I think people are beginning to recognize that "I'm from Washington, and I'm here to help" is the biggest come-on con-artist line going. And maybe people are really tired of having the hysterics shove the latest "omigodthinkofthechildren!!!!!" baloney rallying cry in their face.

Bob81 - the Harvard Journal of Constitutional Law and Policy presented a thoroughly researched piece that analyzed crime statistics in areas where firearms regulations were rather strict vs. areas where firearms regulations were less strict. The researchers for substantial evidence to support the conclusion that areas where firearms prohibitions were at a minimum - meaning more people could possess and carry (concealed or open) firearms - crime was significantly reduced. I have the article around here somewhere, I'll see if I can't get it for you.

It's only 5 points but it seems strange that gun ownership hasn't gone up at least a little. Maybe people that are thinking about buying a gun for the first time are finding out how strict the laws already are: waiting periods, background checks, all the forms you have to fill out & the regulations you need to learn.

Mike D.

It should read, "I'm from Chicago, er Washington, yeah that's right, and I'm here to help, er uh, collect your taxes, your common sense, your liberty, your guns, and your rights and redistribute them the way WE see fit..."

"every state that has legalized concealed carry has seen a significant reduction in violent crime statistics"

CRM3006,
Not disputing your assertation, but do you have any independent studies to back that up? I'd love to see some data on that that does not come from the NRA. I've seen a number of (rather biased) studies that point to a reduction in crime in concealed carry districts, but fail to recognize the across the board drop in crime since the early 90's. (A time-frame that interestingly-enough, mirrors the one reflected in the above-study)

Bob81 - Dug up the volume and I seems I have an error to correct. The name of the publication is the "Harvard Journal of Law & Policy." The title of the piece is "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide," by Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Don Kates is "an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute," and Gary Mauser is a Canadian criminologist and professor. The article appears in Vol. 30, No. 2 of the Spring 2007 issue of the Journal. There is also an wonderful article examining similar issues titled, "Why Can't Martha Stewart Have A Gun?" in the Spring 2009 issue of the same Journal.

I hope that the public has slowly realized that the states with the strictest gun laws are no safer that the ones with the most leanient laws. Often, they have even more violent crime. Over time, I think the people with a rosy view of reality are starting to see that the criminals are ALWAYS gonna' have guns. What good does a 'ban' or stricter background checks do when the crooks are stealing their guns, or buying them stolen?

Ruckweiler, I strongly second that....

Maybe, just maybe, the pendulum is swinging back our way...

Outstanding: It's about time more American wake up and see that they need to stand up for their rights and themselves.

It also helps strengthen our Second Ammendment rights by giving it a stronger voice.

hopefully it has something to do with Americans realizing that the government is trying to take control of everything they can get there hands on. Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend in which people want less government control instead of more. Hopefully this is the one that starts the ball rolling toward less government restrictions.

I'd say its education programs and the wealth of information that people have at their fingertips that have done the trick. Through the work of the NRA and other sportsmen foundations, people are learning that firearms are not the boogeymen they are portrayed as by the likes of Ceasefire and the Brady Campaign.

this news warms me like seeing a deer on a cold winter's day, right in the heart it brings some warmth

Except by the police and other authorized persons?

Ask police and other authorized persons what "Agency" is responsible for your personnel protection!

GO AHEAD AND WATCH THEM BURST INTO FLAMES!

Even the NRA is too damn chicken to ask this question because no Agency cannot be responsible even if they were at your front door!