Quote of the day—Dave Hardy

With all the permit holders, it’s getting to where violent crime isn’t safe anymore.

Dave Hardy
January 23, 2012
CCW customer kills robber
[I’ve been listening to another economics book by Thomas Sowell. He gave many examples where criminals were entirely rational and responded to “economic” pressures. Sowell’s definition of economics is “the study of allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses”. When a violent criminals scarce resource is their body and that it might be reallocated by someone else as worm food most probably come up with the correct answer when they ask themselves the question, “Do I feel lucky?

That violent crime is going down and the murder rate is at it’s lowest level in 50 (I think, I don’t want to bother looking it up right now) years could be because of the dramatic increase in CCW and the number of gun owners in general.

I may just be that the anti-gun people were wrong and the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO, GOA, etc. was right (again).—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dave Hardy

  1. The conversion into worm food of actively violent criminals who are in the process of victim selection is, in the words of Colonel Cooper, “commendable”. It is also, in the words of countless computer programmers and users, “not a bug, but a feature.”

    As I said over 20 years ago to a Hollywood leftist community organizer, I don’t particularly want to carry 3 lbs of steel around with me everywhere, but I want the robbers to think I might be, and so thinking, seek honest employment.

    As for the cameras, we have to understand who we are dealing with as robbers. These are people who, many times, don’t know where “out of town” is. If they could reason from A to B to C they probably would not be robbers; they can get from A to B just fine (They know they need money and know where it is), but can’t make that last jump to understand the nature of non-immediate consequences. If they can get away with it, even for a little while, they’ll take the risk, but it is the immediacy of the consequences that stops them, not the abstract idea that they are now on camera or might get caught. “Might get shot” is somehow a more immediate risk than “might get caught”. Getting caught has procedures like a game.

  2. Let’s not forget that violent crime is down in places that don’t have “shall issue” CCW too.

  3. “Let’s not forget that violent crime is down in places that don’t have “shall issue” CCW too.”

    Such as in Washington, DC, of all places! But then, Heller made it clear that it’s legal to have a loaded weapon in your home, so residents are now more willing to “ventilate” home intruders, and violent criminals know that.

    Of course, I can’t speak for the rest of the non-shall-issue States, except to say this: all you are saying is that there is NO correlation to gun laws and violent crime. Since this is the case, then those gun laws are useless, and ought to be removed completely, so that they no longer trap innocent gun owners, and so they also would no longer be a drain on law enforcement and judicial resources.

    On the other hand, it would be nice to know: is violent crime going down faster in “shall issue” states? Since you’re the one with the statistics, Ubu, it would be nice if you could answer that for us. 🙂

Comments are closed.