If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Detroit_News)   Detroit Police Chief admits that legal gun owners can deter crime...mostly because nobody can count on the Detroit Police to actually deter or solve any crimes   (detroitnews.com) divider line 63
    More: Interesting, Detroit Police, police chiefs, gun owners, justifiable homicide, guns  
•       •       •

385 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2014 at 10:42 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-03 08:01:51 AM  
With 30 minute response times for serious crimes, that's really the only card he has.
 
2014-01-03 08:03:57 AM  
Your move, creep.
 
2014-01-03 08:05:12 AM  
The Dystopian future is now... in Detroit!
 
2014-01-03 08:19:55 AM  
I don't know about civilians deterring crime, but in a place like Detroit self defense seems pretty critical as the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled back in 1981 in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police have no obligation to protect you.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9108468254125174344&q=Wa rr en+v.+District+of+Columbia&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1
 
2014-01-03 09:30:52 AM  
There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.


*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-03 09:39:37 AM  

dittybopper: There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.

*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.


Of course, that is only if you look at "papers" written by NRA hacks, who are basically the same as the climate change deniers and creationists.  The sort of people who think that you can judge the quality of research by how many papers it sites, even though it's just spin doctors citing each other.

If you look at actual scholarly work, it's pretty obvious that more guns do equal more crime.
 
2014-01-03 09:42:25 AM  
www.into-the-dark.com
'That's Detroit Snake.  You don't want to go in there.'
 
2014-01-03 09:47:31 AM  
Detroit files for bankruptcy, the Chief more or less admits that people are better off defending themselves with guns...I think it's time for this:

www.arcanemovietees.com
 
2014-01-03 09:50:07 AM  

vpb: dittybopper: There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.

*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.

Of course, that is only if you look at "papers" written by NRA hacks, who are basically the same as the climate change deniers and creationists.  The sort of people who think that you can judge the quality of research by how many papers it sites, even though it's just spin doctors citing each other.

If you look at actual scholarly work, it's pretty obvious that more guns do equal more crime.


Wow.  You sound just like a climate change/evolution denier.

"This doesn't fit my preconceived notion, so here is this study that does.  Ignore the others because they were written by NRA hacks.  Even the ones that found no net positive or negative effect, which were just written by subtle NRA hacks."

Of course, you didn't even bother to go to the links I put in.  If you had, you'd find that the same anti-gun researcher I also linked to has a couple papers in the "has no effect column" in addition to the "has a net negative effect column".

But he must be an NRA hack, right?  It's a double bluff.  An X-K-Red 27 technique, I guess.
 
2014-01-03 10:33:01 AM  

dittybopper: "This doesn't fit my preconceived notion, so here is this study that does.


It sounds like you dismiss that study, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
 
2014-01-03 10:34:25 AM  
, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

So it's down to what, 93% now?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-03 10:39:40 AM  
dittybopper:

Of course, you didn't even bother to go to the links I put in.  If you had, you'd find that the same anti-gun researcher I also linked to has a couple papers in the "has no effect column" in addition to the "has a net negative effect column".

Wow, that's a real projection problem you have there.

You are the dude claiming that there are two "schools of thought" on gun the relationship between gun violence and gun availability and that neither of them was that greater availability led to more crime.

And I did look at the article, and google the author, John R Lott jr.

Yep.  Pretty much a NRA type pro gun activist.  An conservative economist and "political commentator".

I like this quote from his blog:

Hypocrisy: Michael Bloomberg taking his police security detail with him as he leaves the mayor's office:
Bloomberg understands why someone such as himself wants armed body guards, but he has no sympathy for mere private citizens who probably face even greater risks from crime.  From the New York Post.

 Yes, that sounds like a really unbiased not at all pro NRA guy all right.  And yes, finding that there is no effect on crime or a positive effect is pretty much what I would expect an NRA hack to use.

This is the author of the study I referred to.  A public health researcher and not an activist at all.

So what were you saying about pre-conceived notions?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-03 10:42:23 AM  

Barfmaker: dittybopper: "This doesn't fit my preconceived notion, so here is this study that does.

It sounds like you dismiss that study, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.


This is the guy who wrote it.  I forgot to include the link.
 
2014-01-03 10:45:36 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.

*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.

Of course, that is only if you look at "papers" written by NRA hacks, who are basically the same as the climate change deniers and creationists.  The sort of people who think that you can judge the quality of research by how many papers it sites, even though it's just spin doctors citing each other.

If you look at actual scholarly work, it's pretty obvious that more guns do equal more crime.

Wow.  You sound just like a climate change/evolution denier.

"This doesn't fit my preconceived notion, so here is this study that does.  Ignore the others because they were written by NRA hacks.  Even the ones that found no net positive or negative effect, which were just written by subtle NRA hacks."

Of course, you didn't even bother to go to the links I put in.  If you had, you'd find that the same anti-gun researcher I also linked to has a couple papers in the "has no effect column" in addition to the "has a net negative effect column".

But he must be an NRA hack, right?  It's a double bluff.  An X-K-Red 27 technique, I guess.


Additionally, vpb's link did not relate specifically to concealed weapons permit systems, making the comparison invalid.
 
2014-01-03 10:52:05 AM  

Barfmaker: dittybopper: "This doesn't fit my preconceived notion, so here is this study that does.

It sounds like you dismiss that study, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.


I would dismiss the study because it purports to study the effects of firearm ownership in general, and not concealed weapons permit systems (which was the basis of dittybopper's statement), and because its conclusion relates to "gun murders" and not total murder rates.

An analysis of the effect of firearm ownership on murder rates should study total homicide rates, not just rates of homicide committed with use of a firearm. Studying only the latter rate can result in an artificially and dishonestly inflated correlation.
 
2014-01-03 10:52:53 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Your move, creep.


There are times that I love FARK so very, very much.  This is one of those times.
 
2014-01-03 10:53:51 AM  
I'm sure it does.
 
2014-01-03 10:55:36 AM  

jaylectricity: , adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

So it's down to what, 93% now?


I'd really like to see the population decrease compared to the crime decrease.

Could be crime is down due to there not being anyone around to rob.

oh, and guns!

img199.imageshack.us

fastest way I know to spend 5 thousand dollars.
 
2014-01-03 10:56:50 AM  
Finally, some hard evidence against the flawed notion that you're less likely to get shot if there are no guns.
 
2014-01-03 10:56:59 AM  

Tyee: I'm sure it does.


Worked well here:
(CNN) -- A Detroit-area man who claimed he accidentally shot and killed a 19-year-old woman he thought was breaking into his home was charged Friday with second-degree murder, after days of pressure from her relatives seeking an arrest.
 
2014-01-03 10:58:12 AM  
It's clearly the concealed carry permit holders who are shooting up Detroit. Gun control advocates are morons.
 
2014-01-03 10:58:39 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: fastest way I know to spend 5 thousand dollars.


couldn't you just buy a thing that costs five thousand dollars? I bet that's fast.
 
2014-01-03 11:00:35 AM  

Cletus C.: Finally, some hard evidence against the flawed notion that you're less likely to get shot if there are no guns.


There will always be guns.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-03 11:01:56 AM  

Doom MD: It's clearly the concealed carry permit holders who are shooting up Detroit. Gun control advocates are morons.


Because requiring permits isn't gun control?

You are such a genius.
 
2014-01-03 11:04:13 AM  

vpb: Doom MD: It's clearly the concealed carry permit holders who are shooting up Detroit. Gun control advocates are morons.

Because requiring permits isn't gun control?

You are such a genius.


Because that's clearly what I said. So you won't mind if I use my permit to mount a 50 cal on my car, right?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-03 11:17:47 AM  

Doom MD: Because that's clearly what I said. So you won't mind if I use my permit to mount a 50 cal on my car, right?


Yes, that clearly IS what you said, genius: "Gun control advocates are morons."

If that was irony you might need to work on it a bit.
 
2014-01-03 11:28:55 AM  

vpb: dittybopper: There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.

*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.

Of course, that is only if you look at "papers" written by NRA hacks, who are basically the same as the climate change deniers and creationists.  The sort of people who think that you can judge the quality of research by how many papers it sites, even though it's just spin doctors citing each other.

If you look at actual scholarly work, it's pretty obvious that more guns do equal more crime.


Or, you know, there's thisCongressional Research Service report that shows the firearm-related murder and homicide rate plummeted while gun ownership soared...
 
2014-01-03 11:33:49 AM  

joness0154: vpb: dittybopper: There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.

*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.

Of course, that is only if you look at "papers" written by NRA hacks, who are basically the same as the climate change deniers and creationists.  The sort of people who think that you can judge the quality of research by how many papers it sites, even though it's just spin doctors citing each other.

If you look at actual scholarly work, it's pretty obvious that more guns do equal more crime.

Or, you know, there's thisCongressional Research Service report that shows the firearm-related murder and homicide rate plummeted while gun ownership soared...


You neglect to consider how much more rates of firearm homicide would have decreased had the nation implemented a ban on pistol grips and collapsing stocks on semi-automatic rifles.
 
2014-01-03 11:34:34 AM  
Lesson from the thread: anti-gunners take umbrage when you throw the word "denier" at them. Noted for future use.
 
2014-01-03 11:35:35 AM  
The problem isn't that guns don't deter crime.

It's that the people most eager to use their guns to deter crime are the people you least want to be carrying guns. 

See: Zimmerman, George
See: Simcox, Chris
 
2014-01-03 11:40:22 AM  

jjorsett: Lesson from the thread: anti-gunners take umbrage when you throw the word "denier" at them. Noted for future use.


Concealed weapons permit opponents are much like same-sex marriage opponents. Both oppose expanding a liberty on the basis of a prediction of future harm, and both maintain that opposition even when the liberty is expanded and the predicted harm fails to manifest in any meaningful way*.

*"Meaningful" refers to a statistically significant result; isolated cases of concealed weapons permit holders committing unjustified homicide are no more meaningful that are isolated cases of married same-sex couples molesting children under their care.
 
2014-01-03 11:41:48 AM  

Dimensio: joness0154: vpb: dittybopper: There are actually two schools of thought on this, based upon scholarly work.  Laws that permit concealed carry either low violent crime, or they have no effect whatsoever.  Of the 30+ papers published on the subject, only 2 put forth the thesis that they actually increase violent crime*.  And both of those were co-authored by the same person who has a known, and self-admitted, anti-gun bias.

The idea that "more guns = more violent crime" is shown to be wrong by 94% of the papers published on the subject, and the other 6% can be dismissed as readily as global climate change deniers and people who don't believe in evolution.

*Article cites 30 papers, but I know of at least one other subsequently published, and it comes down on the "more guns, less crime" side.

Of course, that is only if you look at "papers" written by NRA hacks, who are basically the same as the climate change deniers and creationists.  The sort of people who think that you can judge the quality of research by how many papers it sites, even though it's just spin doctors citing each other.

If you look at actual scholarly work, it's pretty obvious that more guns do equal more crime.

Or, you know, there's thisCongressional Research Service report that shows the firearm-related murder and homicide rate plummeted while gun ownership soared...

You neglect to consider how much more rates of firearm homicide would have decreased had the nation implemented a ban on pistol grips and collapsing stocks on semi-automatic rifles.


Don't forget the barrel shroud aka the "shoulder thing that goes up"
 
2014-01-03 11:43:51 AM  
Clearly, Detroit's problems all stem from the fact that not enough people had access to guns.  I mean, poverty, income inequality, mismanagement, white flight, and racism might have something to do with Detroit's problems too.  But guns.

Remember folks, second amendment nonsense is much more important than any other issue.
 
2014-01-03 11:45:18 AM  
If I lived in Detroit, I would probably carry.  I choose instead to not live in Detroit.

/from Detroit
 
2014-01-03 11:50:18 AM  

Chummer45: Clearly, Detroit's problems all stem from the fact that not enough people had access to guns.  I mean, poverty, income inequality, mismanagement, white flight, and racism might have something to do with Detroit's problems too.  But guns.

Remember folks, second amendment nonsense is much more important than any other issue.


If any individual had actually seriously presented such an argument, your attempt at sarcasm would be meaningful.
 
2014-01-03 11:55:34 AM  
FTFA: "Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed."

That's some good logic there, Lou.
 
2014-01-03 11:59:23 AM  

Tyee: Cletus C.: Finally, some hard evidence against the flawed notion that you're less likely to get shot if there are no guns.

There will always be guns.


Lucky us.
 
2014-01-03 12:00:38 PM  

whatsupchuck: If I lived in Detroit, I would probably carry.  I choose instead to not live in Detroit.

/from Detroit


Hell, I won't work in Detroit and there are a couple of good companies down there...just not going to do it.  Longer drive, more taxes, more crime...so no.  It's just not worth it especially since there are plenty of jobs closer to home.
 
2014-01-03 12:06:27 PM  

Dimensio: Chummer45: Clearly, Detroit's problems all stem from the fact that not enough people had access to guns.  I mean, poverty, income inequality, mismanagement, white flight, and racism might have something to do with Detroit's problems too.  But guns.

Remember folks, second amendment nonsense is much more important than any other issue.

If any individual had actually seriously presented such an argument, your attempt at sarcasm would be meaningful.


The dimwitted police chief in the article more or less made that argument:

The Name: FTFA: "Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed."


The comparison he was making was to California, where it "takes an act of Congress" to get a CCW.   He seems to think that the only differences between Maine and California are the CCW laws.
 
2014-01-03 12:12:30 PM  
Clearly the chief needs to talk to the anti-gun farkers who know that a gun has never been used to stop a crime unless wielded by a cop
 
2014-01-03 12:19:03 PM  

jaylectricity: , adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

So it's down to what, 93% now?


Maybe the other 7% are dead so they didn't report it?
 
2014-01-03 12:59:43 PM  

Barfmaker: dittybopper: "This doesn't fit my preconceived notion, so here is this study that does.

It sounds like you dismiss that study, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.


OK, I skimmed the ThinkProgress article on it, and a couple of things stand out:

They use firearms suicide rates as a proxy for firearms ownership rates.  That right there is a *HUGE* leap of faith.  There are a number of cultural factors independent of firearms ownership that might confound that.

For example, the suicide rate in Florida is well above the national average, at 14.08 in 2007 (national average that year  was 11.49) .  It's also one of the first states to enact Shall-Issue concealed carry.  But what we aren't accounting for is that Florida is a very popular retirement state, so the population in Florida is older than the national average (US median age is 37.2, Florida is 40.7), and older people commit suicide at higher rates than younger people.   Some other "gun friendly" states like New Hampshire and Maine have similarly older-than-average populations.

If you look at just the firearms suicide rates, then Florida has a higher rate of those also, 6.99 per 100,000 versus 5.76 nationally.

That tracks almost exactly with the non-firearm homicide rate increase. though, so it doesn't tell us anything about relative firearms ownership.  It just tells us that older people, especially older males, are more likely to commit suicide:

www.globalaging.org

The thesis that more guns = more homicides is also at odds with known data at the national level:

static.guim.co.uk

That's a pretty good indicator that the number of guns in circulation is rising.

Meanwhile, the number of households reporting gun ownership is steady:

content.gallup.com

I suspect that the true number is around 50% or higher:  Gun owners got very paranoid about claiming they own guns to strangers after the original Brady Law and Assault Weapons Ban in the early 1990's, which could explain that massive drop from 54% in 1994 down to 40% in 1996.  Subsequently, the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010 could have made them more comfortable in reporting them in surveys, which results in the uptick from 41% to 47%.

And the homicide rate is going down, or, at worse, remaining steady:

www.krusekronicle.com


So, at the national level, we have ever-increasing numbers of guns being owned by approximately the same percentage of people, and the homicide rate has continued its gradual decline.

So I'm supposed to believe that more guns equals more homicides, which flies in the face of the data at the national level, and it's also at odds with the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers on the same subject.

Here's the latest one:

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).



I actually think that's backwards:  States and cities that had traditionally high homicide rates (or were perceived to be so by their legislatures) enacted bans and restrictions on carrying guns in response to that.

Either way, though, it shoots down the idea that allowing people to own and carry guns results in more homicides.
 
2014-01-03 01:20:23 PM  

Dimensio: jjorsett: Lesson from the thread: anti-gunners take umbrage when you throw the word "denier" at them. Noted for future use.

Concealed weapons permit opponents are much like same-sex marriage opponents. Both oppose expanding a liberty on the basis of a prediction of future harm, and both maintain that opposition even when the liberty is expanded and the predicted harm fails to manifest in any meaningful way*.

*"Meaningful" refers to a statistically significant result; isolated cases of concealed weapons permit holders committing unjustified homicide are no more meaningful that are isolated cases of married same-sex couples molesting children under their care.


So very much *THIS*

Back in the early 1990's, it was predicted that "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws would result in "blood in the streets".

It hasn't, and now the overwhelming majority of states are either "Shall Issue" or "Constitutional Carry":

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-03 01:23:28 PM  
"I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns. But studies have shown more guns don't deter crime," Thomas said. "There's no research that shows guns make anyone safer, and it does show that, the more guns in any situation, the higher the likelihood of them harming either the owner, or people who have access to them."


Says the ass-hat that is basing his opinion off the fact that citizens will always attempt to arm themselves in high crime areas, and then twisting it to somehow show that more guns equals more crime.  This guy should be the poster child for correlation ≠ causation and/or purposefully trying to mislead the public for political gain...  But I would like to give him the credit of the doubt and say that he is just a well meaning idiot that believes what he says instead of knowingly lying.
 
2014-01-03 01:39:44 PM  

Mrbogey: Clearly the chief needs to talk to the anti-gun farkers who know that a gun has never been used to stop a crime unless wielded by a cop


The same fark that seems to hate cops, interesting.
 
2014-01-03 01:41:44 PM  

Maul555: "I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns. But studies have shown more guns don't deter crime," Thomas said. "There's no research that shows guns make anyone safer, and it does show that, the more guns in any situation, the higher the likelihood of them harming either the owner, or people who have access to them."


Says the ass-hat that is basing his opinion off the fact that citizens will always attempt to arm themselves in high crime areas, and then twisting it to somehow show that more guns equals more crime.  This guy should be the poster child for correlation ≠ causation and/or purposefully trying to mislead the public for political gain...  But I would like to give him the credit of the doubt and say that he is just a well meaning idiot that believes what he says instead of knowingly lying.


You know, his substantive point is correct....  Although I guess I should be offended that someone is trying bring common sense into this.

It's always amusing when second amendment types accuse everyone else of being emotionally irrational and ignoring statistical and scientific evidence.  Projection is a pretty good strategy, I suppose.
 
2014-01-03 01:42:55 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Mrbogey: Clearly the chief needs to talk to the anti-gun farkers who know that a gun has never been used to stop a crime unless wielded by a cop

The same fark that seems to hate cops, interesting.



Man, there's quite the gun nut circle jerk in this thread.  I think I'm going to reasonably and safely retreat from this thread.  No standing my ground today.
 
2014-01-03 01:45:42 PM  

dittybopper: Dimensio: jjorsett: Lesson from the thread: anti-gunners take umbrage when you throw the word "denier" at them. Noted for future use.

Concealed weapons permit opponents are much like same-sex marriage opponents. Both oppose expanding a liberty on the basis of a prediction of future harm, and both maintain that opposition even when the liberty is expanded and the predicted harm fails to manifest in any meaningful way*.

*"Meaningful" refers to a statistically significant result; isolated cases of concealed weapons permit holders committing unjustified homicide are no more meaningful that are isolated cases of married same-sex couples molesting children under their care.

So very much *THIS*

Back in the early 1990's, it was predicted that "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws would result in "blood in the streets".

It hasn't, and now the overwhelming majority of states are either "Shall Issue" or "Constitutional Carry":

[upload.wikimedia.org image 676x509]


I am surprised that Texas isn't "unrestricted", guess it must be one of those freedomz the state government needs to have to fight those evil liberulz in the federal government.
 
2014-01-03 02:11:11 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: I am surprised that Texas isn't "unrestricted", guess it must be one of those freedomz the state government needs to have to fight those evil liberulz in the federal government.


Actually, Texas was a no-issue state until 1995.  You *COULDN'T* get a permit there at all.  Hell, it was easier to get a carry permit in most of New York than in Texas:  Most rural upstate counties in NY issued unrestricted pistol permits which act like a concealed carry permit in NY.

Since then, most counties have stopped doing that at the behest of the state government, but Texas went from no-issue to shall-issue.
 
2014-01-03 02:15:13 PM  

Chummer45: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Mrbogey: Clearly the chief needs to talk to the anti-gun farkers who know that a gun has never been used to stop a crime unless wielded by a cop

The same fark that seems to hate cops, interesting.


Man, there's quite the gun nut circle jerk in this thread.  I think I'm going to reasonably and safely retreat from this thread.  No standing my ground today.


Well, if you're that afraid of mere words, I can see where guns might give you the vapors.  Have a nice day!
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report