TexasCHLforum.com

The article discusses the rise in the number of people who have guns for protection, versus the decline in overall crime across the country. The article snippet says that the effectiveness of gun use for self-defense is debateable. Tell that to those who have used a gun to defend themselves or a loved one.

Today, more gun owners than ever — 48 percent according to a March poll by the Pew Research Center — cite self-protection as their primary reason for having a firearm. That has nearly doubled since 1999, and now far surpasses the declining number of gun owners who say they own a firearm primarily for hunting.

I thought this quote was interesting:

"Americans don't know that the crime rate has been going down," said Warr, noting that public perception is shaped by television crime dramas and news reports focusing on the most violent offenses. "What happens is that people watch this dangerous image of the world and they buy into the idea that the world is a really, really dangerous place."

The overall crime rate may have gone down, but I still see plenty of local and national stories of crimes that make me glad I carry.

Story: http://news.yahoo.com/gun-debate-revive ... 00833.html

This is what I hate about the educational elites. They ignore the individual and think in macro terms.

The increased focus by gun owners on self-defense while the threat of crime decreases reflects a long-standing disconnect in public perceptions of violent crime, said Mark Warr, a University of Texas criminologist.

Baloney. We're well aware crime has decreased, and we attribute it to the wave of self defense laws that swept the country.

We're also not stupid enough to think that since crime has decreased we should disarm. This is the same stupid mistake the "experts" made after WWI, after WWII and after Vietnam. They call it the peace dividend. Now that things have calmed down we don't need the same military capabilities we had during wartime. It's idiotic, but the "brainiacs" fall for it every time. They're lucky they live in a civilized nation where they're protected. They wouldn't survive one day in the wilderness.

Statistics are statistics, but they are completely irrelevant when you are confronted by a criminal. We don't stand outside during thunderstorms because there is a remote chance we could be struck by lightening. And we don't go outside without our weapons because there is a remote chance we could be confronted by a criminal intent on hurting or killing us.

It isn't about the odds, it's about the stakes.

bdickens wrote:It isn't about the odds, it's about the stakes.

Exactly! One doesn't care about statistics or percentages when they or their family are assaulted or murdered. The chances of me being in a potentially fatal car wreck are very low, but I wear a seat belt and have been since long before it was a statutory requirement.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

bdickens wrote:It isn't about the odds, it's about the stakes.

Exactly! One doesn't care about statistics or percentages when they or their family are assaulted or murdered. The chances of me being in a potentially fatal car wreck are very low, but I wear a seat belt and have been since long before it was a statutory requirement.

Chas.

I am probably alive today to post that because of a seatbelt and an air bag.