Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

:icontitanicfan1000: More from Titanicfan1000


Submitted on
December 20, 2012
File Size
5.3 KB


7 (who?)

Time to start a new battlefield for the gun debate.

The shooting in Newport, Conneticut was tragedy. The number of deaths from this shooting and shootings in other states has led the Democrats to start beating the gun control drums and taking some kind of federal legislative action to tighten regulations. This would be a mistake and I am about to explain to you how it is. My essay on gun control and concealed carry laws will have no distractions. What I am about to bring to you are cold hard facts. Nothing can refute logic.


I am a proponent of concealed carry laws. I have always supported it and I feel the need to defend concealed carry laws (CCW for short) in order to prevent a dramatic blunder from happening. CCW laws have strongly benefited the United States. Speaking the U.S., there are only two places that have completely tried to ban guns (eventually stuck down by the Supreme Court). Those two places were the state of Illinois (and more specifically Chicago) and the District of Columbia. The rest of the nation? Exactly 37 states have or shall issue CCW laws, 4 states have completely unrestricted laws on firearms, and 8 may issue. Why do the overwhelming majority of states allow CCW? This because of the strong evidence that has come that proves more guns means less crime. Why do some strongly liberal states have CCW? Back in the 1970s, guns were usually banned in states, but many states now allow people to carry something that protects themselves, including liberal states. This is purely because of scientific evidence. [1]

I will first present scientific data that proves more guns means less crime and that gun control is the wrong way to go. All my studies come from scientific organizations which have the best statistics. Political organizations like the United Nations will not be included because they are primarily political, not scientific. Out of 29 academically referred studies, 18 prove that CCW laws benefit the people and reduce crime, 10 showed no effect, and 1 showed that CCW raises crime. The consensus of the studies prove that gun control is ineffective and that CCW laws do reduce crime. If you are for gun control, you are academically incorrect. Not even a Clinton Administration inspired study conducted by 18 academics could conclude gun control works and saves lives. Instead they declared they needed more research (although one of them broke off saying the statistics found that gun control does work in actually creating crime). [2,3,4]

From 1977 to 1997, a study conducted by Dr. John R. Lott found that murder fell by 7.7%, rape fell by 5.3%, aggravated assaults fell by 7.01%, robbery fell by 2.2%, burglary fell by .5%, larcency fell by 3.3%, and auto theft by 7.1%. Another study in 1999 conducted by Dr. Lott showed murder fell by 10% and the other criminals acts fell majorly as well. In 2009, a study done by Dr. Donahue proved that:

"The most conservative estimates show that adopting these so-called "shall issue" or nondiscretionary permit laws reduced murders by 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%. To put it another way, if those states which did not have concealed handgun laws in 1992 had adopted them, citizens in those states would have avoided suffering approximately 1,500 murders, 4,200 rapes, over 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies. Criminals do apparently respond to deterrence."[5]

These are just some of many studies that conclude that CCW laws decrease crime and gun control does not. Police deaths have also declined as a result of CCW laws. My graph above shows overall violent deaths from one of Dr. Lott's studies. [2,4,7]

Now, if you are concerned that CCW carriers cause crimes you would be wrong again:

"Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000. Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000. Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees, and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter." [6]

So why do we have more violence in the United States from guns? Simple: bigger population. Obviously if your country has a lot more people than another country then there will be more violence and more criminals. The decline in a faithful society that bases it's life off hardwork and pride also has a major effect the increased gun violence.


More guns does mean less crime. All crime rates have fallen and most of the time the criminals are not CCW carriers. CCW laws have also avoided many crimes from being conducted. So everyone, calm down, the best thing to do for yourself is buy a gun to protect yourself. Its the best defense against criminals. They won't know if you carry one or not. Yes, there are deaths and major shootings, there will be deaths and major shootings, but we must prevent more of these from happening. Concealed carry laws do that job. Gun control fails at doing it.
1. [link]
2. Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.
3. [link]"Crime+%26+Criminal+Justice"&st=&ps=
4. Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 1997
5. [link]
6. [link]
7. [link]

The graph is from one of Dr. Lott's studies.
Add a Comment:
lordmep Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I would disagree on one point. It seems that the rate of rape has fallen a lot more drastically than the studies you've looked at. Scroll down to the chart on the right…
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
After that abortion report/fiasco of yours, one cant help but think you are starting with a conclusion, then underpinning to meet your desired goal.
I dont think that gun control is the answer, or atleast not the only factor.
But I think if 20 dead children are not enough incentive to seek the best answer regardless of ones own hopes on the issue tells me that the reduction to the absurd is not relevant in the US.
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
All I am giving out is data proving CCW works and that is it. Conclusions have been around since the dawn of writing an essay and that is why I feel the need to put one in.
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
You are missing the point of my critique. You seem to, as you did before, start with what you want to be true and work to shore and shim the conclusion. You are taking a stand in contrast to the reductio ad absurdum, which means you have a large burden to carry. The fact that some states have stricter laws, and suffer from violence may just as easily show that state lines are porous and the perpetrators are following the path of least resistance.
One could entertain this premise based on the fact that nations that have adapted gun control have less issues, that countries that are not bordering armed countries have less than those that do. Examples would be Britain vs Canada. If one wants to get this right this should be addressed.
I am not saying what the answer is, I do however find that both sides are behaving in a pig headed manner. Each act as though the other is making absurd assertions. When it seems both have room in the discussion. If some one tries to blame this on the reduction of bubble gum in school, THAT is absurd. It is an important issue and deserves a proper intellectual pursuit of the best way to make a horrid situation as good as can be hoped for.
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
"It is an important issue and deserves a proper intellectual pursuit of the best way to make a horrid situation as good as can be hoped for."

But I am using scienfitic studies worked on by intellectuals.

Just curious, would you be kind as to give a proper format for my gun control and CCW essay?
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
One could start by giving all the reasons why the opposing argument wont work in the US the way it has elsewhere. As I said I agree legislation wont work atleast not alone. But the facts in other countries are what they are in per capita studies it is lower the most extreme would be North Korea, a shitload of oppressed people serious emotional issues, no gun violence because they are under STRICT governmental control. But who wants to move in that direction?
So there are places like Iceland, Britain and here in Canada, not oppressed but alot less per cap gun violence.
Is it the theocratic nature of the US? The attempt to contrast christianity with capitolism? Or is it the push from the secular side? Any and all possibilities that could launch your country to the top of this type of social cancer.
As far as your citing scientific evidence, it must pass peer reviews, which your abortion evidence did not. Thus I am not confident in your claims.
I find there are 2 types of christians politically active in the states the ones that are in it for the good of the United States of America and happen to believe in jesus and those who are theocrats who use either bible or the constitution when it suits pushing what THEY want. I get the feeling you are the latter.
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
If I may say, the number 1 concern for me is the US and gun violence, not the entire world in gun violence. There is only one opposing argument, gun control in the US reduces crime.

That is why it is unecessary to include other countries. I don't care about theocratic nature, just data. As for my scientific evidence, they all use matching variables and are the ONLY scientific studies out oat this time, in addition the older studies from the 70s are part of the reason that today most states have CCW laws in place.

I rarely use the bible due to a separation of church and state, for example, in abortion I looked more at economics and health of the mother and child, not moralism because moralism does not matter in the United States.

The Constitution is a different story because it is the law of the land.
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
You may not USE the bible, but it oozes from your fingers none the less. And as you just conceded, you have the truth and now just need to prove it. Hence the first sentence has prescience.
To say nothing of the absurd example of your conpempt of possible christian influence, or any other ideological influence. The gun control rebuttle demands it when it is said GUNS dont kill PEOPLE kill. But you seem to feel that what and how they think is of no use to you.
It is nice to know that even one who agrees for the most part with your position is to be shunned because they dont agree for the right reasons.
As far as the abortion piece goes you cited a fundemental christian study scientifically flawed and of course quite skewed to satisfy what they want to be true.
This is quite obvious in your "gun" argument/solution.
You are happy to find that you are right.....why because you say so.....why because people who profit from this version of truth tell you you are! WOOOT imagine being able to solve a major social cancer in "60 seconds or less" and.....AND have the best interests of your fellow Americans covered as well!!!
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Student Writer
"The gun control rebuttle demands it when it is said GUNS dont kill PEOPLE kill. But you seem to feel that what and how they think is of no use to you."

What matters is what proper steps can be taken to lower crime and CCW laws do that, so I don't there is a need to put in, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

"It is nice to know that even one who agrees for the most part with your position is to be shunned because they dont agree for the right reasons."

Everyone has their own agenda, that is why DA exists.

I will try to work on the abortion piece another time, but as of now I would like to focus on gun control.
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The only thing I would add is that gun training, basic tactical training, and practice with the weapon is essential. Without it, you become a walking safety hazard. It's sort of why I think such training should be required before one receives legal adulthood.
Add a Comment: