So, reading through some comments regarding the Commercial Appeal and their decision to publish a searchable database of concealed weapon permit holders, there was this comment that I've seen said time and time again that I want to address (again, as it is).
The boneheaded argument is this
But, I thought the argument was that if you were armed you were LESS likely to be the victim of crime. So, which is it?
No gold star for you, buddy. Being armed doesn't automatically make one less likely to be a crime victim. What it does is change the outcome. Your chances of surviving and even repelling the attack are much greater when you can overpower your assailant.
A 5'6" thug weighing in at 122 pounds isn't going to be able to successfully attack a 6'7", 380lb. linebacker for the Detroit Lions, regardless of their losing season. Conversely, a frail, 73 year old woman is no match physically for a young punk hell bent on roughing her up and taking her social security check.
Add a weapon into her hands, and her chances of coming out unharmed go up. Add an effective weapon like a gun, they go up even more.
The argument (if you can call it that) that someone who has a firearm is less likely to be a victim of a crime is a strawman at best. But that's all the other side has, strawmen, innuendo (Oh look! A substitute penis!), and arguments based on emotion rather than facts and logic.