Did you know there is a nationwide rampage going on where crazed fanatics with concealed carry permits are slaughtering innocent citizens? Neither did I, but thankfully the NY Times is on the story. With their usual, thoroughly accurate, fact-checked, journalistic professionalism propaganda, they have concocted a faux outrage that simply doesn't add up. National Review Online points out the fallacy.
From the Times:
The New York Times examined the [concealed-carry] permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.
All of these numbers are completely meaningless; in any large population, there will be some crime. The only way to see what these numbers mean is to compare concealed-carry holders to the general population. Fortunately, state-level murder data are easy to find.
North Carolina has a statewide murder rate of about 5 per 100,000. Even without counting manslaughter, that’s 25 murders committed per 100,000 North Carolinians every five years. There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North Carolina, so by pure chance, you’d expect these folks to be responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of “rais[ing] questions,” the Times has demonstrated yet again that permit holders are more peaceful than the general population.
Shocking The Times pushes a conclusion so divorced from reality. And you just have to love this bit of misdirection.
And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
OK, I have a question. I know you Times writers are "journalists", but can't anyone in your entire organization do simple math? I mean go to your accounting folks, oh wait, they can only add negative numbers like your plummeting revenue. Aside from the visceral, pants-wetting fear that armed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging albeit law-abiding regular Joes walking the streets causes in pantywaist milquetoast liberals, concealed carry is not dangerous. Well, unless you're a bad guy who tries something stupid with one of those regular Joes around. Then it could be painful, perhaps even fatal.
I carried for the best part of ten years. I never once had to pull my weapon in a civilian situation. But I did have the ability and inclination to intervene in some dangerous settings. Knowing that I had the trump card allowed me to de-escalate some violent situations that I may not have intervened in otherwise. That is not a stat the NY Times would care about though, now would they? Nope, they bask in the added safety of the very sheepdogs they deride on the pages of their rag. You're welcome, anyhow, you gutless weasels.