|
I believe that ALL prisoners in state and federal prisons are "felons". Some are in for commitment of a non-violent crime and some are in for commitment of one or more violent crimes. I have worked in maximum and medium security prisons. The violent crime criminals that I associated with were not reluctant to admit being more concerned of meeting up with the armed citizen than the police. For many years, armed citizens in the US kill or wound by shooting far more criminals in the act than all police combined. Police have so many restrictions on actually shooting a suspect that they usually err on the side of not shooting. The criminals know that.
I state again; "no valid study proves that a citizen is more apt to be killed or wounded if armed with his own weapon than he is confronting an armed criminal while being unarmed." That is supported by studies from Kleck and Lott both. The liberals want it to be true that the good guy is usually hurt/killed so bad that they continue to throw up statistics from a long ago discredited study that was skewed by its own bias. It is also my opinion, coming from an older law enforcement officer with lots of experience in training civilians for firearm and legal qualification to meet CCW requirements, that armed citizens are far safer in dealing with criminal opponents than unarmed citizens. Heck, everything writen here is a form of the writer's opinion and is a form of editorializing. I don't see the need to back up every statement by referencing a scientific based study. But, I will in the future to keep ruffled feathers down to a minimum, start every post with "IMHO".
One last point. Under commonly accepted statistical analysis procedures, a sample of 1800 to 2000 interviews randomly done within an identifiable set of 2,000,000 is valid enough to a determinable plus/minus factor of error. True even when that set includes every eligible voter within the USA. Just ask the AP, Zogby, Pew, TIME, AP-Ipsos, etc., etc. when they doing polling on political issues if they believe that a sample of 1800 to 2000 from that set is adequate to insure viable statistics.
IMHO liberals want to be allowed to use the weakest sort of generated statistics against conservative positions, but don't want conservatives to to be allowed to use repeatable statistical studys at all in their arguments. That is ok with me. I would much rather use empirical observations to base my opinion on anyway.
|