arizona concealed weapon permit holders are more law-abiding than average

This week, we will take a look at the state that actually declared the Colt Single Action Army to be their state firearm – Arizona:

Since first starting their Concealed Weapon Permit program on 08SEP94, Arizona has issued 330,776 permits that are still active, while only 4,189 have been suspended and 1,209 have been revoked.

In other words, over the course of the past almost-24 years, Arizona’s CWP has only had a “failure rate” of 0.366%.

To put things in perspective, in 2016 Arizona had a total felonious crime rate of approximately 3,819.5 per 1000,000 residents.

Given that Arizona’s felonious crime rate peaked at about 5,174.9 per 100,000 in 1991, it is quite acceptable to state that the average Concealed Weapons Permit holder is at least 10 times less likely to break a serious law than non-permit-holders.

I keep trying to find new ways to re-word these posts – beyond the obvious state and statistics changes – because Google hates repetitive content.  But I honestly can find only so many ways to say, “The average concealed carry permit holder is significantly more law-abiding than average non-permit-holders.”  And this only makes sense – concealed carry permit holders are background-checked when they get their permits – indicating a lack of criminal history – and know that any minor slip-up will cost them their permits.  But people still treat these statistically-more-responsible as social outcasts, even “safety risks”.

I suppose this just goes to show that “gun control” is not based on facts, but rather hysteria.

i only love that which they defend

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote today’s quote in a work of fiction, pertaining to characters in a world that never existed outside the pages of his books.

Still, I believe they are a sentiment that echos with firearm owners today.  For a large number – possibly verging on “vast majority” – of us, it is not about the firearms.  Oh, sure, they are fun to learn about, and even more fun to use, but in the end, it all boils down to the defense of family, the defense of hearth, and the defense of home.

And, really, you have to wonder why people would want to limit your ability to defend your family, if not outright strip you of it.

 

graphics matter, crime edition

Pop quiz time.  For the sake of argument, assume you are on the receiving end of an unlawful assault at this very moment.  Your courses of action are as follows:

1. Attempt no form of self-defense.
2. Attempt to defend yourself against the perpetrator at all.
3. Attempt to defend yourself against the perpetrator specifically using a firearm.

Which of those options do you think will have the lowest probability of you being injured in the situation?

Does your answer change if we are talking about a robbery, as opposed to an assault?

Does your answer change again if we are talking about the lowest probability of your property being stolen from you during a robbery?

Now, remember your answers.  Because, based on this Critical Review of Firearms and Violence by the National Research Council of the National Academies, here are the realities:

In other words, you are almost half as likely to get hurt during a robbery if you employ a firearm to fight back, you are over three quarters less likely to lose personal property during a robbery if you use a firearm to defend yourself, and you are about half as likely to sustain injury during an assault if you stop the attacker with a firearm.

Well then.

It is almost like the “gun control” extremist’s notion of “give them what they want and they will go away” is… nonsense.

About now you will be noticing that while defending yourself with a firearm is strictly better than not defending yourself at all, “all” forms of self-defense are… not as much a sure bet.  The reason for this is simple:

Criminals are not idiots.

The 250lbs. thug is not going to try to assault a 400lbs. linebacker.  Nope, he is going to go for the 90lbs.-soaking-wet cheerleader, and when she tries to fight back with her bare hands, guess what?  It is highly likely that she is going to lose – and get injured in the process – simply due to mass and strength.

Provide her a firearm and a modicum of training, however?  Well, there is a reason why people say, “God made man, Sam Colt made them equal”, or why other people  describe firearms as civilization itself.

Given this data, one really has to wonder why “gun control” extremists want to massively increase your chances of being injured or losing property during an assault or robbery.  Perhaps your safety is not actually their priority?

(Incidentally, while the post is outdated, the results are approximately mirrored for shooting rampages – fighting back at all is better, but fighting back effectively (i.e. with firearms) is best.)

#neveragain

No, an armed Jewish populace probably would not have stopped the Holocaust from happening on some scale.

But armed Jews absolutely would have resulted in more dead Nazis.

And that is a good thing.

Right?

Or, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said regarding a different murderous atrocity in a different socialist country:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!