The NRA spun off the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) specifically to separate its political lobbying arm from the general membership. Donations to the NRA are not tax deductible as charitable donations, but the NRA does have five different 501c3 charitable organizations to donate to that are tax-deductible donations.

[Seth]

NRA money talks.

Damned right it does! That's why I'm an Endowment member. And why shouldn't it? The NRA operates under the same laws that all political lobbying groups operate under, including the Brady Campaign, the Sierra Club, and the AFL-CIO.

The NRA is nothing more than a very large group of American citizens who have banded together under the umbrella of the NRA in order to protect their gun rights. They join and they pay the NRA to represent them in political and legal matters, just like any other trade association does.

And that, by the way, is one of the reasons that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did in Citizens United. The Court recognized the simple fact that "corporate" organizations like Citizens United and the NRA are comprise of people who join such organizations precisely so that their voices can be heard in Congress and by the public as they lawfully exercise their right to free speech as a group by paying representatives to do their lobbying for them, just exactly like every Progressive or Democrat lobbying organization does.

That's what anti-corporatists refuse to accept, that corporations are merely the representative and organizational arm of groups of like-minded individuals, each of whom has the right to freedom of political speech, and each of whom has the right to hire someone to speak on their behalf before their government representatives.

The NRA speaks for me (and seven million other people), at my request, funded by my money, and if the law denies the NRA the ability to contribute MY MONEY to political campaigns of those who support what I stand for, then the law denies me my right to political speech and redress of grievances, which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Does money talk in politics? Of course it does. It's supposed to. That's how the little guy gets his voice heard over the cacophony of other lobbying efforts by his opponents. If you don't think the opposition party does exactly the same thing, you're too dumb to be allowed to vote.