Ok, this one is for bob and the rest of us.  I'm doing a paper that is worth 1/3 my final grade in my Advanced Criminology class.  It's about how more guns = less crime...in a nutshell.  I am specifically writing about Michigan's concealed weapons law that says they must show why you shouldn't have a CW rather than you prove to them why you need one.  Either that or I'm going to do something like making concealed weapons mandatory or something like that.  Any ideas on policy implications would be helpful.  Also I'll be using some of the arguements brought up on here to help critque my paper and put in other views.  So let's have fun with this.  I'll be posting parts of  my paper on here later and put my final paper up later.

X

I have 4 weeks to work on it.  Thanks again.

The vote wasn't at all surprising, considering the liberal leanings of San Francisco.  They'll reap what they sow.  Crime will likely go through the roof, and they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

Quote:


The politicians always take care of themselves.  There is little doubt their own bodyguards will be armed to the teeth.

If I lived in San Francisco, I'd be on the first plane to Free America.

-b0b
(...is glad he doesn't live in that cesspit.)

Rumor has it that it might be shot down because the state of California has a pre-emption law.  Let's hope that's the case.  Either way, it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary headaches.

-b0b
(...in Soviet Russia.)

I'd be interested in reading it Pat.

Can either IM it to me (Or if that isn't possible, you can send it to my e-mail at greatone@iobbow.org)

Patrick <redacted>
Phil. 333
Research Paper

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
     To prove the existence of God has been the forefront thought of philosophy pre-dating the modern worldview.  More men, throughout mankind, have tried to reason their way up to an all-knowing, all-perfect God using many different schemas.  God has not only been, arguably, the forefront issue among philosophers but also of every single type of human emotion, thought, and exposition since God created man.  It is my plan to try to use what I believe is the best argument that relates with the most scientific and logical frame of thought.  I do not wish to discredit or take away anything from the other arguments from God; I believe they all have a place within the same frame of thought.  However, in order to more focus my argument for the existence of God I will use just the cosmological argument.  The use of the cosmological argument, I believe, is the best argument that maintains an objective outlook on the subject for proof of the existence of God.  No matter what side of the debate anyone is on it must be noted that the existence of God is just as scary as the non-existence of God.  It is up to us, as mankind, to figure out what the correct answer is.  To go through life believing in a God that doesn’t exist is delusional.  However, going through life not believing in a God that does exist is not only delusional but also reckless and foolish.  We must look at all arguments and facts relating to the subject of God unbiased, without use of religious or scientific dogma or religious or scientific lies.  The knowledge we have about God will shape the way we view the world and all of creation.
     Of course, in order to begin the discussion I must first define a few key words.  God is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe”.  Next is the definition of the cosmological argument.  We first begin with the a posteriori assumptions that the universe exists and that something outside the universe is required to explain its existence.  There are three main types of the cosmological argument (from now on referred to as CA for sake of brevity).  There is the Thomist Argument, the Leibnizian Argument, and the Kalam Argument.  My position will be derived by the Kalam Argument.  That is not to say the other two types are worse but the Kalam Argument (KA) has not received the recognition it deserves.  There have been many philosophers who have used and written about the KA, such as J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig.  It is interesting to note here that the KA was thought of and preserved by Islamic thinkers in the 9th and 10th century A.D.  KA is used by many Christian philosophers to prove the existence of God.  Christianity and Islam coming together?  It truly is a mad, mad world.  
     The KA is as follows:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
First of all it should be noted that the argument is deductively logical.  I will now provide proof for each step, as well as counter arguments, as well as counter-counter arguments.
     Whatever begins to exist has a cause
     One proof for this statement being true is that things do not just pop up into existence, uncaused, and out of nothing.  However all a skeptic has to say is, “You can’t prove that to be true!”  They are correct since the burden of proof rests on me to prove my theory, but still they shouldn’t hold their standards of proof up so high.  Another reason for this being true is that it is intuitively obvious once you understand the concept of absolute nothingness.  Believing something came from nothing is worse than believing in magic.  With magic you have at least a magician and a hat to pull a rabbit out of nowhere.  However a skeptic says that intuition is not the best kind of proof since it is subjective.  This is agreeable; I must at least try to come up with some objective proofs for this first premise.  The next proof is that we never see things come into being, uncaused, and out of no nothing.  No one ever has to worry about an elephant appearing out of no where and falling on them as they are walking down the street.  This is also consistent with the first law of thermodynamics.  This law says that matter (energy) cannot be created or destroyed.  The skeptic comes in and makes a claim such as, “Quantum theory…holds that a vacuum…is subject to quantum uncertainties.  This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly…Theoretically, anything – a god, a house, a planet – can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation.  Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles…are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly…The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.  Nevertheless, in 1973, an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tyron suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way…The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth’s phrase ‘a free lunch’.” (Brad Lemley, “Guth’s Grand Guess,” Discover (April 2002)). However, there are a few responses I can make to this.  First of all I can make the claim that these virtual particles are nothing more than theoretical entities.  Therefore there is no proof that these particles actually do indeed exist and seems just as much a belief as one believes in an all-powerful creator.  Another argument I can make is that the use of the term vacuum in the “quantum vacuum” is kind of misleading.  Here it does not refer to absolutely nothing but actually a sea of fluctuating energy.  This sea is a place of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.  The particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of energy in the vacuum.  So in reality, proponents of this theory have only resulted in pushing creation back one step.  They must still then answer where the quantum vacuum came from.  Also, one cannot use quantum physics to explain the origin of the domain that quantum physics operate in.  One needs something that transcends beyond the domain to explain it.  I will even add further proof to the first premise by quoting David Hume, the father of all that is skeptical.  He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” (David Hume, The Letters of David Hume, Two Volumes, J.Y.T. Greig, editor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923).  If that statement doesn’t help my case nothing will.  I believe then that the first premise is well substantiated.
     The universe began to exist
     This part of the argument is probably one of the most attacked parts of the KA.  The good thing about that is that there have been a lot of responses.  I believe the best way to prove this statement is through a mathematical/philosophical approach.  The assertion is clearly made as the following:  the universe cannot be infinite because that leads to absurdities.  Since an infinite past would involve an actual infinity number of events, the past simply cannot be infinite.  To put it in a logical order,
An actual infinite cannot exist
A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite
Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist
To claim that the universe had no beginning is the equivalent to saying that there are an actual infinite number of past events in the history of the universe.  To show why this is wrong I will offer various examples of why actual infinites lead to absurdity even if actual infinities were real.  Example one: Let us suppose that person X had an infinite number of marbles we will call M.  Person X wants to give an infinite number of marbles to person Y.  One way X could give Y an infinite number of marbles is to give Y all the marbles.  So M – M = 0.  X could also give Y every odd number marble; both would end up with an infinite number of marbles.  So M – M = M.  Also X could give Y all the marbles that are numbered 5 and greater.  So M – M = 5.  In all three cases, I have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but I have come up with non-identical results.  Mathematicians even know this and, as such, are forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic.  These lead to contradictions.  Take this example and put “past events” in place of “marbles” and you get a universe that can’t have an infinite number of past events; it then must have a beginning.  Craig, in “Philosophical and Science Pointers”, gave the next example.  Imagine a library with an actual infinite number of books.  Suppose further that there is an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books in the library.  Does it really make sense to say that there are as many black books in the library as there are red and black books together?  Surely not.  Furthermore, I could withdraw all the black books and not change the total holdings in the library.  Let us also assume that each book has an actual infinite number of pages.  There would be just as many pages in the first book in the library as there are in the entire, infinite collection.  This is further proof that an actual infinite cannot exist and thus the universe cannot be infinite but rather have a beginning.  Someone who is skeptical can still try and make some criticism of this but all fall short.  One could say that this then show that God can’t be infinitely old, or always existed.  This would be true if God existed in time and space.  However the standard view of God put Him outside of space and time although He can enter space and time whenever He wants; which is a completely different topic altogether.  Another argument is that the mere presence of infinite set theory in math is enough to dispel the above puzzles.  They say the fact that there is such a thing as infinite set theory shows that the language and theory of infinite sets are coherent and we must adjust our world view accordingly.  This objection is also wrong.  The mere presence of a generally accepted theory in math says nothing, by itself, about anything in the real world of entities.  There have been a few other criticism of the existence of actual infinites but all fail.
     Therefore, the universe has a cause
     Since I have stated a deductively valid argument and proven both my preemies then my conclusion holds.  It is of interest to note that in the days of Aquinas the universe was thought to be static and infinite.  He is noted as stating that if he had to start with the premise that the universe had a beginning then his task of proving God would be too easy.  Oh, if only Aquinas had done better in his math classes.
     Personal Creator
     Now I have only proven that the universe has a cause.  I still need to prove that the cause was God.  Well thanks the KA, I can do just that.  Since the universe is caused, I am left with two choices in the Causer.  Either the causer was impersonal or personal.  We must first look at the ontologically prior state of affairs.  This can be described as there was no time, space, or change of any kind.  In this state of affairs, either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the first event existed from all eternity in a state of immutability or they did not.  If they did not, this only leads to an infinite regress of first events.  So the only way a physicalist understanding of the beginning of the universe can avoid the first event being uncaused is to say that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the first event existed from all eternity in a timeless, changeless state.  These conditions for some reasons or another gave rise to the first event.  However in a physical universe X is the efficient cause of Y, then given the presence of X, Y obtains spontaneity.  There is no deliberation, no waiting.  So spontaneous change or mutability is built into the situation itself.  Therefore, if the cause was impersonal then it would have had its initial conditions met eternally and thus it would exist from eternity past.  The effect would be co-eternal with the cause.  There is only one way for the first even to arise spontaneously from a timeless, changeless, spaceless state and at the same be caused is that the event resulted from the free act of a person or agent.  He can create a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions.  Edmund Whittake, in The Beginning and End of the World, stated “There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action.  For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?  It is simpler to postulate creation ex niilo (Divine will constituting nature from nothingness).  Some critics may say that this doesn’t show the Creator still in existence today.  In response, it is certainly possible that this Creator still exists since He transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.  Since He created those laws, it’s unlikely that those laws could extinguish the Creator.
     Other Types of Universes
     The above only works in the type of universe I have described.  So what if the universe is not like how I, and most scientists, described it?  This would be a perfect way for skeptics to try and foil me.
     One type of alternative universe is the Steady State theory proposed by Fred Hoyle.  This theory states that the universe was expanding but claimed that as galaxies retreat from each other, new matter comes into being out of nothing and fills the void.  So as this universe violates the first law of thermodynamics, the universe is supposedly constantly replenished with new matter.  In order to prove the existence of God I must come up with a solution under these new types of criteria.  So I will look at the scientific evidence that is used with this theory.  There is none!  The steady state theory has never produced one single piece of experimental verification.  The only reason it was thought up was to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe in our original universe model.
     Another type of alternative universe is the Oscillating Model proposed by Carl Sagan.  This theory eliminates the need for an absolute beginning of the universe by suggesting the universe expands, the collapses, then expands again, and etc. to infinity.  I don’t find pleasure in disagreeing with Dr. Sagan, which I was a fan of his Cosmos programs when I was young, but I must.  The first problem is that this theory contradicts the known laws of physics.  As long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of beginning is inevitable, and it’s impossible to pass through a beginning to a subsequent state.  There is no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the beginning.  Another problem with this theory is that in order for the universe to contract at some point it would have to be dense enough to generate the sufficient gravity to not only slow the expansion to a halt but also, with increasing rapidity, contract into a big crunch.  Estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is way below the density needed.  Finally, even if physics were to allow the universe to contract, entropy would be conserved from one cycle to the next.  This would have the effect of each expansion getting bigger and bigger.  Now if we trace that backwards in time we see something interesting.  The expansions get smaller and smaller, until you reach a point of the smallest cycle.  This is the beginning of the universe!  So Dr. Sagan just helped me in my proof of God!
     Now for my favorite part…I will refute Steven Hawking!  I will do this humbly, of course.  In Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time, he writes, “So long as the universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.  But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end:  it would simple be.  What place, then, for a creator?”  Now let us remember here that he said “if a universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator”.  Hawking’s model of the universe looks like a cone but instead of coming to a point the end is rounded.  The model shows no singularity, hence the round end instead of the normal sharp edge of the model we now use.  If one were to start at the mouth of the cone and go backward in time you would not come back to a beginning point.  One would not come back to a beginning point but, instead, follow the curve and thus one would be heading forward in time again.  Well there we go.  His model shows no beginning, no singularity, and no need for God.  Do I believe Steven Hawking made a mistake here?  I would never be so bold.  However one must look at what is true in math and what is true in the real world.  I believe Dr. Hawking has made a philosophical error in his model.  His model still has a beginning in the sense that one must pick a point which will have a finite past duration.  Also, I believe, he has made another error.  He is only able to achieve his round portion of his model because he uses imaginary numbers in his equations.  He does this to turn time into a dimension of space.  However, imaginary numbers only help in making the math easier and more able to fit the results wanted.  When you want to use the model in the real world you must convert the imaginary numbers into real ones.  So what happens if I do Hawking’s work for him?  Why, by golly, singularity appears again!  Now to be fair, Hawking has admitted to using the imaginary numbers because, he says, he doesn’t know what reality is.  Also, remember what I told you to remember he said.  “If a universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator”.  Is that Steven Hawking proving the existence of God?!
     Conclusion
     Now I am in no way claiming that the KA or even the CA proves the existence of God conclusively and there is so much more on both sides of the debate that I have not discussed.  However, I believe that this argument is unfairly brushed aside not only by the skeptics but by some believers as well.  The beauty of these arguments is that it leads to so much more of an understanding of us and everything in the universe.  It ranges from the very big universe, to nature, to our own interactions.  We must take the subject of God very seriously because to refuse to believe in Him because of bias or ignorance is only faulted on those who do so.  The end results and consequences will be there.  It is up to all of us, individually, to find the Truth.

     Sources

•      Moreland, J.P. and Kai Nielsen.  Does God Exist?  Amherst, NY:  Prometheus, 1993
•      Moreland, J.P.  Scaling the Secular City – A Defense of Christianity.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1995
•      Strobel, Lee.  The Case For A Creator.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2004.
•      Craig, William Lane.  “Design and the Cosmological Arugement.”  In Mere Creation, ed.  William A. Dembski.  Downer’s Grove, Ill.:  InterVarsity, 1998.
o      Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, Ill.: Corssway, revised edition, 1994.
o      , and Quentin Smith.  Theism, Atheism, and Big Band Cosmology.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1993.

Patrick <redacted>
Soc. 466
Research Paper

In 2000, the Michigan legislature amended its firearm laws and made Michigan a “shall issue” state in regards to concealed weapons.  Before this new amendment came about county review boards had wide discretion on issuing concealed weapons to private individuals.  The former view taken before was that citizens had to show a need in having a concealed weapons permit; this was called “may issue”.  Now that this law has been enacted, anyone can obtain a concealed weapons permit who meets the guidelines issued by the law.  The National Rife Association (NRA), in 1985, sought to lobby “shall issue” laws in states.  The first states that went to “shall issue” laws were Florida in 1987, Mississippi in 1990, and Oregon in 1990.  About one third of the states now have the “shall issue” law, including Michigan.  
It is my charge that laws like this will not only benefit the safety of private citizens but also reduce the amount of crime.  My stance is that if “shall issue” laws are enacted by other states then the crime in those states will decrease as well.  I believe that by allowing citizens, who are mostly your average, upstanding members of society, to carry concealed weapons will allow them to protect themselves and their property.  For example, a 100 pound woman goes to her car at night and is accosted by a 350 pound man who attempts to rape her.  If she is carrying a weapon, she can defend herself.  If she is not, she has to let the man rape her, hope that he doesn’t kill her, and then work up the courage to go to the hospital and the police.  Another example is a man is walking down the street and is approached by a man with a gun or a knife who tells him to give him his wallet.  This man is now able to defend himself is he is carrying a concealed weapon.  Not only does this view deal with specific deterrence but it also deals with general deterrence.  For example, a mugger is out on the prowl and he’s been hearing all these reports of a lot of people in the city getting concealed weapons permits.  He looks at the fifty or so people that pass him on the street and he’s afraid to mug anyone for fear of being killed.  He does not know who is or who isn’t carrying a weapon on their personage.  He goes home empty handed.  This is exactly the kind of policy that conservatives are more likely to support.  They would support this type of policy because conservatives are more into protecting citizens from criminals rather than trying to treat the criminals.  Conservatives have always been a staunch supporter or gun rights.  This law was enacted for many reasons.  First of all, the citizens of the states did not feel secure.  As 69-year-old, Detroit citizen, Lander Walker said, “I'm afraid to go out at night.  I'm afraid to go to the store.”1 Walker tried to apply for a concealed weapon before the “shall issue” law was past and said, “They told me I had to be robbed to get a permit.  I told them I'd be dead before I got one. ... I listen to a police scanner. Every night somebody is kicking elderly people's doors in.”  Now that the “shall issue” law has past, Mr. Walker says he feels safer.  Even women are obtaining concealed weapons permits. Jessica Lutz of Huntington Woods, Michigan, told the Detroit Free Press, while on her way to apply for her concealed weapons permit, “When I found out how much safer women could be . . . what's my choice there?”2 She saw the need for concealed weapons in her life.  Stories like these are felt by others and have forced legislatures to listen to the people’s cries to let them be able to protect themselves and their families.  Many gun advocates are pleased with “shall issue” laws since they see that proper guidelines have been setup to not allow the few dangerous people from obtaining them legally and the implementation of attending a gun safety class.
     There is a huge amount of evidence to support to notion of “more guns equals less crime”.  I will first start with the man who coined that term, Dr. John R. Loot, Jr.  In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, he claims that the use of concealed weapons has significantly reduced the amount of crime in America.  He supports this position by using social economic data from the census and other surveys in different parts of the US in different years to compile his crime rate statistic.  His results show that violent crime has dropped greatly as a result of the use of concealed weapons.  Among the statistical data, he blames the bias in the media for not reporting on the use of defensive use of concealed weapons.  This results in the public’s perception that concealed weapons are rarely used.  "While news stories sometimes chronicle the defensive uses of guns, such discussions are rare compared to those depicting violent crime committed with guns. Since in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police. I believe that this underreporting of defensive gun use is large, and this belief has been confirmed by the many stories I received from people across the country after the publicity broke on my original study."...Pizza deliverymen defend themselves against robbers, carjackings are thwarted, robberies at automatic teller machines are prevented, and numerous armed robberies on the streets and in the stores are foiled, though these do not receive the national coverage of other gun crimes. Yet the cases covered by the news media are hardly typical; most of the encounters reported involve a shooting that ends in a fatality."7
Another academic that has taken this stance is Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University.  Dr. Kleck’s work has been invaluable in the debate of concealed weapons laws.  Kleck addressed the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence in 1990 stated, “…when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery.”  His research has even turned Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists.  “I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country…What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator...Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”3 In Dr. Kleck’s research, he has found that, on average, 1.5 million people annually have used a weapon to defend themselves.  That means that at least 1.5 million crimes have not occurred, and the reason for this is the ability to legally have people carry firearms.4 His collection of data on this is expansive.  He has even factored in the use of firearms, both handguns and other types of weapons, and excluding police, military, and security, have found that 2.4 million people have used a firearm in defense.5
It seems as if the use of concealed weapons is effective by these two criminologists alone.  However, I will present more evidence to prove my case.  Let us look at the state that has applied the “shall issue” law first, since they have had more time to accumulate data.  Before the passage of the law, the homicide rate in Florida was between 118% and 157%.  Within the first five years of passage, it was found that homicide rates have decreased, by 21%.  This was at a time when the homicide rate in America was increasing.  By 1991, people in Florida were less likely to be murdered than anyone else in America.  When America started to decrease in the homicide rate around 1992 by 10%, Florida “only” decreased 5% then leveled off.6 Now Florida, I must say, is a rare case.  This drastic change is the most remarkable one.  In Michigan, since the “shall issue” law came into affect, homicide rate has decreased only 4%.  I should also point out, that it is hard to say just how much general and specific deterrence has occurred has actually been caused by “shall issue” laws.  However, according to the Michigan State Police, on their website, shows that Michigan’s crime rate has decreased in the last five years in all areas of violent crimes, with the exception of rape.  It also must be noted that this has occurred in a time of war, terrorism, uncertainty, job loss, and recession.  These are times when the crime rate has been known to rise.
So does this policy work?  From the data gathered it appears so.  First of all Dr. Kleck conducted a random telephone sampling of about 5,000 households in 48 states.  It was found that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year.5 “Shall issue” laws seem to give access to people who think themselves responsible enough to carry a weapon and the need in society to use one if necessary.  Some might think that the carrying of a concealed weapon means you are more apt to use it.  However, the National Self-Defense Survey indicates that no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who actually fired their weapon; so this is about 200,000 total.  Others might believe that having more guns means you have more homicides.  Having an increase in concealed weapons shows little proof in having affect on the homicide rate rising.  In fact, citizens legally kill more criminals than police officers do.  Of the 24,614 civilian homicide deaths in the United States in 1990, 5.6% to 13% were legal civilian defensive homicides.  Some might think that having a concealed weapon does nothing to deter criminals from attack people.  Through his research, Dr. Kleck has shown that, “Serious predatory criminals perceive a risk from victim gun use that is roughly comparable to that of criminal-justice-system actions, and this perception may influence their criminal behavior in socially desirable ways.”8 John Lott also concluded that, “The more people obtain permits over time, the more violent crime rates decline. For each additional year that these laws are in effect, murders declined by another 3 percent, rapes by 2 percent and robberies by 2 percent.  These are the drops over and above the recent national declines in violent crime - and after the impacts of such things as changing arrest and conviction rates, demographics and other gun control laws have been accounted for.”  He goes on to explain who benefits the most from increased gun ownership, “The reductions in violent crime are greatest in the most crime prone, most urban areas. Women, the elderly and blacks gained by far the most from this ability to protect themselves.”  Do these laws help deter criminals before they strike?  He goes on to say, “The fact that these weapons are concealed keeps criminals uncertain as to whether potential victims will be able to defend themselves with lethal force.”9
To be realistic, not every permit owner is law abiding.  However, permits are revoked for at only hundredths or thousandths of 1%, and most of these revocations have nothing to do with improper use of a firearm.  Despite millions of people currently holding permits and some states having issued permits for as long as 60 years, not one permit holder has to date been convicted of manslaughter or murder. 9 What about those crazy permit holders that shoot others after traffic accidents or angry-drivers-cut-off-in-traffic?  They have proven to be completely unfounded. Only one single permit holder has ever used a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case involved self-defense. No permit holder has ever killed a police officer. Instead, permit holders have on occasion saved the lives of police officers who were being attacked by criminals. Lott’s research has also found no evidence that concealed handgun laws caused accidental gun deaths or suicides to increase.  Lott claims that, “Everyone who has tried has been able to replicate my findings, and only three have written pieces critical of my general approach.  Although the vast majority of researchers concur that concealed handgun laws significantly deter crime, not even these three critics have argued that the laws increases crime. Both sides in the gun control debate have their own anecdotal stories, and surely many hypothetical horror stories will be raised before this campaign is through. Fortunately these fears are easily disproved once one looks at the experience in other states. It is the criminals and not law-abiding citizens who should fear a law that allows citizens to defend themselves.” 9 Lott’s thought here is shown again and again.  It is not the citizen who legally obtains a firearm and carries it to protect themselves that we should worry about.  No, we should fear the criminal who illegally obtains a weapon and carries it to perpetrate more crimes.
Like any policy there are strengths and weaknesses to it.  One weakness is giving the ability for new criminals to obtain a firearm legally and use it.  These new criminals would not have a criminal record to be denied by the “shall issue” law and therefore would be able to legally carry his/her firearm with them to cause crime.  However rare this might be, the problem still remains.  However the 2.5 million crimes deterred by the use of a concealed weapon are hard to overlook.  According to the FBI, The nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and in 2002 hit a 23-year low. In the same period, 17 states adopted and 13 states improved concealed weapons laws. “Shall issue” states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are “shall issue” states.  In fact, those states that have stricter gun laws are apt to have more crime.  For example, Washington D.C. has one of the harshest restrictions on gun rights. D.C. has the highest rate of homicides per capita of all the nation's biggest cities. 10 There is also a chance that suicide rates could increase.  However, if someone wants to kill themselves, they don’t need a gun to do it.
If policymakers wish to explore a possible alternative to the policy based on a liberal approach they will have to do things differently.  If these people do not wish to issue concealed weapons permits then they must get rid of all guns everywhere and stop them from coming into the country.  Also they must take away things that could be used to harm people or be used in the perpetration of a crime.  Examples of these would be the following: knives, bats, fists, muscular men, axes, swords, letter openers, fountain pens, etc.  They must also stop men from attempting to rape or attack women.  They must also stop crime.  Finally, they must take all guns and other objects of war away from the police, security, and the military in order to protect the people from the government.  Just like how Hitler, Stalin, and Mao talked its people into giving up their weapons in the name of gun control.  Obviously, here I am being a bit facetious.  Some less liberal approach would be to have “may issue” laws but not make the requirements as strict.  They also might put a few more restrictions on obtaining a permit through “shall issue” or a type of monitoring program on a person’s use of their concealed weapon.  On the other hand if a very conservative type approach would be tried it would look very different.  A more conservative approach would get the message out to more people and encourage citizens in arming themselves.  They would also advertise and get the word out that tons more people are obtaining concealed weapons.  This would be a great blow to criminals being scared to act in a deviant way.  The deeper training period in the use of a firearm and possible scenarios in dealing with a criminal might also be a requirement to obtain a concealed weapons license.
I believe the numbers speak for themselves.  Criminals will always find a way to obtain a weapon illegally.  An upstanding citizen wants to follow the laws of the land, be safe, and just live his/her life.  Not letting that person protect him/herself in the best way possible is not only dangerous but unconstitutional.  The 2.5 million legal uses of a concealed weapon being use yearly would be enough to convince anyone willing to open mindedly look at the data.  More people are obtaining concealed weapons licenses, more states are passing “shall issue” laws, and the streets are not running red with the blood of the victims those weapons.  Concealed weapons prevent crime.  “Shall issue” laws help prevent crime.

Sources
1 - Gary Heinlein (2000, December 14). Lawmakers OK Concealed Guns Bill - Measure goes to governor, eases rules on permits.  The Detroit News.
2 – Kathleen Gray and John Masson (2002, February 21).  Weapons law draws women to get arms. Detroit Free Press.
3 - Marvin E. Wofgang (1995).  A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Col. 86 No.1.
4 - Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (1995).  Armed Resistance to Crime:  The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With A Gun.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86 No. 1.
5 - Gary Kleck (2005).  Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New Jersey:  Transaction Publishers.
6 - Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel (1994, October 17).  “Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws.  Retrieved November 20, 2005.  http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html
7 - John R. Lott Jr. (2000).  More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.  Chicago, Illinois:  University of Chicago Press.
8 – J. Neil Schulman, afterword by Gary Kleck (1994).  Stopping Power:  Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns.  Pahrump, NV:  Pulpless.com, Incorporated.
9 – John R. Lott Jr. (1999, March 20).  Do Concealed Guns Deter Crime?  The Kansas City Star.
10 – Marie Skeleton (2004, February 17).  D.C. Murder Rate Highest in Nation.  George Mason's Broadside Newspaper

No please go Nazi over it...and I've already handed it in.

X
(Actual response to the question:  Q: What was Hitler's first name?  A: Hail)