you got a link for this?
It's always a good idea to provide a link (gets around copyright problems) and it helps those of us who want to see the original
You should post a link to where you are getting your data.
I and I am fairly certain that Dave would agree with those quotes in your statement that I put in bold.
Those statements alone explain why the crime rate has decreased. More armed Citizenry not specifically Carrying Concealed.
When you go back into the FBI website, see if you can find data that gives the Crime-rate committed per capita for States like Washington, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and then compare that to States with Extreme gun-control bills such as Illinois, Washington DC, and California. You will see an astonishing trend, with Gun-Control comes an increase in gun-related crimes per capita.
I went to http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Cr...YearofData.cfm
and pulled 2010 data for all states, both Violent Crime and Property Crime. here is some of the results. They are not per-capita.
I am going to list a few states Results for Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter (does not say if by gun, knife, pencil, hatchet, etc.. )
You would really see a big difference in the overall violent crimes, if I were to paste all of those too.
Those area's with greater gun-control have higher rates of crime. Where those with few gun-controls have lower violent crime rates.
First I will list a couple states with extreme gun-control.
The State, then the population, then the number of Murders.
Illinois - 12,830,632 - 706
California - 37,253,956 - 1,809
District of Collumbia - 601,723 - 132
Now I will list a few States with few Gun-controls.
Washington State - 6,724,540 - 152 (6 million 100 thousand more residents but only 20 additional murders over DC - even if you doubled this population and doubled the murders, you would still be half of the Illinois murder rate)
Wyoming - 563,626 - 8 (roughly 38,000 fewer residents than DC, but .06% of the Murders committed in DC)
Montana - 989,415 - 26
Colorado - 5,029,196 - 120
You will also have to understand that most of the states give data on if a crime listed in one collumn is also listed in another so that only the most severe will be counted, Illinois does not do that, the the FBI has to extrapolate the results.
So in reality, Illinois could be considerably higher than stated.
The state UCR Program was unable to provide 1985-current forcible rape figures in accordance with national UCR Program guidelines. The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. Rockford, Illinois, has provided valid forcible rape counts as of 2006.
For 1993 state NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Illinois. Since valid annual totals were available for approximately 60 Illinois agencies, those counts were maintained. The counts for the remaining jurisdictions were replaced with the most recent valid annual totals or were generated using standard estimaton procedures. The results of all sources were then combined to arrive at the 1993 state total for Illinois.
For 1994 state NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Illinois. Illinois totals were generated using only the valid crime rates for the East North Central Division. Within each population group, the state's offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within the remainder of the division.
For 1996-current, the state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. Valid Part I counts were available for most of the largest cities (100,000 and over in population). For other agencies, the only available counts generated by the Illinois State Program were state totals based upon an incident-level system without indication of multiple offenses recorded within single incidents. Therefore, the UCR Hierarchy Rule could not be applied in order to convert the state's data to Summary Reporting System data. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable stae estimate to be included in national compilations, the Illinois State Program's state totals (which were inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) were reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the NIBRS database. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.
The same will happen with our gun rights with each guard dropped. And there hard enough to come by now adays, and going to get a lot harder in the future. We need to hold tight to each one we have while grabbing with the other hand for another grip on the next.
I will admit that I use both forms of carry, generally leaning more with OC. Once in a while I will get a strange look at a grocery store or gas station but I do not showboat that I am armed. It seems if you are polite to people around you and don't look like you are there to cause trouble it is pretty well accepted here in Montana. Someone else said it perfectly, responsibility is key to carry regardless of how you do it
Everyone has an opinion of why you should or should not Open Carry. A lot of the comments are against Opn Carry because it is Show Boating.
However, I am in Florida and we cannot Open Carry. I am 66 and have no desrie to "Show Boat".
But, it is also harder to pick clothes that hide a concealed weapon. You either wear you shirt out or have to wear a coat.
It would be nice to wear my shirt tucked in and not wear a coat in a warm climate.
I open carry for 2 reasons.
1. It is my right to do so. - This is fundamental to me.
2. It is the only way I can currently legally carry a firearm.
I abhor the idea of asking "permission" to carry a concealed weapon. The bad guys don't ask permission to rob me, so why should I have to ask permission to conceal my weapon to protect myself from bad guys. I will get my CHP eventually, but only because I don't want to be at risk of arrest for "accidental concealment." Even once I have my CHP, I will continue to open carry. As long as you carry yourself like a professional, dress nicely, and don't have an attitude, your chances of actually be confronted over it are pretty slim.
Lets just be clear. Carrying a firearm is not a right. It's a privilege. A 'right', by definition, cannot be taken away. You're ability to carry a firearm legally CAN be taken away. (i.e.: convicted felon, multiple DUIs, domestic violence, etc.) Therefore, it is a legal privilege. I say be thankful you/we/I have this privilege, those of us that do, and fly under the radar. Carrying a firearm is largely about responsibility as much as its about protection. Lets do so responsibly. Carrying a firearm openly with the intention of engaging law enforcement in a civil rights debate is irresponsible. On top of it being a stupid waste of time for everyone involved. just my two cents.
Gah! Let's not play necromancer with Pythius threads. For a brief moment, I thought he had come back!