2,581 CCW permits, zero trouble

[Township75]

Murder rates, shootings and crimes expected by some to rise once Michigan liberalized its concealed weapons law two years ago haven't happened.

The rush to get a concealed gun permit also has faded locally, officials said.

Since the state began to allow more people to carry concealed firearms, only two St. Clair County residents have had their permits revoked for violations, officials said. The law also limits where the weapons can be carried.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/stories/20030906/localnews/205072.html

Where is the blood in the streets?

[bowens43]

1. Perhaps the bodies

are well hidden.

[madrchsod]

2. glad you brought this up

what`s with the "concealed" guns? why don`t people just carry them like in the day`s of the american west? up ,right out in the open for everyone to see? i just don`t get the concealed bit ,i mean why hide them?

[DoNotRefill]

3. because if they aren't concealed...

the carrier will catch all kinds of shit from the cops, called by stupid people doing the "Oh my GAWD, he's carrying a GUN!!!" bit.

[acerbic]

4. How could anyone carrying a gun legally

..."catch all kinds of shit from the cops"????? If they would, those cops harassing innocent people should obviously be fired, isn't it simple?

[DoNotRefill]

5. Nope...

they get a call, they have to respond, and you spend the next half hour having them check your id, ask why you're there, why you're carrying a gun, and all kinds of other crap. Then you leave and go someplace else, where people call the cops, they have to respond....

Carrying unconcealed, while legal, in most places will end up with you catching huge rations of shit.

[MrBenchley]

6. Gee, you mean sane people

don't think that strangers toting guns around make them safer?

Who'd have guessed THAT (snicker)?

[Shanty Oilish]

9. If they aren't concealed,

they're easier to grab, by any of those wackos the gun-control advocates tell us are among us.

[Terran]

26. Say what?

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that, generally, it's the the pro-RKBA folk who talk about all the "wackos" out there against whom they might need to defend themselves, thus justifying the need to carry/own a firearm...not the anti-RKBA people. Just an observation.

Dirk

[Shanty Oilish]

28. Say this.

I'm using their argument. They claim there are all these wackos around.
Now I'll use my argument. A typical predator doesn't just charge you the instant he lays eyes on you. He reconnoiters, sizes you up, considers his advantages and options. If you're wearing a gun in plain sight and reach, he can pick his moment to seize it and use it against you. Or steal it and run like hell, sell it to a criminal or use it against someone else.
When firearms for self-defense, concealment is obviously wiser.

[iverglas]

29. yes, but

"When firearms <are carried?> for self-defense, concealment is obviously wiser."

What does that have to do with requiring that firearms being carried be concealed?

It's obviously "wiser" for me not to eat potato chips, but the law doesn't concern itself with the unwise things I do, or prohibit me from doing unwise things, unless there is good justification for doing that.

"I'm using their argument. They claim there are all these wackos around."

I find that offensive, and I hope you're not being infected by the misrepresentation bug just by hanging around here.

When I was employed to study all of the homicides committed in Canada in a two-year period several years ago (specifically, in that case, to investigate any correlation there might have been between the victim-offender relationship and the sentence imposed), and I read through case after case in which a woman had been killed by her husband or other intimate partner, or a family member or other visitor in a home killed by the householder, when the killer walked into the other room and came back with the rifle or shotgun, I didn't "claim there are all these wackos around". I concluded that such ready access to firearms was the determining factor in a death occurring in many situations in which it would otherwise very certainly not have occurred.

That's *my* claim. If anybody's claiming what you describe, perhaps s/he will speak up, or you can point him/her out.



Of course, when you say:

" A typical predator doesn't just charge you the instant he lays eyes on you. He reconnoiters, sizes you up, considers his advantages and options. If you're wearing a gun in plain sight and reach, he can pick his moment to seize it and use it against you. Or steal it and run like hell, sell it to a criminal or use it against someone else."

... that's kinda what I say about carrying concealed weapons. A predator who does his/her sizing up in a short timespan, as most of course do -- robbery, for instance, is generally opportunistic and not some crime of the century planned operation -- s/he isn't going to know who has a firearm and who doesn't. S/he is simply going to rely on surprise and some form of force to preclude/overwhelm any defensive response, with or without a firearm. And then, if the victim has a concealed firearm, the robbery is likely going to include the theft of a firearm. Yay, bonus, and all the possible consequences you allude to.

Hmm, this doesn't often happen, you say? Surprise. Amazing how infrequently people, armed or unarmed, are actually robbed on the street, isn't it?

.

[Shanty Oilish]

30. What it has to do with requiring

"When firearms <are carried?> for self-defense, concealment is obviously wiser."

What does that have to do with requiring that firearms being carried be concealed?

Requiring that firearms be concealed, results in fewer such crimes as I described.

"if the victim has a concealed firearm, the robbery is likely going to include the theft of a firearm."

IMO the robbery is likely going to be successfully resisted, or not happen in the first place, because the robber class is discouraged by the possibility of armed resistance.

[iverglas]

31. interesting

"Requiring that firearms be concealed, results in fewer such crimes as I described."

Well (assuming in both cases that the requirement is obeyed, as we both are assuming) -- requiring that firearms not be kept in the home (I use a hypothetical and extreme example) results in fewer accidental, negligent and intentional deaths.

Some people who feel a need to carry a firearm for self-defence might very well want to carry it in full and plain view of everyone who comes within viewing distance of them. They might believe that this is the best way to prevent themselves from being victimized -- and who knows? they might be right.

Ain't that their right? Why should the fact that it might (per you and others) be "wiser" to carry it concealed, or even that carrying it concealed is likely to involve a lesser risk of it being stolen (i.e. a lesser risk of danger to the public), justify interfering with their right to protect themselves in the way they happen to think wisest and most likely to be effective?

I hope you see that I am not being deliberately obtuse. You are apparently presenting, as your reason for advocating some fettering of the "right" to have access to firearms (you seem to be advocating that a carried weapon be *required* to be concealed, I'm not 100% sure), the fact that the restriction in question is justified by the (reasonably anticipated) reduction of harm that might otherwise occur.

So am I.

You're really just advocating a restriction based on your opinion that it is justifiable. That's what I'm doing. The issue is the same: what restrictions are justifiable.


"IMO the robbery is likely going to be successfully resisted, or not happen in the first place, because the robber class is discouraged by the possibility of armed resistance."

And IMO, if my position on restrictions on access is adopted, numerous deaths and injuries are likely not going to happen, because the individuals who would have caused them (accidentally, negligently or intentionally) are not going to have access to the means with which to cause them.

I happen to think that my opinion is a little more demonstrably fact-based than yours, because the robber class just doesn't mainly consist of people who spend a lot of time assessing the risks and weighing the possible consequences of their actions, it mainly consists of people whose judgment is impaired by substances and/or personality disorders, and because they know full well that if they make proper use of the element of surprise, for instance, the weapon that their victim has concealed about his/her person isn't going to be much of a threat.

The parallel counter to my position that many deaths involving firearms would not occur in the absence of those firearms -- that those deaths would occur some other way -- simply is not consistent with the facts. Robbery and homicide are both generally opportunistic acts rather than organized capers, and homicide especially is most often impulsive. Whether an impulse is acted on does depend to some significant extent on whether the means of acting on it are readily available, and the success of the action taken does depend to some significant extent on what means are used to carry it out.

As I sit here, I have not once all night had any thought of eating chocolate chip cookies. But I'm kinda hungry; stick a chocolate chip cookie in front of me and I will undoubtedly eat it. Nonetheless, I'm not about to get up and go looking for cookies, or for anything else to eat.

My cookie-eating would be purely impulsive, and depend purely on the opportunity being presented. So are and do many firearms homicides (of the intentional rather than negligent or accidental kinds). They are not the product of planning + carrying-out, they are the product of impulse + access to means. They are not crimes committed out of the blue by strangers on the sidewalk or deserted sideroads; they are crimes committed in a particular and common set of circumstances by people acting on impulse with the means available to them.

I'm at least equally as concerned (let's be honest: far more concerned) about those victims, many of whom are specially vulnerable to such assaults, as I am about the worried-well who apparently live in some sort of constant state of terror and apprehension of murderous danger lurking around every corner of the shopping mall. And I hope I won't get the usual "arm the battered women" crap from anyone. Really, if we could arm them, we could get them out of the situation, doesn't anyone think?

.

[Shanty Oilish]

39. "Arm the battered women crap" - ?

I don't hear anyone advocating arming battered women. The typical such woman lives with the batterer. A gun would be HIS no matter whose name is on the paperwork. Getting it without his knowledge would be rather difficult; where did that money go? where, for that matter, did SHE go for that hour it takes to obtain a gun legally?

[Shanty Oilish]

41. More about abusive situations

What I've said shouldn't be taken to mean I don't believe battered women ought to be legally hampered in defending themselves. Often there are already guns in the house, and quite often the abusive spouse is very careful not to run afoul of the law with those arms.

However, I would agree that laws should be written/enforced, whereby the legal acquisition of firearms by anyone involved in domestic abuse should be considered, on an individual basis as part of the background check. In some states, a person who is under a restraint order is not going to obtain a gun legally. That's reasonable. I'd also like to see laws restricting acquisition and possession by any person known to be living in a house where domestic violence has occurred. But when a woman has left the house, she ought to be able to avail herself of "equalizing" force if in her judgment her life is threatened.

[jody]

45. draftcaroline, the problem is getting an abused spouse to report abuse to

law enforcement. Once that is done, federal law should kick in TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922. - Unlawful acts, however the law appears to be overly protective of the abuser who can lose RKBA under the following conditions.

QUOTE
(8) who is subject to a court order that -

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or Threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
UNQUOTE

[Shanty Oilish]

46. DV

I spend a lot of time helping dv victims. At this moment two of them are living in my house and I am paying the housing costs of four or five others.
I've been doing this sort of thing for several years so I know how inadequate law enforcement is. Abused women are also keenly aware of it. One or two lessons in the teeth of the law, and many of them will "behave" themselves forever---not the abuser, the abused.

Getting a conviction for dv is an uphill climb. Getting a protection order is uphill for some women, particularly in rural areas. Women ask themselves, what's the benefit of antagonizing him with legal proceedings, and what's the risk? Where do I run to? (Shelter will put her up for 30 days; housing waiting list will hold her up after that for maybe a year.)

Federal law kicking in? Tell some of these local magistrates about federal law, they just roll their eyes.

[jody]

47. Thanks for the facts. I thought as much and that is one issue on which

we Dems should campaign.

Do you know of a state or national group that is lobbying for this issue?

ON EDIT ADD
The DNC Platform appears to be more empty words than a serious committment to solving a major problem.

QUOTE
Ending Domestic Violence. Violence in the home is an often silent terror in the lives of millions. We have to make sure that all battered women have the legal protection and the support they need to be safe in their own communities, and to keep their attackers away. By stopping domestic violence, we can also break the generational cycle of violence. We know that when children grow up in abusive families, they are more likely to become abusers themselves.
UNQUOTE

[Shanty Oilish]

53. lobbying

Lobbying there is. But I have long since lost faith in progress. Too much listening to the bureaucrats, the social workers, the clerks, even the shelter volunteers.
In 2 words, nobody cares. That's a blanket statement, sad and cynical. Yes. But it works for me. Having concluded that nobody else cares, I save myself and the dv victims a lot of time and disappointment. If they can't get free---FREE, not relieved or protected or counseled or whathaveyou, but FREE---by any other means, if it looks likely that no other means is going to be adequate for permanent freedom from their abuser...I don't lobby, I hand them a set of keys, and a cell phone. They stay until they get on their feet.
It takes a village, I have heard. Actually, that village must contain at least one caring heart. That is what works. For some that is the ONLY thing that will work.

on edit: ...that will ever work.

[jody]

55. Many thanks for your comments. I've added "spousal abuse" to

my list of priority issues to support.

[iverglas]

90. yougoddabekidding

"... that is one issue on which we Dems should campaign.
Do you know of a state or national group that is lobbying for this issue?"

Cripey, I can understand that you weren't even an egg in the 60s, but did you manage to miss your own lifetime too?

"Know of a state or national group that is lobbying <on> that issue"??

I dunno, are women's organizations and the women's movement really that stultified down there?

I know, I know, I live in Utopia; the large, comfortable women's (and kids') shelter a block and a half away from my home (the neighbours aren't supposed to know), inadequate though it and its multitude of sister homes are in this city and province, is a luxury a lot of you don't have. Well, this one was started years and years ago by a bunch of unpaid feminists without government money; the government now pays up as it absolutely had to be required to do -- again, inadequately as it does that, I suppose it's better than many of you are used to.

But still. Did anybody happen to notice the women's movement? Y'know, the women who have been working for decades to reduce violence against women and provide safe options for women victims of violence?

Try http://www.now.org -- put abuse in the search box. I got 460 results; domestic violence got 399; spousal assault and intimate partner assault (the terms preferred up here -- as one NOW document says, "domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends") got a few.

I am incredulous at the self-admitted ignorance ... or deafened by the sucking sounds. Not sure which is more likely from a bot.

.

[Shanty Oilish]

93. DV link

http://www.ncadv.org/

Try this first :)

[iverglas]

42. you got it

Those are some of the many excellent answers to the "arm the battered woman crap".

Along with the simple fact that woman who is capable of raising a finger, let alone a weapon, to resist the abuse is a woman who is capable of doing the only *really* safe thing, which is leaving the situation. (Well, not that it actually is a safe option, as we all know, but it's undoubtedly a whole lot safer than the arm-yourself option ...)

"Arm the battered woman" is kind of like if wishes were horses, beggars would fly. If she were armed, it would be because she wasn't a battered woman to start with ...

You don't hear it? Stick around!

;)

.

[Shanty Oilish]

49. leaving the situation

As I mentioned in another reply in this thread, leaving the situation can mean a month in a shelter and twelve in limbo, waiting for housing. I'm housing a couple of women right now, supporting others elsewhere. I take them to the bureaucrats and I sit there and hear the stock answers they get. Many simply have nowhere to go, no one to turn to. Another example of "if wishes were horses."

Not suggesting that firearms are the answer except in very specific instances and immediate threat of deadly violence.

[jody]

52. My grandfather was a horse and buggey doctor. I remember his stories

about wives coming in for medical care after being abused by a spouse.

A few nights later a party of vigilantes would show up and speak to the husband and take punitive measures if necessary -- spousal abuse stopped immediately. That's back when people took seriously the phrase "I am my brothers and sisters keeper".

[Shanty Oilish]

56. yep, that works!

Sadly, there aren't too many such communities anymore. Abusers are criminals, and they are cowardly. Paper doesn't always scare them, some sociopaths will always find a way around the law.
Someone has to step in and personally give a damn.

[MrBenchley]

59. Late night armed mobs also kept blacks in their place

and Jews out of town...

Wonderful to see the sort of nutcase crap the RKBA crowd will pimp enthusiastically for...

[iverglas]

65. if they can get together a mob

... you'd think they should be able to get together a jury. People who really take one another's well-being seriously tend to go for the latter option more often than the former.

In fairness, I don't think that the two parties here are necessarily talking about exactly the same things. Peer pressure is one thing, lynch mobs are another, and social disapproval can indeed play a constructive role without degenerating into the opposite of due process.

.

[Shanty Oilish]

66. In Grandpa's day

A man pretty much owned his wife. Not enough legal recognition of her rights, not enough protection.
Not enough enforcement.
This is still the case in some parts of America.
What was described was peer pressure, not a lynching.

[CO Liberal]

68. But There Were Times .......

... when a lynching would result.

[Shanty Oilish]

70. Lynchings aren't legal. Due process.

If you kill someone in self-defense, you're not violating due process.
There are times when 5A results in the guilty getting away with a crime. There are times when 4A protects the guilty by keeping evidence out of the case. Protecting society vs. upholding individual rights. Where do you draw the line?

[MrBenchley]

67. Don't recall much historical precedent

for armed bands of night-riders really playing any constructive role...

[CO Liberal]

73. Except for DW Griffith's "Birth of a Nation"

The Birth of a Nation, D.W. Griffith, 1915, silent black and white film. The scene depicts the "renegade Negro," Gus, played by white actor Walter Long in blackface, in the hands of the Klan, from Part II of The Birth of a Nation. Museum of Modern Art, Film Stills Archive.

http://www.pbs.org/

[MrBenchley]

76. The RKBA crowd in action

(snicker)

[Shanty Oilish]

40. "Fettering the 'right' to access to firearms

(Interesting, you put that right in quotes, much as I would a collective "right." It's written in enough constitutions, just like collective "rights.")

"Advocating some fettering of the 'right' to have access to firearms (you seem to be advocating that a carried weapon be *required* to be concealed, I'm not 100% sure), the fact that the restriction in question is justified by the (reasonably anticipated) reduction of harm that might otherwise occur. You're really just advocating a restriction based on your opinion that it is justifiable. That's what I'm doing. The issue is the same: what restrictions are justifiable."

Yes, and requiring them to be concealed IS justifiable. It's reasonable and prudent. There are innumerable reasonable and prudent restrictions on our liberties. There'd be a lot fewer murderers and rapists and muggers on the streets if we dispensed with a few other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, too.

[iverglas]

43. get back to you

Right now, have had no sleep since Sunday morning, have not quite finished the job due on August 18, have to run out for lunch with some friends visiting from Japan ... have to finish this job ...

.

[Shanty Oilish]

50. I was just wondering about that!

Sheesh, when does this woman sleep? :)

[1a2b3c]

72. just an observation of my own.

Things are going down hill when even the mods start taking sides on the subject. :-)

[Terran]

81. No rule against a Mod expressing an opinion

Besides, we're all one big happy family down here, aren't we? ;-)

Actually, I don't think I really got an answer to my point--that it's not the anti-gun people who say that there are "wackos amongst us, so we better all have guns." The whole DV discussion tends to uphold my observation--the idea that battered women should take up arms against their batterers. That seems to me to be one of the primary arguments of the pro-RKBA group, outside of the Constitutional one--that it's a dangerous country, folks, and we need to protect opurselves (from the wackos, human or animal). Btw, I work indirectly with DV shelters (on the homelessness angle) and I understand that it has happened, at least here in Missouri--a battered woman offing her victimizer.

[1a2b3c]

84. just saying

Its gettin thick down here when the mods join in on the finger pointing. :-)

As for the battered woman, sounds like the guy got what he had coming.

[Terran]

109. Actually, I don't point fingers

I look for legitimate arguments on both sides of the RKBA issue (and they are often impossible to find), and I have called both side on their bullsh*t. I posted in this thread because what draftcaroline said made no sense to me. It seemed to be the opposite of reality as I experience it.

Dirk

[MrBenchley]

7. Gee

you mean about a thousand gun deaths a year isn't enough blood in the street for you?

[RoeBear]

8. reference please

or a retraction

[MrBenchley]

10. You tell us, then

how many gun deaths in Michigan in an average year?

[RoeBear]

14. You're the one that threw a number out

prove it

[MrBenchley]

18. Happy to...

1,097 gun deaths in the state in 1998

http://www.campaignadvantage.com/sites/agsfoundation/asp/gundeaths.asp?state=michigan

"Michigan, for example, saw 1,080 gun deaths in 1999 and 1,058 in 2000."

http://www.mppgv.org/Publications/newsletter/October%202002/October%202002%20Newsletter.htm

[iverglas]

34. damn, Benchley

When will you stop trying to mislead us??

You said "about a thousand gun deaths a year" for Michigan. Then came the whining and stamping of feet ... and now you're showing us 1,097 in 1998, 1,080 in 1999 and 1,058 in 2000.

That's not "a thousand", now, is it!?!

You just stop understating your evidence now, y'hear?

.

[MrBenchley]

35. Of course I'll never

be able to counteract the RKBA crowd showing us gun deaths went down faster in Michigan than they did in states with sane gun laws that werenn't lame-ducked in by corrupt Republican crooks.

All they have to do is ask Mary Rosh...

[Liberal Classic]

48. Liars, Damn Liars, and Statisticians

The first thing one must do is consider the source. Is the source biased?

Secondly, is the figure useful to debate? Is it a meaningful figure or is it just a number given without a context?

Is the figure compared with other forms of fatalities? Is this figure broken out into accidental or criminal fatalities? Are suicides included in these figures?

How do we interpret these figures within a given context?

Most importantly, what other factors lead to violence? Drug use in the case of homicide perhaps? What about depression in relation to suicide?

I am struck by the lack of context for the figures you show. Every homicide and suicide is a tragedy, but is it logical to lump them all together?

I think your agenda is showing.

[MrBenchley]

58. And RKBA lies....

"I am struck by the lack of context for the figures you show."
I am struck by the fact that the RKBA crowd thinks 1,000 gun deaths a year is "zero trouble."

"How do we interpret these figures within a given context? "
Such as when blowhards claim studies show that MORE guns will reduce these numbers...but that turrns out to be horseshit by a pseudoscientist crackpot funded by the gun industrry?

[Liberal Classic]

64. Every suicide and homicide are a tragedy

No matter the manner of death. Did I not say so above? For the record I should note that a close member of my family took her own life with a pistol. I would wish that on no one, but I do not turn around and try to conclude that the pistol was the cause of her suicide. Please point out where I believe that one thousand fatalities is zero trouble.

Certianly you're familiar with Samuel Clemen's quote about statisticians. Apt don't you think? I'm rather chagrined that you would hold up two gun control sources as unbiased while at the same time condemning other sources. One could almost prove that black is white with carefully culled statistics.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Cheers.

[MrBenchley]

80. I'm familiar with lots of things

including the fundamental dishonesty of the RKBA crowd.

"I'm rather chagrined that you would hold up two gun control sources as unbiased while at the same time condemning other sources."
You mean you think there's nothing wrong witrh Newsmax and the Reverend Moon's propaganda sheet?

[Liberal Classic]

83. Claiming non-gun-control are all liars is totally unsupportable

I would think that you should know better than to make such a sweeping and ad hominem statement, especially when some few Democrats are not in favor gun control. I'm not suprised, however, that you've made such a statement. When confronted with polite disagreement you always seem to retreat into ad hominem attacks. I've come to expect it, though not accept it, from you. Perhaps if you would actually attempt to debate instead of flame the Justice/Public Safety forum might be more enjoyable.

[MrBenchley]

85. Real-l-l-l-y?

"When confronted with polite disagreement you always seem to retreat into ad hominem attacks."
So let's see....in this thread alone we've got the RKBA crowd pretending there aren't 1,000 gun deaths a year in Michigan, that the CCW bill has been "zero trouble," that the 1,000 gun deaths a year is not "blood in the streets," that the rationale for a CCW law is crime reduction, and that the utter lack of that promised crime reduction is not relevant.

"Perhaps if you would actually attempt to debate instead of flame the Justice/Public Safety forum might be more enjoyable."
If you count inadvertant comedy, this is more fun than the circus...where else am I going to find "liberals" bemoaning the passing of armed vigilantes in the good old days on DU?

[jody]

89. The "sleeping man" icon is a 100% effective "Chihuahua Repellent". Try it

:hi: :D :7

[MrBenchley]

92. It's sure been a blessing to me

I can point out RKBA horseshit and hysteria publicly without having to wade through a new load in response.

[slackmaster]

95. Yes, but you have to be able to accept never having the last word

That takes a little more maturity than some of the Chihuahuas can muster. Maybe if they'd lay off the double espressos...

[RoeBear]

51. What do the 1,000 gun deaths have to do...

...with the CCW isssue? None of the deaths were attributable to permit holders.

[MrBenchley]

57. Gee, is that why you were pretending

they didn't exist?

[Character Assassin]

60. You made the inane comment, and have yet to tie the two together

Seeing as the CCW permit holders weren't involved in any of the gun deaths, what, pray tell, do they have to do with the over 1,000 gun deaths in the first place?

Sure, they exist. Now, how do you justify correlating them?

[MrBenchley]

62. Sure was a lot of dissembling for

an "inane comment."

You have to wonder why there was such a sustained effort to pretend there weren't 1,000 gun deaths sa year in Michigan from the RKBA crowd.

"how do you justify correlating them?
"
Easy...that's what the RKBA crowd is trying to pass off as "zero trouble."

[RoeBear]

71. Ok you're just trying to get someone to...

...over react to your statement so you get hit the alert button. Well I'm just to nice a guy for that manuever. The 'zero trouble' refers to zero trouble from people who have CCW permits and you know it.

[MrBenchley]

86. Gee, roe

I wasn;t the one trying to pretend there weren't 1`,000 gun deaths a year...or that those deaths amount to "zero trouble."

"The 'zero trouble' refers to zero trouble from people who have CCW permits"
If you don't count that it was lame-ducked in against the voters wishes, that it doesn't do what it was promised to do, that it is underfunded, and that it caused widespread disruptions in the state bureaucracy...other than all that it's just ducky.

[Character Assassin]

82. Dodge, dodge, dodge your way, merrily down the thread....

You have to wonder why there was such a sustained effort to pretend there weren't 1,000 gun deaths sa year in Michigan from the RKBA crowd.

I don't know and don't particularly care, seeing as I've never made such an effort myself. Now, how about answering my question?

"how do you justify correlating them?"

Easy...that's what the RKBA crowd is trying to pass off as "zero trouble."

That's not a substanative correlation, Einstein.

Now, how about accurately and pertinently answering my question?

If you can't, simply say so.

[MrBenchley]

87. "You can't prove there are 1,000 gun deaths a year...

oh, you CAN....well, let's change the subject..."

Such is RKBA "logic"

[Character Assassin]

88. You really are incapable of a relevant answer.

The topic of the thread is the likelihood (and recent crime data) that a CCW permit holder in MI will be involved with a gun related death. According to the article, it's proven to be essentially zero so far.

You interject with "Well, isn't 1,000 gun-related deaths enough for you bloodthirsty so-and-sos?"

When queried about what the one has to do with the other, you blow you typical cloud of nebulous, irrelevant bullshit that not only has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but that you also cannot back up with either pertinent data or any sort of structured argument.

Tilt, game over.

Try peddling your pantsload to Logic 101.

[MrBenchley]

91. Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

"The topic of the thread is the likelihood (and recent crime data) that a CCW permit holder in MI will be involved with a gun related death."
Sez you....the topic in post number one is that the CCW law has been zero trouble and that there is no blood in the streets in Michigan....and both of those propositions are horseshit.

"Logic 101."
Is that the one where the proposition went:

A claims CCW laws are proven to cut crime
A's claim turns out to be false
A cries "so what?"

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Character Assassin]

97. Ah, sailing clearly over your head once again....

"My, but you do require a lot of intellectual hand-holding. "

Rubbish.

Then prove it by substantiating your point, or remain an amusing footnote in prevarication.

"I'm sure you'd be comfortable in attributed the small drop in gun related deaths to the CCW permit increases"

Prove it.....

Oh, good lord. The point is that it can't be proven because it would be an abuse, and absurd one at that, of the statistical method, precisely like your attempt to correlate 1,000 gun deaths and the fact that none of them were related to the CCW permits.

Face it, Buckley, you stuck out your chin, got called on it and cannot accept that fact.

It's really quite amusing.

[MrBenchley]

98. Hahahahahahaha

"The point is that it can't be proven"
Like so much other RKBA horseshit...

[MrBenchley]

99. Too frigging funny for words

So I have to prove my points (and did), but you don't because you cannot? Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

DO shoot off a flare if you ever get near an actual FACT..

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonman]

101. FLARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you made an assertion that you cannot support, you transparently attempt to correlate things that cannot be correlated, and you babble about having done so.

[MrBenchley]

103. Nope, just another pathetic damp poot....

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

105. More like someone claiming he HAS taught the goat

algebra...but refusing to prove it.

I produced my proof for everything I said.....and you admitted you cannot prove what ytou had to say.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

107. Cry me a fucking river

And as far as who's being truthful....

post 60: "the CCW permit holders weren't involved in any of the gun deaths"
post 94: "the small drop in gun related deaths to the CCW permit increases, since that phenomena has occured since their issuance."
post 97: "The point is that it can't be proven"
post 106: "I made no assertions in the positive."

Now go pretend there's "zero trouble" and "nno blood in the streets" with somebody dumb enough to fall for it.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

61. The thread starter was about...

...the lack of problems there have been with the new CCW law in Michigan.

Township75 sarcastically asked: "Where is the blood in the streets?"

Your response was: "you mean about a thousand gun deaths a year isn't enough blood in the street for you?"

The reasonable conclusion is that you were claiming that the new CCW
law in Michigan was responsible for a thousand deaths and we both know that isn't true.

Then you went on to say: "FIFTEEN county prosecutors resigned rather than hand out CCW permits..." without clarifying that they were resigning from their respective gun boards, not their jobs as prosecutors.

[MrBenchley]

63. 1,000 deaths isn't enough blood in the streets?

"The reasonable conclusion is that you were claiming that the new CCW law in Michigan was responsible for a thousand deaths and we both know that isn't true."
But the whole reason there was a CCW law in Michigan was that gun deaths and all sorts of crime were supposed to be reduced by letting every neurotic carry a gun...which turned out to be horseshit.

Then you went on to say: "FIFTEEN county prosecutors resigned rather than hand out CCW permits..."
And again the RKBA crowd began pretending that was "zero trouble."

[RoeBear]

69. Neither of your replies makes any sense..

...did someone claim that CCW was going to end all crime in Michigan?
The only claim that I would make is that it may well end some crimes against those who are dedicated enough to go through the CCW process.

What does this mean?: "Then you went on to say: "FIFTEEN county prosecutors resigned rather than hand out CCW permits..."
And again the RKBA crowd began pretending that was "zero trouble."

What do 15 (or whatever the real number is) prosecutors bailing out on their gun boards in 2001 prove about 'trouble'? Wouldn't the real proof be what is shown in the link shown in the thread starter written 2 years after CCW began in Michigan?

http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/stories/20030906/localnews/205072.html

2581 GUN PERMITS, ZERO TROUBLE

[slackmaster]

74. RoeBear, it's obvious that someone is grasping at straws

As long as the change in the law did not lead to an INCREASE in unlawful shootings attributable to abuses of permitted, concealed weapons nobody can make a rational argument that liberalizing the law has done any harm. That's how I and I believe most on the pro-choice side of concealed carry feel about it.

I don't even have to read the other side's posts to see they're using the same old strawman arguments and appeals to emotion.

[MrBenchley]

79. Sure IS

So now that the rationnale for CCW turns out to be horseshit, who cares, eh?

"nobody can make a rational argument that liberalizing the law has done any harm."
Other than the dread that some nutcase is packing heat in puvlic places....

[MrBenchley]

78. Surrrrrrrre.....

"did someone claim that CCW was going to end all crime in Michigan?"
What did they say?

"Backers of the legislation have long said that the law unnecessarily restricts ordinary citizens' constitutional right to bear arms. They also say that liberalized CCW laws reduce crime because criminals are less likely to victimize someone who may be armed. "

http://www.kc3.com/news/michigan_ccw.htm

However, that turns out to be Mary Rosh's horseshit.

"What do 15 (or whatever the real number is) prosecutors bailing out on their gun boards in 2001 prove about 'trouble'?"
That the RKBA ccrowd don't care how much trouble the rest of us have to have, as long as they';ve got their precious fetish objects...from your OWN link:

""It's just impossible to find" all that background, Anderson said, noting there is no nationwide network listing all that information.
The state did not provide enough funding to accomplish that task, Anderson said, adding that only $10 of each applicant's $60 fee goes to the county clerk. He said that's not enough money to cover the costs incurred."

[MrBenchley]

11. Funny you bring up Michigan...

The CCW law was put through by lame duck GOP legislators...and when the people of Michigan collected enuogh signatures to put the measure to a referndum, right wing Republican judges threw it out.

http://www.twilightmd.com/Samples/KzooDems/news.htm

FIFTEEN county prosecutors resigned rather than hand out CCW permits...

[DocSavage]

12. Little more current link

Come on Bench, 2 year old story. Here is a link from the state police site. Seems that CCW's are still being issued.

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654---,00.html

[MrBenchley]

13. Isn't it great what blood money buys frrom the GOP?

Fifteen county prosecutors resigned rather than hand out gun permits like candy...

[RoeBear]

15. A little misleading there ole Bench...

...they didn't resign as prosecutors, they resigned as members of their county gun boards. And the number was 10 not 15.

[MrBenchley]

16. I'll stand by my source....

[idadem]

19. I'm with Mr. Benchley!

There are FAR too many gun crimes in Michigan as well as the rest of the United States! Guns cannot and should not be trusted in the hands of civilians.
Only military personnel and security/enforcement positions within the government should be able to keep and bear firearms.
That will solve the problem. I agree with Mr. Benchley on this.

[MrBenchley]

20. Actually

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning rifles and shotguns for legitimate purposes...but I think the owners should be licensed (and have to renew the license periodically) and the guns registered and fingerprinted.

"There are FAR too many gun crimes in Michigan as well as the rest of the United States!"
Now that I agree with 100%....and that blood is on the hands of the GOP and the corrupt gun industry...which have done all they can to put guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

[idadem]

21. but...

...shotguns and rifles are MUCH more destructive than handguns.
Their velocities are higher, their payloads are usually greater and their range is longer.
Have you ever seen the damage that the average 00 buck shotgun round does? A pump shotgun could nearly be sawed down to magnum handgun size. Shotgun slugs weigh an OUNCE or more. Handgun bullets do not even approach this mass.

Besides, handguns ARE registered in Michigan. All prospective buyers must go through an extra background check, obtain a license to purchase, and then register the handgun after the sale with their local police/sheriff office. This process has been the law for quite some time yet handgun crimes STILL OCCUR! A rifle or shotgun between 26 and 30 inches is also considered to be a handgun by Michigan law and must be registered.

Licensing obviously does not work. Ban them all now!

[MrBenchley]

22. But

shotguns and rifles also have legitimate uses for "sportsmen" or self defense...

"Handgun bullets do not even approach this mass."
But handguns are MUCH more dangerous in so many other ways...

[idadem]

23. The only...

...advantage the handgun has is it's portability and concealability. These traits could be given to rifles and shotguns through easy modifications. An equipment review by our military in Iraq illustrated great discontent by the soldiers regarding their Beretta M9s which are ubiquitous 9 millimeter, 15 shot autoloading pistols. The civilian version is called the 92FS. The biggest complaint is that this handgun lacked sufficient 'knockdown power.' Multiple shots were needed to kill, much less hit, targets.
Glowing reviews were made for the .223 caliber rifle round which their M4 carbines and M16A2 rifles are chambered for. The job of the military in essence is to 'kill people and break stuff.' And this round is their baby. It's also the baby of National Match champions, varmint hunters and the villainous D.C area snipers.

oo buck shotgun rounds throw out TWELVE .35 caliber balls with each pull of the trigger.

You still think that handguns are more dangerous?

[MrBenchley]

24. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

"The only advantage the handgun has is it's portability and concealability."
And our chief weapon is surprise and fear...

[idadem]

25. I also said,

'These traits could be given to rifles and shotguns through easy modifications.'

A potential victim has SOME miniscule chance of running away from a short-radius-sighted gun or surviving a 'poorly-placed' or 'underpowered' shot.

Against a downsized rifle or shotgun(two minutes with a hacksaw,) the potential victim is an easier target at longer distances as well as responding handgun-equipped police officers ala 1987 L.A. bank robbery shootout.

[RoeBear]

32. Here's my source...

...where's yours?

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/070601/loc_0706010002.shtml

[iverglas]

33. cripes

Here's what Benchley said:

Fifteen county prosecutors resigned rather than hand out gun permits like candy...

Here's what his source said:
http://www.twilightmd.com/Samples/KzooDems/news.htm

In all, at least 15 county prosecutors have left local gun boards in response to the new law, according to the Detroit Free Press.

I don't see any real inconsistency; when I read his statement, I wondered what prosecutors were doing handing out gun permits, but I put this down to my foreign-ness. I see that they "hand out" those permits in their capacity as members of "local gun boards". I'd assume that others might know this; and if they didn't, it would be their own fault if they didn't click on the link and learn it.

Benchley's source is dated September 29, 2001, and cites the Detroit Free Press as its source. A reasonably authoritative source for Detroit news, in my experience.

So, then you said:

"A little misleading there ole Bench...
...they didn't resign as prosecutors, they resigned as members of their county gun boards. And the number was 10 not 15."

Well, he didn't say they resigned as prosecutors. And how are we doing on substantiation for your claim that the number was "10" vs. his claim that the number was "15"?

Your source:
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/070601/loc_0706010002.shtml
(Authoritative? I haven't a clue, but I have no reason to question it.)

is dated July 6, 2001 (so it's not only older than Benchley's, but even less able to stand up to that "2 year old story" critique from DocSavage. Anyhow, it says:

Allegan County Prosecutor Fred Anderson is among at least 10 county prosecutors in Michigan to step down from their county gun board seats in protest of the state's new concealed weapons law.

Gosh.

Looks to me like pretty much exactly the same story, quite likely accurate at the time it was written, and not inconsistent with the story offered by Benchley. "At least 10" at the beginning of July 2001 (YOUR calling this "10" being a bit "misleading" ... in YOUR favour), "at least 15" at the end of September 2001 (HIS calling this "15" being a bit "misleading" ... in YOUR favour again).

Oh, and btw, Benchley's source also tells us:

In Wayne County, when Prosecutor Mike Duggan resigned from the county's gun board, his investigators also left.

Just for good measure.

So all in all, I'm seeing a pretty bald assertion of something as a fact -- "the number was 10 not 15" -- with no substantiation of that claim at all ... and a kinda misleading use of the word "misleading" ...


.

Oh, and as far as DocSavage's criticism:

Come on Bench, 2 year old story. Here is a link from the state police site. Seems that CCW's are still being issued.

... well, I'm afraid I'm just not taking the point. Did someone imagine that Benchley said that permits were *not* being issued??

.

[MrBenchley]

38. What did you expect?

By the way, did you notice that this new "proof" included the FACT that all county prosecutors were urged to resign...

"Did someone imagine that Benchley said that permits were *not* being issued??"
RKBA "logic"....

[MrBenchley]

36. I posted mine

Nice to see even the RKBA crowd can't avoid showing what a disaster this lunatic mess is.

"Allegan County Prosecutor Fred Anderson is among at least 10 county prosecutors in Michigan to step down from their county gun board seats in protest of the state's new concealed weapons law.
The law went into effect after the state Supreme Court last week overturned an appeals court decision that would have delayed the law until it could go before voters on a referendum. A group opposed to the new law, People Who Care About Kids, had submitted 230,000 signatures to put the measure before voters.
Following the high court's decision, the Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association recommended that its 83 county prosecutors resign from their gun boards."

[RoeBear]

44. Please note that I was...

responding to your post #13 that had no link; somehow I never saw your post #11 that had the link.

[RoeBear]

54. Most recent link says 10

This is from the link at the start of this thread:

"St. Clair County Prosecutor Peter George was one of 10 prosecutors statewide to resign from the gun board in protest of the law in July 2001. He still says that was the right decision."

But you know what? I agree that all the prosecutors should resign from their respective gun boards. The state legislature took away there little power trip and what's the point of having a position of power if you can't exert it over someone?

[theshadow]

17. Wisconsin looks to the east....

and sees Michigan's experience with this. The GOP is pushing for concealed carry (again). The state police chiefs are divided on whether to support, oppose, or stay out of it. The state sheriffs I hear are still opposed. I checked out the MSP web page and there are a lot of provisions that make this look do-able, but I just remember that every member of my force who has been assaulted in the past year (including one who was almost disarmed) was attacked by someone who didn't have a criminal record. Such fine people would be able to get a permit; the screening process doesn't include a test for anger management problems. So instead of grabbing the cop's arm, pull out your gun?

[slackmaster]

37. Question about the people who assaulted members of your force

...I just remember that every member of my force who has been assaulted in the past year (including one who was almost disarmed) was attacked by someone who didn't have a criminal record.

How many of them were under a restraining order for domestic violence?

[theshadow]

75. None.....

were under restraining orders or had prior records. The guy who came close to disarming the officer was a homeowner, family man. His wife is a lawyer. Got drunk, went berserk.

[CO Liberal]

77. Sounds Like "The Shadow Knows....."

Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[rusk2003]

27. Well how about the CCW permit holders who did not get coaught

Lets be real I don't think they would inform the police after they commited a crime. That is the only two we know of. :think: