A Doctor argues for guns as "health insurance"

Great caution needs to be taken with cross-sectional data, but given the weight that so many people put on them, I thought that I would point to this piece. It is understandable that these numbers are easy for people to understand, and I have referenced these numbers myself in the past, but a warning on the weaknesses of cross-sectional data should be included.

I posited that earlier in American history, a Winchester rifle was the most potent health insurance (it was the only kind, really) most people could get. I also alluded to how this might still be the case today...

Seriously, folks - despite all the mainstream's trumped-up claims about the dangers of firearms (the one about a gun in the home being more likely to harm the homeowner than a criminal cracks me up), the real statistics firmly cement the fact that legally owned and carried guns do far, far more good than harm.

Cases in point, from public records: In U.S. states that DON'T ALLOW law-abiding citizens to pack heat without restriction...

There are 89% more violent crimes than in states that allow "concealed carry" (that's gun-speak for being legal to carry a hidden firearm on your person)
There are 127% more murders than in states that allow concealed carry
There are 25% more rapes than in states that allow concealed carry
There are 96% more aggravated assaults than in states that allow concealed carry
There are 106% more robberies than in states that allow concealed carry. . . .