Looking for resources for a class paper

Ik working on any senior paper and decided to write a policy analysis on CCW permits in California. Most of the resources I can find are slanted towards gun control and do not seem to distinguish between self defense and being victimized. They seem to squash it all Together as gun violence and seem to believe that for example people have a 20% higher chance of surviving or stopping a mass shooting without a firearm and suing something else. They didn’t not supply an in-text citation so I’m not putting much stick into that statement. Any suggestion for finding resources to find information. And does anyone know where Eli can find out how many Californians have out of state non resident CCW?


When I was taking university courses, our school’s online library offered many online journal sources, many of which were professional and non-judgmental, less biased, as the authors were from all over the U.S.

Despite some of our dislikes of google, nobody’s perfect. Their “google scholar” journals were infinite, and a main staple for my class:


In terms of how many Californians have out of state non-resident CCL? Tricky one. Being a recent student myself, I can see how just searching for data, can in and of itself sharpen your skills.

Would the states in which they are licensed in have a list of the states from which their licensees are from, and would said states divulge it? If within California, certified CCL instructors who teach the classes for the most common or popular outside states - “shared” how many students they have in class each month or each year, ‘that might be an “interesting” statistic to write about’. In my area, the most popular non-resident classes are from instructors qualified to teach for Arizona, Utah, and Florida.

I have seen websites publish the number of certified instructors qualified to teach class for certain outside states. Good luck with your school project. Already, we stand on your shoulders.

I’m a film buff. There’s a scene in ‘Better Call Saul’, where the DEA interviewing suspect ‘Mike’ (though a likable criminal)”, ask him “Which states are you CCL licensed in”; He replies, “It would be easier to share which states in which I’m not”.

State Stats:


Another spot to check out.

Gun Facts - Gun Control Policy Information


Have you tried contacting the NRA, GOA, and other 2A-supporting organizations to see what research they have done?


It is not necessarily California-specific but take a look at John Lott and his work. He provides citations for all his work. Some links to get you started.



Crime Prevention Research Center has a lot of data.

Over the years I’ve bookmarked a good number of articles and studies and statistics (google is often not helpful), I don’t know if I have anything specifically for california but if you need general statistics or specific inquiries I can probably help or point in the right direction.

1 Like

Back in the day when John Lott was getting started with the Crime Prevention Research Center and he was just a lowly professor :), I called his office–he answered, and talked to me and answered some questions I had. GREAT guy. I’m sure now that he’s famous, he will be hard to get hold of, but if he instilled his approachability in the culture there, I’d give them a call.


Look for a paper on USCCA site called Concealed Carry: Fact or Fiction or something close to it. @Dawn might be able to link it faster.

A few facts.

Concealed Carriers are 6.8 times less likely to get in legal trouble than all law enforcement. Local and federal.

More people are killed by being beaten or kicked to death than they are of being shot by the dreaded AR-15.

If you take 5 cities that have some of the harshest gun control laws in the country out of the gun deaths count. The US goes from top 10 to 180 ish in the world.

Taking guns away has done nothing to suicide rates

Most real mass shootings ( not your local gangs getting at each other) but real mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

Read that report it’s an actually peer reviewed report by 2 respected. Liberal professors who got their statistics from the CDC, FBI, Sheriff’s national association and Police officers national association.



Although one can always quote an “established” source/person for statements, without statistics it should carry less weight. If you can get a hold of the raw data, or the numbers before the analysis, that should help you both create, as well as support your theory.

I might look at both pro and anti articles that specifically site studies, look at their citations (sometimes the citation has citations) and try to find the original studies, breakdown flaws in the collection, misinterpretations of the data and/or analyses, and conflicting statistics. Sometimes I use the The World Factbook - CIA to get started.

I might also try to contact local pro 2a organizations to help direct you to data that might not be pushed by the MSM.

One suggestion, would be to look at one statement from an anti 2a piece, look at what study or pro 2a article they were argueing about, then break down the analysis that was based on that statement. This can be a deep rabbit hole. For example, if I read The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand, it leads me to CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative, which leads me to Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (NAP) which (of their multiple but dated citations to this among others) leads me to this Risk factors among handgun retailers for frequent and disproportionate sales of guns used in violent and firearm related crimes (Wintemute, 2006).

This is an example of slowly getting down to the original context and/or data. Be aware, that the actual studies are often written for scientific consumption, discussion, and publication, and are weighty reads. The blips we get at the “ordinary people” level of these studies are usually heavily oversimplified, i.e. by both “The Washington Post” and the corresponding “The New American” articles mentioned at the beginning of the rabbit hole.