Carry by numbers

A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in public—and under their clothes—a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.

Applications for “concealed-carry” permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements. The numbers are driven in part by concern that renewed gun-control efforts soon could constrain access to weapons, along with heightened interest in self-defense in the wake of mass killings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo.

Read the entire article here Permits Soar to Allow More Concealed Guns. I love the fact that the National Research Council, which advocates gun control points out that concealed-carry permit holders have fatally shot 500 people and that 128 of those people have been convicted of manslaughter or homicide. 128? Are you kidding me? When you consider the number of people who are carrying that is a minuscule number and I would suspect that if you looked at any group of people, like for instance, doctors you may find a similar pattern. I have nothing to base that on (other than a hunch) and putting the number into perspective is complicated by the fact that I am not sure what time frame they were using or if they were including every state that allows concealed carry or just a selected few.

For the sake of argument lets say that they are talking about one state for one year. According to the CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSING ANNUAL REPORT put out by the Michigan State Police there were 87,637 permits issued between July 2010 and June 2011.  If you took those 128 people and assumed that everyone was from one state and received their permit in the time frame mentioned it would total less then one half a percent. And then when you realize Michigan alone has an estimated 400,000 + concealed carriers and it is one of many states that allow concealed carry that number is astonishing low.

Comments

  1. “I understand that there may be some pcdujeires among the unelightened and unsophisticated, but really, in my opinion, the social status of those that hold a CCW just went up.” And yes, with folks like me, the SOCIAL status of the CCW holders just went up.But Anonymous 6:27 raised this issue: “The intention of such publications is to threaten CCW holders with the loss of their livelihoods … So if a CCW holder, their spouse, or other loved ones, works for an academic institution, state funded entity, or any other agency or enterprise that frowns on gun ownership, they will face retribution. That’s the purpose of promoting these lists.”Military commander’s use to be able to check the membership lists of Officer’s Clubs and the contribution amounts to the annual Combined Federal Campaign. Both of these practices are now prohibited. An individual does not have a RIGHT to social status. But a individual does have a RIGHT to association (assemble) and speech. Also, an individual does have a right to be ‘secure in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches’ (in this case disclosures by the government of public records they enable an unreasonable search by another person. Because of unreasonable searches into a person’s desire to assemble (or not assemble by NOT joining the O-Club), certain practices relating to protecting a person from employment discrimination have been put into law.Because of unreasonable searches into a person’s lifestyle outside of employment, certain laws are in place to ensure an employee can only be laid off or dismissed from employment based on their work actions. Public access to government controlled CCW records may allow employment discrimination; e.g. an employer/supervisor/co-workers/colleagues can potentially create a hostile work environment, yet not so hostile that the employee can file an official harassment protest. Summary: Please comment on the effect on Livelihood, on WORK status. (There is no right to social status, and I agree with the original Anon that the SOCIAL status issue is a distraction.)NOTE: FYI, in case it matters to fellow readers, I am not the 6:27 Anon. I simply agree

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.