Proving our point

I’m sure that wasn’t their intent but it’s nice of the VPC to put up a website and do the research to prove our point.

Sebastian shows us the VPC is misleading if not outright lying.

Joe Waldron on the WA-CCW email list points out:

85 deaths in 2.5 years, by 5,000,000+ CCW holders. I’d be willing to bet rogue cops have killed far more, per capita (6-8 times as many CCW holders as sworn police officers). 35 deaths/year on average, that’s one murder per 142,000 CCW holders.

Contrast that to what the overall murder rate is in this country, 5.4 murders per 100,000. So, the average CCW holder is (5.4/100,000)/(1/142,000) or 7.668 times less likely to murder someone than your average private citizen. And that’s not correcting for the exaggerations pointed out by Sebastian and the conservative numbers used by Waldron (it’s actually 34/5,000,000+ or 1/147,059+). So the real number is probably on the order of 10 times less likely.

Thank you VPC.


9 thoughts on “Proving our point

  1. This is what happens sometimes when you set up a straw man. We claim that CCW folks are much more law abiding than average, and their straw man is that we claim CCW holders never commit crimes. Knocking down the straw man only requires a few examples, but the paucity of examples proves our point.

  2. I would suggest we grab screencaptures as soon as we can – I wonder how long it will take them to “memory hole” the webpage once they realize the information they present actually damages their case…

  3. Once again I will point out that a right is a right. Statistics are interesting little side notes, for dusty, lisping professors talking over an espresso in the campus cafeteria, but if government isn’t supposed to violate rights, it isn’t supposed to violate rights. Period. There is no crime statistic threshold mentioned in the Bill of rights, last time I checked, that once reached suddenly makes it OK to start violating the people’s rights. If you disagree, then I ask you; if all your neighbors were arrested for drunk driving, would it be OK, based solely on that fact, for the police to take away your car or limit your vehicle choices? If you answered “yes” then you are a true-blue, intellectually consistent anti gun loon and an enemy of human rights. If you answered “no” then it’s time to shut up and start supporting not only your own rights but those of your fellow citizens (even if you hate them [which you do – admit it] because if one person’s rights are violated, yours are surely next).

    Principles, people.

  4. These numbers are so low, even without considering the per capita, that it’s pathetic to even list them. I wonder how many people have been killed by slipping on banana peels in the same time period? Just shows how far they have to reach in order to even try to make a point.

  5. Better yet;
    If the rates of fraud and libel became rampant, would that justify the government, based on that fact alone (plus the fact that they’ve been looking for an excuse to silence public opinion for decades) sending goons (from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Speech) into your home to confiscate your computer? They wouldn’t need a warrant or even an accusation. The latest crime statistics report would be all that’s needed to serve as a universal warrant, granting full discretion and authority to the BATS. “The fraud and libel rates have reached the threshold of 137 per 100,000 population so it’s no holds barred. Time to act.”

    If we’re arguing the validity gun rights protection based on crime statistics, we’re giving tacit approval for such things, even if the statistics are currently and overwhelmingly on our side.

    This is what happens when we argue using standards put forth by our enemies. Remember; “when they (principles) are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

  6. Not that I disagree with you, but if “It is a right” is all we needed to make our case and end this debate, we would not exactly be having this conversation. You have a very salient point, but information like this provides a very useful and, in my mind, necessary counter to the unending stream of misinformation coming from the anti-rights folks, in the face of which “It is a right” is scant more than a slightly-modified SNBI tactic… and about as effective.

  7. I’m saying we need that argument, not that it is or should be the only thing we ever say. So maybe I was exaggerating with the dusty professor bit to make the point. It’s a subtle but extremely important distinction. Counter them if you have the time and breath for it, but then get them to fight on your terms. It’s fine to prove them wrong and stupid, and it’s easy, but without attacking them on principle we’re not winning like we could.

    It reminds me of the Sarah Palin interview I heard yesterday. She said some good things. For example; We need to cut taxes so those who create jobs and wealth can create more jobs and more wealth. That’s fine as far as it goes, but then there’s the clincher she left out– we need to cut taxes because we don’t have the right to confiscate wealth for all these extraconstitutional purposes, and then list a few, because that is the main point.

    I’d rather the antis spend their time and resources countering our rock solid arguments about how good it is, and how much better off we are when the right to keep and bear arms is left unmolested, and where they can go (and there are lots of places) if they don’t like it.

    As for the common assertion that saying “a right is a right” isn’t enough, have you looked at what the Left has been doing for the last 40 years? They got abortion classified as the most absolute right ever, mostly just by demanding that it was a right and that’s that. They’ve been demanding, they’ve not been nice, and they’ve been getting their way. I’m not saying we should emulate them, but damnit when you’re right you’re right, and there’s no reason to back away from that position. At least make the argument and not leave it hanging there all alone. If it makes you all happy to counter the lies, at least get some principle in there along with it. Then you can say, I suppose, that you’ve made a well-rounded argument.

    I don’t how to get this through any better. If we’re saying that it’s OK to respect gun rights because crime rates are at this level, then what you’re saying in effect is that there must be some crime rate that could or should lead to total confiscation. I’d rather be discussing the methods of prosecution for people who conspire to violate human rights and violate both the letter and spirit of the constitution.

    Lord Monktn had a very interesting thing to say about perjury today in a radio interview. He made it very clear that it was his informed opinion that someone who tells lies in a legal setting also includes someone representing something as fact when they’re not sure. This was in the context of Global Warming, but if he’s on to something we may have an opportunity there. He was convinced that there will come a time when people are being charged with perjury over the Global Warming hoax.

  8. I’m lost here. Are these deaths at the hands of CCW holders murders, or all deaths (which would include righteous self defense and NOT a murder)?

    If this is all deaths, then it is misleading in that it suggests that they are all murders. The correct use, not merely passive carry of weapons must be defended.

Comments are closed.