Detroit still waiting for the "benefits" of Michigan's new CCW law

[Lefty48197]

Oh sure, every right wing NRA member in America will tell you that shall issue laws will cause a reduction in crime. "The criminals will be too afraid to commit crimes, because they'll think everybody else is armed" is their argument, in a nut-shell. (pun is coincidental, and not intended).
Noted gun nuts such as Ted Nugent, and the 2nd Amendment Foundation, were part of the drone of right wing voices singing the praises of the new shall issues laws, including Michigan's new law.

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/SAF-chicago_homicide_rate.htm

This was the saf's 2 Jan 2004 press release that stated,
"...Detroit, a city once plagued by runaway murder rates, the number of homicides has reportedly dropped to its lowest level since 1968. Two years ago, Michigan reformed it's concealed carry law, and today, thousands of law-abiding citizens in michigan are legally armed. Gosh, do you suppose there is any correlation?"

You right wingers in the NRA may want to contact your buddies in the second amendment foundation and let them know that they should pull this story off of their website. It's pretty embarrassing when you compare it to the facts. While you're at it, you may want to contact your right wing NRA buddy, Ted Nugent and tell him to pull the same story off of his website

http://www.tnugent.com/news/chicago_guncontrol.shtml

Anyway, here's a couple of links to the truth about Michigan's murder rate. Detroit, and it's 3 county metropolitan area have close to 5 million residents. The other 80 counties in the state also have about 5 million residents. Needless to say, as goes Detroit, so goes Michigan. In order to be fair and balanced, I've included links from both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press. The Free Press (known around here as "The Freep" - ironic ain't it?) is the newspaper that looks out for the interests of Michigan's working people and families. The Detroit News, on the other hand, is a typical right wing sh*t wipe, that can be continually counted upon to parrot the right wing/NRA lines. Unfortunately, the facts have gotten in the way of the NRA propoganda this time:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0402/19/a01-68969.htm

The Detroit News article says that shootings are UP in Detroit by 16% this year, and murders up by 28%. I think that kind of rules out "Self Defense" as the reason for the rise in shootings.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/guns15_20040415.htm

The Detroit Free Press article contains a lot of information about the source of the guns Detroit criminals use. As expected, the police feel local guns shows are the source of most of the guns used in street crime. Surprise, surprise, surprise....

[Lindacooks]

1. That only makes sense.

More guns = more shootings = more deaths.

There is NO WAY that passing out more guns makes any city safer. If it did, then tell me why the Bush* administration is trying to get Iraqis in Fallujah to turn in their guns??

[hansberrym]

3. Why did Pres. Clinton want 100,000 more policemen on the streets?

Was it becasue

More policemen = more guns = more shootings = more deaths?

I don't think so.




To answer your question:
The Bush administration wants the guns collected in Fallujah for the same reason that the British wanted the guns collected in Boston in 1775.

In am not comparing the righteousness of the governments or citizens causes in each case, only pointing out that the aim of the governments involved is the same -to lessen the potential for resistance. The "safety" the governments are concerned with in these cases is the safety of thier troops and thier ability to maintain control. This is certainly understandable, but it should not be confused with the "safety" that is the chief concern today in Detroit -that being the safety of ordinary citizens in thier ordinary lives.

[MrBenchley]

6. Because he wanted to cut crime

instead of facilitate neurotics' fantasies.

[hansberrym]

8. Yes ! More Police = more guns = less crime. Pres. Clinton must

have believed this or he would not have worked so hard to make it happen.

Why then do some people find it so hard to accept that allowing average law abiding citizens to carry would also lead to less crime.

[MrBenchley]

11. Whereas more neurotic civilians with guns means more crime

as we saw in Florida and we see in Detroit...

"Why then do some people find it so hard to accept that allowing average law abiding citizens to carry would also lead to less crime."
Uh, because most people don't have a gun fetish and a headful of dimwitted right wing propaganda, hans. Also, because as we see from the thread we're in, it's not even remotely true.

[iverglas]

15. shall we never tire

... of fallacies?

Person # 1:
More guns = more shootings = more deaths.

Person # 2:
More policemen = more guns = more shootings = more deaths?

Gosh, maybe when Person # 1 said "guns", she REALLY WAS referring to firearms IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE. I mean, it's possible, eh?

Yup ... if we're all willing to equivocate on the meaning of "guns" in the statement by Person # 1. If we all didn't know for a fucking fact that she WAS NOT talking about guns in the hands of the police, and WAS talking about guns in private hands.

When ya can't refute what someone said -- well, just pretend s/he said something different and really really dumb. Nobody will notice.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html (emphasis added)

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear.

Clear to those who don't pretend to be reading through mud, or who aren't willing to groundlessly impugn the intelligence or integrity of the person whose words they are interpreting, anyhow.

.

[hansberrym]

20. Sadly that is precisely the response I expected from you.

But then the question was directed to another.

The ambiguity was on the part of the post I responded to, and I had hoped that person would think through what they had posted and consider the implications. The question I posed was an attempt to have the poster think twice and then write precisely what they meant.

For all I know, the poster thinks exactly as you do, but I am comforted in the knowledge that not everyone agrees with your authortarian viewpoint. Some people when asked the same question, might revise the statement as follows:

more guns (in the hands of criminals) = more shootings = more death.




Fallacies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49018&mesg_id=50611&page=

[MrBenchley]

26. Yes, hans...

We can tell that it was just an aid to help me more precisely enunciate that neurotic dimwits skulking to churches and bars with popguns in their pockets do nothing to cut crime but are a public menace, as this thread makes all too clear.

[hansberrym]

34. Follow the thread. Unless you are also Lindacooks it ought to

be obvious that my response was NOT directed to you.

I have no doubts about YOUR feelings toward your fellow citizens.

[MrBenchley]

40. Hans..it's a public forum...

[iverglas]

37. yeah ... like I said

"The ambiguity was on the part of the post I responded to, and I had hoped that person would think through what they had posted and consider the implications."

(a) There was no ambiguity, except in the eyes of the terminally disingenuous ... or dim ...

(b) I already said that:

"Clear to those who don't pretend to be reading through mud, or who aren't willing to groundlessly impugn the intelligence or integrity of the person whose words they are interpreting, anyhow."

Your implication was that the person who had made the statement you were responding to was dim, and your claim is that you were seeking to provide her with enlightenment.

You'll forgive me if I'm not buying.

.

[hansberrym]

39. Not everyone thinks as you do.

Not everyone who is asked to clarify a statement he/she has made considers it an insult to thier intelligence. Though I am well aware that there are some people who believe themselves above reproach, I have no reason to believe that the poster I was responding to was of that sort. The vast majority of people who are asked to consider fully what they have said(or written)would simply reflect a while, and then answer with greater precision while taking no offense whatever.

The inferences you drew from my qustion reveals much about yourself and how YOU see your fellow man.

[MrBenchley]

41. Some swallow right wing horseshit whole

and regurgitate it endlessly, unlike Iverglas...

[iverglas]

42. yeah ... like I said

The average person, when informed that his/her statement:

"More guns = more shootings = more deaths"

was being interpreted as possibly meaning

"More policemen = more guns = more shootings = more deaths"

would, when "asked to consider fully what they have said(or written) ... simply reflect a while, and then answer with greater precision while taking no offense whatever".

Yes indeedy. "The vast majority" of such people would not then say "DUH" ... and look at the person proposing such possible interpretation as if s/he were wearing a dunce cap ... or had horns and a tail and were carrying a pitchfork.

"Duh", in this instance, may of course be read as "Equivocate much?"

.

[hansberrym]

43. There was no equivocation.

The statement made in post #1 was unqualified. It was a general statement that needed to be qualified or else it was obviously incorrect in at least one specific case of which the vast majority of people would agree. (hence the "I don't think so" following
"More policemen = more guns = more shootings = more deaths")


There are of course other ways to qualify that statement, and we should expect differences because not everyone thinks the same way Iverglass does, or Lindacook does, or I do.

I offered this qualification:
more guns( in the hands of criminals) = more shootings = more deaths




There was no equivocation.

The words "more guns" mean the same in every instance I used them.
IMO the statement (more guns = more shootings = more deaths) is false because it is overly broad. There is nothing wrong with asking persons to be more specific after they post an unqualified statement. Nor is there anything wrong with showing a specific instance where the unqualified statement is false.

You see an equivocation because you ASSUME the words "more guns" to mean "more guns in the hands of persons other than the Police".
And if Lindacooks had actually said that, I would have asked about bank guards, private body guards, etc., until I got to a level of specificity that allowed me to understand his/her actual position.

[MrBenchley]

25. No, of course some folks never tire of fallacies

it's all they've GOT.

[Low Drag]

17. Illegal or Legal guns?

Does anyone have figures that record status of guns used in the crimes outlined?

If the gun was acquired illegally, how would more laws stop the crime committed with that gun? Seems like a reasonable question.

Oh, on the gun show thing. If a dealer sells a gun at a gun show they still must do a background check and fill out all the federal forms.

[MrBenchley]

5. Exactly so

[DoNotRefill]

24. Ummmm...since when did CCW....

start "passing out guns"?

I've had a CCW for 10+ years, and nobody ever just gave me a gun...

[OpSomBlood]

2. CCW permit holders account for 0.5% of gun crimes.

A higher percentage of gun crimes are committed by police officers than by concealed-carry permit holders.

[MrBenchley]

7. Sez you...

Of course, you also want to pretend assault weapons are weaker than conventional ones...

[OpSomBlood]

9. Some facts.

- Nationwide, no CCW permit holder has ever shot at a police officer.
- In Florida between 1987 and 1994, 17 out of 204,108 (0.008%) CCW permit holders were convicted of gun crimes.
- In Oregon, 4 out of 14,000 (0.03%) of CCW permit holders were convicted of gun crimes.
- Homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault rates have decreased in every state that has adopted legal concealed carry.
- A Department of Justice survey of convicted felons revealed that 34% of them had been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens.

[MrBenchley]

10. Some ACTUAL facts...

instead of right wing fantasy....

"According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 5,314 crimes from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2001. Crimes for which license holders were arrested include: murder/attempted murder (including attempted murder of police officer), kidnapping, rape/sexual assault, assault, weapon-related offenses, drug-related offenses, burglary, and theft. Non-arrest information, which includes delinquent child support, protective orders, non-payment of taxes, medical/mental diagnoses, and suicide, was available for the VPC's first three License to Kill studies. However, non-arrest information for this current time period was not available from Texas DPS in a timely or complete manner, and is not included in this edition.
VPC analysis of the DPS information reveals that—
* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for two and one-half crimes a day since the law went into effect.
* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for more than two serious violent crimes per month since the law went into effect, including: murder/attempted murder, manslaughter/negligent homicide, kidnapping,9 rape, and sexual assault.
* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for more than two crimes against children per month since the law went into effect, including: sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault on a child, injury to a child, indecency with a child, abandon/endanger a child, solicitation of a minor, and possession or promotion of child pornography.
* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for more than four drunk driving offenses per week since the law went into effect.
From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses11 at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older. These weapon-related offenses include arrests for 279 assaults or aggravated assaults with a deadly weapon, 671 unlawfully carrying a weapon, and 172 deadly conduct/discharge firearm."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4intr.htm

Here's the sort of folks in MN who felt they have to tote a pistol around in public...and bear in mind that thanks to the corrupt gun industry and the GOP, some of these charmers actually could not be prevented from getting a pistol permit.
--Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
--Has fled from any state to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings.
--Is an unlawful user of any controlled substance as defined in Chapter 152.
--Has been committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere as a "mentally ill," "mentally retarded," or "mentally ill and dangerous to the public" person as defined in Minnesota Statute § 253B.02.
--Has been convicted of a gross misdemeanor for the crime of assault motivated by bias (609.255).
--Danger to self or others.
--Marijuana conviction in Texas.
--Crim. History states "disqualified for Firearms".
--Warrant out of another state (ND).
--Applicant lied regarding current address.
--Reckless discharge of firearms.
--Several law enforcement contacts for mental health issues. Two commitments by county and one self commitment.
--Pending case involving a loaded uncased handgun in a motor vehicle. Found during a traffic stop on a driving complaint.
--Charged in WI with Carrying a ConcealedWeapon, pled to Transporting a Loaded/Uncased Firearm. Involved a traffic stop, had 2 handguns in vehicle, one loaded under the driver's seat, the other unloaded in the glove box. Subject had a large knife on self and another one
located in the driver's side door pocket.
--Continued assaultive behavior pattern with alcohol use.
--Arrested & placed in treatment.
--Arrested for 2nd degree assault, domestic assault and animal cruelty
--Interviews with people that know the applicant revealed explosive temper and brought illegal weapons to work place.
--Charged and investigated for CSC with the use of a firearm.
--Investigated and arrested for terroristic threats.
--Convicted for possession of a pistol without a permit, threatened wife and child during incident.
--Applicant divulged he had shot a person in the past.
--Convicted for multiple DWI and history of assaultive behavior.
--Threatened mother with a rifle.
--Convicted for domestic assault.
--Threatened Co-worker.
--History of suicidal thoughts and threats.
--Multiple DWI convictions and history of assaultive behavior.
--Suspected gang member, arrested and charged for firearms violations.
--GM theft conviction as armed security.
--Multiple alcohol related offenses.
--Suicide attempt, conviction for criminal damage to property and auto theft arrests.
--History of assaultive behavior, and burglary arrests and convictions.
--Conviction for GM possession of a firearm and assault.
--Arrests for firing gun in city limits, suspected gang member.
--Incidents of threatening behavior, history of alcohol abuse.
--Assault 5 conviction, felony theft arrest.
--Incident involving terroristic threats with the use of a firearm.
--Multiple DWI arrests
--Terroristic threats arrest.
--Suspected gang member, domestic assault arrest.
--Arrest for assault 1, criminal vehicular injury related DWI conviction.
--Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction and arrest for robbery.
--Gross misdemeanor theft conviction and numerous pending investigations.
--Six DWI convictions.
--Disorderly conduct conviction, arrest for domestic assault.
--Conviction for reckless discharge of a firearm and threatened suicide with a firearm.
--Convicted for possession of a pistol without a permit.
--Domestic related arrest, felony burglary conviction.
--Convicted possession of a pistol without a permit, attempted burglary and assault arrest.

http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Documents/CarryPermit/Permittocarr...

[OpSomBlood]

14. If my statistics were "right-wing fantasy"...

...you should have countered them with facts to the contrary. Instead, you decided to post "left-wing fantasy" from a gun control website. Great job holding yourself to your own impartiality standard...should I start closing every post with a, "is that what you read at the VPC?"

You used statistics from Texas as your metric instead of a broad cross-section. I don't know what Texas' requirements are to get a CCW permit, but I do know that in Florida it required fingerprint and background checks that took five weeks to complete.

And as far as I can tell in your Minnesota (statistics) that is a list of the people who were rejected when applying for a CCW permit. Doesn't that mean that the background check system worked?

Please post a link to documentation supporting your claim that pro-CCW advocates want to make it easier to get guns. From a site other than www.vpc.org, please.

[MrBenchley]

27. If your stats weren't

you would have given us the source.

"Instead, you decided to post "left-wing fantasy""
Gee, it's swell to see the same "enthusiasts" who have been claiming to be rootin' tootin' gun totin' LIBERALS make this sort of peculiar charge. Sure convinces ME.

The plain fact is there's no lie at the VPC....nor does it have an ideological bent, unlike the screwlooses pimping for the gun lobby at places like the RKBA webring.

[Low Drag]

16. Arrests?

How about convictions?

I'd bet if you were a DA and I defended myself you'd with firearm you'd bring charges and arrest me. Am I wrong?

[MrBenchley]

28. Gee, drag...

Be sure and prove they were all false arrests (snicker). We await your scholarly research.

[MrSandman]

21. More VPC arguments based on lies and distortion...

Less than one arrest every two days leading to conviction in 2001.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

5300? Fewer than 4200 Texas licenses have been revoked/suspended.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographicsummary.PDF

I believe the VPC article is mistaken about CC in Ohio and Missouri.


VPC is as credible as NRA.

[MrBenchley]

29. Nope...actual FACT

"VPC is as credible as NRA"
No, VPC is credible, NRA is not. Despite the wailing and howling of the bullets for brains bunch.

[MrSandman]

44. Neither is credible...

they are both extremist.

[MrSandman]

23. Really,

TABLE A - DEFINITIONS

Violent Crimes as defined by MSS 624.712 (to be used for field #1 and #3 and the ‘Reasons for Denial of Permit’ above):

Murder in the first degree
Murder in the second degree
Murder in the third degree
Manslaughter in the first degree
Manslaughter in the second degree
Aiding suicide,
Aiding attempted suicide
Felony violations of assault in the first degree
Felony violations of assault in the second degree
Felony violations of assault in the, third degree
Felony violations of assault in the fourth degree
Assaults motivated by bias under section 609.2231, subdivision 4
Drive-by shootings
Terroristic threats
Use of drugs to injure or to facilitate crime
Crimes committed for the benefit of a gang
Commission of a crime while wearing or possessing a bullet-resistant vest
Simple robbery
Aggravated robbery
Kidnapping
False imprisonment
Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree
Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree
Criminal sexual conduct in the third degrees,
Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree
Theft of a firearm
Felony theft involving the intentional taking or driving of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or the authorized agent of the owner
Felony theft involving the taking of property from a burning, abandoned, or vacant building, or from an area of destruction caused by civil disaster, riot, bombing, or the proximity of battle
Felony theft involving the theft of a controlled substance, an explosive, or an incendiary device,
Arson in the first and second degrees
Riot
Burglary in the first degrees
Burglary in the second degree
Burglary in the third degree
Burglary in the fourth degree
Harassment and stalking
Shooting at a public transit vehicle or facility
Reckless use of a gun or dangerous weapon
Intentionally pointing a gun at or towards a human being
Setting a spring gun, and unlawfully owning, possessing, operating a machine gun or short-barreled shotgun
Attempt to commit any of these offenses, as each of those offenses is defined in chapter 609.
Felony violations of the following: malicious punishment of a child
Neglect or endangerment of a child
Chapter 152


Seems to be reasons for denying a permit.

ed fer spellin...s

[OpSomBlood]

31. A rebuttal to your VPC-ized Texas CCW "statistics":

MEDIA RELEASE
July 2, 2002
STATEMENT FROM TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION
From James Dark, Executive Director
Texas State Rifle Association

RICHARDSON, TEXAS and COLUMBUS, OHIO -- Texans often have unusual and colorful ways of dismissing the views of their adversaries in debate. Famed Texas hero Sam Houston once attributed a political opponent’s differing views as being the result of the man’s use of "water as a beverage."

I must confess to having similar thoughts when I recently saw the information released by the Violence Policy Center in its dramatically titled "License to Kill IV." This study uses skewed statistics and misinformation about the Texas Concealed Handgun Law to make the case to the citizens of Ohio and their elected representatives that these laws are a recipe for disaster.

The truth of the matter is that the exact opposite is true. Since the passage of the law, Texas is a safer place. Violent crime is down.

The Violence Policy Center used statistics from the Texas Department of Public Safety, which show the raw number of arrests of Concealed Handgun License Holders since the law went into effect on January 1, 1996. There are a number of significant problems with these statistics:

• The statistics used by the VPC are for arrests, not convictions. These arrest statistics were recently compelled by state law to be removed from the DPS website and replaced with CONVICTION rates. To this day, the website simply contains a notice that the mandated information is "coming soon." The VPC is not interested in these new statistics because they will show that only 26% of CHL holders have ever been convicted of the crime of which they are accused, thus making VPC’s small problem even smaller.

• By using the number of arrests (as opposed to convictions), 5,314, with no comparison to anything else, they attempt to bring about a knee-jerk reaction because that SOUNDS like a big number. But in fact, when compared to the large number of CHL holders in Texas (about a quarter million), it creates a minute percentage. Further, when compared to the general population, CHL holders are 7.5 times LESS likely to commit a crime than someone without a permit. There is a good reason that this comparison wasn’t made. It doesn’t fit their spin.

• The VPC cites figures that CHL holders are arrested at a rate higher than the general population for firearms related offenses. In most cases, if a CHL holder uses a firearm to defend himself, they will be placed under arrest. Even in the most justifiable of situations where deadly force is applied, it falls upon the proper authorities and grand juries to decide if charges will be pursued against a CHL holder. That CHL holders are arrested for weapons related offenses at a higher rate than the general population should surprise nobody. They have a much higher percentage of firearms than the general population. What the VPC will not share with you is how many of these CHL holders have ever been CONVICTED of a firearms-related offense. Again, it just doesn’t fit their spin.

When Texas elected to pass a Concealed Handgun License Bill, it took a great step forward in allowing its citizens to exercise their inherent right to self-defense. The Texas law is one of the strictest in the nation, in regards to the qualifications needed to obtain the license. CHL holders in Texas are among the most scrutinized segment of our state’s population. Licensees have passed state and federal background checks, fingerprint checks, complied with all tax and child support requirements, attend classes and pass a written test on all pertinent state laws, and pass a qualification test to ensure their competence with their weapon. Texas also has the highest licensing fee in the nation, at $140. The required classes focus on safety, responsibility, conflict resolution and use of a weapon as an absolute LAST RESORT.

The VPC also attempts to paint Texas CHL holders as criminals. Karen Brock of the VPC actually states that, "license holders are committing crimes, not preventing them." This statement is utter hogwash. There was never any expectation that every CHL holder would attain an infallible level of perfection and live a life free of sin. The fact that our CHL holders are statistically far safer than the general population speaks volumes about the efficacy of our program.

Brock also has no data to back up her statement that crimes are not being prevented. Normally people calling themselves "analysts" require something called "data." There simply are no statistics kept by anyone on crimes prevented by CHL holders. So how did Ms. Brock come up with this allegation? The answer is simple. In true VPC style, she made it up.

I called Ms. Brock and asked what data she used to support this statement. In the end, she admitted that there was none, and that it was "just more rhetoric." This statement did not surprise me, but I think that it might have shocked those who rely on the Violence Policy Center for their information.

The vast majority of incidents in Texas are resolved without gunplay. Almost without exception, incidents involving CHL holders de-escalate the instant that a handgun is produced. Far from the "rivers of blood" that critics said would flow down our streets, we have in fact had nothing of the sort.

Hopefully, the people of Ohio will see the shenanigans of the Violence Policy Center for what they are and see the true success story of the Texas Concealed Handgun License law. Texas is a safer place today than it was in 1995. Ohio can be a safer place next year if their legislators come up with a reasonable way to allow their law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to defend themselves from criminals.

[iverglas]

32. "rebuttal"

From your article:

• The VPC cites figures that CHL holders are arrested at a rate higher than the general population for firearms related offenses. In most cases, if a CHL holder uses a firearm to defend himself, they will be placed under arrest. Even in the most justifiable of situations where deadly force is applied, it falls upon the proper authorities and grand juries to decide if charges will be pursued against a CHL holder. That CHL holders are arrested for weapons related offenses at a higher rate than the general population should surprise nobody. They have a much higher percentage of firearms than the general population.

Now of course -- and apart from the fact that I'm not seeing any facts to back up the assertion that permit holders "have a much higher percentage of firearms than the general population" (which of course is a statement that makes not an iota of sense in the first place) -- none of that explains THIS, from the original article:

Crimes for which license holders were arrested include: murder/attempted murder (including attempted murder of police officer), kidnapping, rape/sexual assault, assault, weapon-related offenses, drug-related offenses, burglary, and theft. ...

* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for more than two serious violent crimes per month since the law went into effect, including: murder/attempted murder, manslaughter/negligent homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sexual assault.

* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for more than two crimes against children per month since the law went into effect, including: sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault on a child, injury to a child, indecency with a child, abandon/endanger a child, solicitation of a minor, and possession or promotion of child pornography.

* Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested for more than four drunk driving offenses per week since the law went into effect.

I'm not seeing any reasonable explanation for any of that.

After the arrest, it was determined that the individuals had committed sexual assault in self-defence, maybe? Parse that sentence. Makes about as much sense as "<CHL holders> have a much higher percentage of firearms than the general population".

There was never any expectation that every CHL holder would attain an infallible level of perfection and live a life free of sin. The fact that our CHL holders are statistically far safer than the general population speaks volumes about the efficacy of our program.

Well damn. Obviously, the best idea is obviously just to let these imperfect beings wander around with firearms to facilitate the sins they feel like committing. Obviously.

.

[MrBenchley]

33. You will notice op omitted the link to the TSRA

perhaps because the front page of the website contains an idiotic attack on Democrats by racist loony John "Mary Rosh" Lott...

[RoeBear]

35. Huh?

"Now of course -- and apart from the fact that I'm not seeing any facts to back up the assertion that permit holders "have a much higher percentage of firearms than the general population" (which of course is a statement that makes not an iota of sense in the first place) -- none of that explains THIS, from the original article:"

How much research do you need to do to determine that nearly 100% of CCW permit holders are likely to own guns. And that the general population will likely be considerably less than 100%?

[iverglas]

36. ah

So you, apparently, think that

"<permit holders> have a much higher percentage of firearms than the general population"

means

"a much higher percentage of permit holders than of the general population have firearms".

Me, I usually try not to make guesses about what people are attempting to say, and prefer them to just come out and say it. This person failed miserably in the attempt.

I read it as meaning that permit holders have more firearms than non-permit holders, and of course there is absolutely no basis for saying that at all.

Now if only *any* of that were relevant to the point in issue.

.

[RoeBear]

38. I bet you would enjoy...

...the new book "Eats, shoots and leaves".

[Low Drag]

18. Yes, they are.

As I write this the US military is developing a replacement round for the M16/M4 platform due to it's low power. The NATO 5.56/.223 Remington is a relatively low powered cartridge. They are working on a 6.8mm round based upon the .270 hunting round, but a bit shorter and lower velocity.

The current round is simply not powerful enough to use at close range.

[Lefty48197]

19. I don't doubt that statistic. And I won't even ask for a source

but the one thing I was trying to address was the claim that shall issue ccw laws would reduce crime in general, because criminals would suddenly have to fear an armed populace.
I also wanted to show how foolish the 2nd amendment foundation leader was when he started talking about the drop in crime in Detroit, which had actually begun several years earlier, due to the economic recovery in Detroit during the Clinton years. SAF tried to tie that drop in crime to the new CCW law. Unfortunately for the people of Detroit, not to mention the SAF propoganda writers, the crime and murder rate in Detroit has suddenly surged. And the CCW law apparently did nothing to prevent that.

[MrBenchley]

30. From time to time I post the Florida stats

between 1987, when Florida passed its idiotic CCW law, and 1993 when the Democrats and Bill Clinton passed the Brady law, violent crime in Florida went UP 31%. Not down.

AFTER 1993, violent crime went down in every state....but in Florida it went down at a slower rate than in states with saner gun laws.

It's swell to see "Democrats" pimping for Republican initiatives, ain't it?

[MrSandman]

45. Why don't you trot those out...

I need a good laugh.

[MrBenchley]

4. What th-?!?!?! Gun nuts LIED??

Who would ever of thunk that people like the GOP and Ted Nugent were untruthful?

[RoeBear]

12. "part of the drone

... singing the praises of the new shall issue laws, including Michigan's new law" is the Detroit News.

[RoeBear]

13. You say...

"the police feel local guns shows are the source of most of the guns used in street crime."

The article says...

"Many of the guns are purchased at gun shows"

Do you understand the change in context that you made? Was it intentional?

[MrSandman]

22. It doesn't appear to be a problem with permit holders...

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CCWAnnualReport_75775_7.pdf