TexasCHLforum.com

Hi new to the forum.

I am trying to find statistics, if they exist, about the number of CHL holders that have been involved in gun crimes.

I would appreciate any guidance

Welcome to the forum.

Ask and it shall be given to you: Click here.

- Jim

Here is a comparison of violent crime conviction rates for CHL holders to non-CHL holders for 1996-2000.

Edit: Thats arrest rate actually.

seamusTX wrote:Welcome to the forum.

Ask and it shall be given to you: Click here.

- Jim

That is some great info. Thanks Jim.

Thanks very much.

Great info and ammunition to use in an on going debate I am having with an antigun fanatic.

Phydeaux88 wrote:... on going debate I am having with an antigun fanatic.

Have fun, but it's hopeless.

- Jim

You can practice on fence posts.

When you've converted a mile of barbed wire fence, you might be able to convert an anti.

You can't fight emotion with logic.

But there are folks who are still open to thought.

Those are worth working on.

Anyone think there will ever be a productive debate at the leves of power needed that throws emotion out the window and actually gets anywhere?

I wonder what the percentages of nuts and anti's is? Anyone have any idea?

Since we are "supposed" to be a nation of majority rules, I wonder if this topic will ever become one which is decided upon in this manner.

Just rambling...

BrassMonkey wrote:I wonder what the percentages of nuts and anti's is? Anyone have any idea?

Since we are "supposed" to be a nation of majority rules,

The number of fanatical antis is microscopic. I don't know how many people contribute to groups that are primarily anti-RKBA, but it's not as much as NRA membership (approximately 4 million) or the total number of firearms owners (around 150 million).

The real problem is a small number of legislators who are in senior positions and will never lose an election because they are anti-RKBA.

Underlying that is the large number of voters who do not care about 2nd-Amendment issues or have a vague feeling that "something must be done" about violent crime.

"Majority rules" is a bad idea and not the law of the land.

- Jim

"Majority Rules" is "supposed" to be how this country is governed. Are we just waiting for those minority party leaders to die off of old age?

BrassMonkey wrote:"Majority Rules" is "supposed" to be how this country is governed.

Um, sorry, no it isn't. The majority is not allowed override the Constitution itself or the rights of a minority.

Some countries are run that way. You probably don't want to live in one.

Please search The Federalist and let me know when you find "majority rules." (Clicking this link downloads a big chunk of text if you're on dial-up.)

James Madison wrote:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

- Jim

When I say, "Majority Rules" I am referring to our democratic voting process. I believe the intent of this process is to elect our government based on the "majority's" wishes. That is supposed to translate into the laws the majority want to see enacted, get enacted. This is supposed to apply from the lowly city councilperson to the POTUS.

Let's not get into the Bush/Gore thing, and let's avoid the Democracy/Republic thing as well.

It is impossible to discuss how the country is supposed to be governed without entering the "republic/democracy" field. Avoiding any mention of political parties' pet interests, however, CAN be achieved.

We're not a true democracy, strictly speaking. We're a democratic republic. In a true democracy (a "pure" democracy, if you will), absolutely everything would be decided by a majority vote. 50.000001% of the population would be enough to exert their dominance and will upon the remaining 49.999999% percent.

We're a representative democratic republic. We the people do not decide the law directly, nor are our elected representatives absolute in their power (as they answer to the Constitution).

You then have no less than FOUR distinct groups involved in the governance of this nation under the auspices of the Constitution. There's the "majority party" among the elected, the "minority party" among the same, the electors of the "majority party," AND the electors of the "minority party."

And then you have the myriad and vast numbers of "special interests" that curry attention and favor of the elected in return for promises of help in the next election.

The problem we now face is one of focus; the multivarious special interests, the political infighting, the jockeying for power - all have failed to focus on the "republic" aspect of this nation, instead concentrating on the "representative democracy" aspect. Most of our political leaders pay little attention to the document that defines our republic, the Constitution, paying more attention to power-plays and lobbyists. A majority of the citizenry is either too wrapped up in their own personal special interest to pay attention to the Constitution, or is just plain so disgusted by the in-fighting that they shut out everything political beyond "obey the speed limit."


And BTW, I'm not a Republican OR a Democrat.

Thane wrote: There's the "majority party" among the elected, the "minority party" among the same, the electors of the "majority party," AND the electors of the "minority party."

Our constitution does not spell out a two party system. That is an assumption that we make based on the last hundred + years of history.

It might do us all well to remember that there can be "3rd" parties.....or 4th, 5th..........

Yes, I know the arguments that they dilute the power, and throw elections to the "other" party, but maybe thats not such a bad thing these days.........

wrt45 wrote:Our constitution does not spell out a two party system.

I agree, but we're stuck with the system that we have. Parties get candidates elected, therefore candidates run on party tickets.

"Third" parties force the Democrats and Republicans to accommodate people who are devoted to certain issues. If 2% vote Libertarian, and the Republicans lose because of it, the Republicans have to do something to win that 2% back. Ditto the Greens and Democrats.

- Jim