1911Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is in reply to Mr. Horrigans colum in the the Post-Dispatch about our CCL legislation.


Good afternoon, Mr. Horrigan. I am writing in response to your recent article on the new concealed carry laws that are about to go into effect in our state. You mention several things in the article that I would like to discuss with you.

One of the main points I would like to contend is the concept that carrying a firearm is only useful to the average citizen in the particular case of homicide. In fact, the entire usage of the homicide statistic is in question here. Virtually all of the crimes that are categorized under the label of violent crime are considered to authorize an intended victim's use of a concealed firearm or other weapon in self-defense. Examples include rape, kidnapping, assault with intent, and continue on ad nauseam. As such, the usage of a concealed weapon needs to be compared against the entire gamut of applicable uses to determine it's relative effectiveness.

When gauged in this manner in other states, it becomes much clearer what type of effect the permission to carry concealed has on violent crime in general. All other states that I have research on (26) began to move statistically in a positive direction after the introduction of concealed carry. There are several key indicators of crime levels outlined in the FBI UCR and in more regional analysis that are considered to be valid by a majority of statisticians involved, and each indicator was affected in a manner that made morticians, prison construction companies, and security firms sad at the loss of business.

This fact is VERY tough to dispute, as evidenced by the virtual lack of debate between those opposed to such legislation and those advocating it.

Once that is out of the way, it brings up my next and perhaps most important point. The understanding that concealed carry is effective leads to an analysis of the fundamentals required by the private citizen to effectively use a firearm in self defense in order to help determine the effect concealed carry will have on Missouri. These are defined by most trainers as having the proper knowledge, skills, and attitude to avoid or conclude a violent encounter.

Knowledge provides its own definition, skills are a combination of practice and intelligence, and attitude is a factor of your desire to merely defend yourself, submit to injury or death, or to do harm to others in excess of that required to end the confrontation.

As such, to say that Missouri will not benefit from having concealed carry is to say that Missourian's are more ignorant, stupid, violent, and cowardly than the rest of the United States. Without ignoring the facts, you have to either accept one or a combination of the above as true and use it as your basis for argument, begin arguing from a strictly emotional standpoint, or quit opposing concealed carry and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Which position do you think you would like to attempt?
1 - 1 of 1 Posts