Every time I hear of a shooting, whether intentional or accidental, I always joke that the response from some 2nd Amendment zealots will be that the solution to the epidemic of gun violence is more guns, and that is, apparently, one Republican Michigan Senator’s response to the tragic shooting in Arizona; more guns.
Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, introduced Senate Bills 58 and 59 on Tuesday that would repeal so-called gun-free public zones that currently include sports stadiums, schools, university dorms and classrooms, day care centers, churches, hospitals and casinos. The bills would also take away the issuance of concealed carry permits from the local gun board, consisting of the elected county sheriff and other local law enforcement officials, to the Michigan Secretary of State.
Great; let’s arm drunks in Ford Field, and instead of the law enforcement officials who know their community issuing CCW permits, where they have to have a good reason to deny the permit, over to a clerk at the local SOS office. . I find it ironic that Republicans block every single effort to make registering to vote or to vote easier and more convenient, but they have no problem making it easier to get something as deadly as a handgun.
This makes no sense, and incidents continue to pile up that reinforce that. There are far more gun accidents, like the recent accidental shooting in Gardena High School in California, that instances of a gun owner using a weapon in self-defense or defense of others. There are far more murders with guns than instances of a gun owner using a weapon in self-defense or defense of others.
Every year in this country guns kill more 30,000 people, and 70,000 more people are shot and injured. Zealots like John Lott and others continue to make the false claim that allowing more adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America, but that myth has been debunked by peer reviewed studies, like the one called “Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use" by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009,”
That study found that “The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner--against a criminal during the commission of a crime--will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime. It is a rare event. Other Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun uses.”
Amen.
Last session, current Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, sponsored Senate Bill 747 that would have allowed concealed guns in classrooms and dormitories on college campuses. Law enforcement and college and university officials came out strongly against it. The good news is common sense prevailed, and the bill never got out of committee and died
Let’s hope the same thing happens to Senate Bills 58 and 59, which are currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee awaiting action.
12 comments:
Kev Head, watch this then make a comment. Its funny because its true, its titled "Criminals for Gun control." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo
Have you noticed how the cities with the strictest gun control tend to have the highest rates of crime involving guns? Maybe sometime pick up the book Freakanomics and read that section of the book only on gun control.
No, I haven’t; any facts to back up that talking point? I didn’t think so. Perhaps the fact that they have the “highest rates of crime involving guns” is the reason they allegedly have the “strictest gun control.”
Since you claim I have been “debunked many times” can you debunk anything in this post?
wait you havent noticed how cities with the strictest gun contols have the highest violent crime rates?
Who says I am disagreeing with anything in the article, there are certain aspects I dont agree with. You just dont like to see the otherside of your arguments. Go get Freakanomics from the library today. Its "free" to you from there, so go pick it up and learn something on gun control.
No.
I do lots of reading, and I don’t see what a book on amateur sociology is going to do for me. I certainly, have a long list of books that I’m getting through, but I’ll look into it. However, a more accurate source for gun control info would be things like the peer reviewed study, “Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use" by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, or “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000, or “A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance - American Statistical Association, 1997 or “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998 or “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000.
You seem to be making a correlation here that cannot be made. I'm not sure that I can say this correctly, but I'm going to give it a shot. I'm not the least bit concerned about ComGur's response because I already know that I say that if I put my left shoe on first in the morning, then my right shoe, he'll tell me I'm wrong.
First of all, I checked the gov. website on this and the numbers put out by ComGu are incorrect.
The number of deaths by use of a gun and the number of incidents prevented because of a gun in defense cannot be correlated because not everyone owns a gun, and not everyone has the opportunity to use the gun if they own one, if they are attacked.
Let's say there are ten crimes committed with a gun. Let's also say that five of those attacked owned guns and three of them successfully repelled the attack through the defensive use of their own gun. How many of the other 7 had a gun but didn't go for it because they didn't think they safely could? We don't know.
What we do know from that example is that 7 people were successfully attacked and 3 successfully repelled their attacker. We can deduce from that, that had those three with guns and the opportunity to get to it for protection, would have been counted as successfully attacked had they not had a gun for protection. But not one of the non gun owners, had that option because they didn't have a gun for protection.
I'll continue..
I have not found one incident where there was a gun accident when someone is trying to protect themselves from an attack by a person with a gun. It doesn't mean there haven't been any. I just haven't found one yet.
I was looking at some charts on the gov. website. In most states, deaths caused by guns are way down the list. The biggest reason for deaths was actually due to a fall.
In cities where they have high incidents of gun deaths, there is strict gun control.
Is it possible that if the gun laws were relaxed that someone at Ford Field could get drunk and use their gun? Yes. But it's also possible that a criminal could come in and shoot someone with their gun where there is no alcohol involved. What do we call those victims? Unlucky?
In the shooting in Arizona, the police didn't stop the shooter. The first reports of the resolution of that said that someone with a gun had stopped the gunman. I actually was surprised at this that someone would fire back at a supposed gunman in a crowd. Turns out it didn't happen that way. Instead, three people tackled the guy. One of those three was a woman.
To ban guns to stop accidents only means that if that persons time is up (if you believe in that philosophy) he'll be hit by a car, or a falling piano, or hit by a baseball in just the right place. So to be consistent, you'd have to ban cars, piano's and baseballs.
"Conflict resolution" is not going to stop someone from hurting another if that person is dead set on hurting someone. But when a gunman comes in to steal something that doesn't belong to him, or to kill someone, the only way to level the playing field (isn't that one of the liberals favorite lines?) is for the proposed victim to be armed equally as well. Even the high and mighty Barack Obama told his people that if they come to a fight with knives, you bring a gun.
Well stated not anon, KevHead wont like it of course.
And KevHead, just go to the libary look into Freakanomics and just read the section on gun control, a book written by non-amateur people.
You are right, you didn't say it correctly. Let me say it for you: “I’m not the least bit concerned about ComGur's (sic) response because I already know, as usual, that the facts are not on my side and can’t debunk what he wrote.”
Really, the numbers are wrong? Do you have something to back that up?
Are you serious? “The number of deaths by use of a gun and the number of incidents prevented because of a gun in defense cannot be correlated because not everyone owns a gun, and not everyone has the opportunity to use the gun if they own one, if they are attacked?” That is a ridiculous statement. The number of deaths by gunshot wound can easily be counted as they are. In fact, the number is more than 30,000 and another 70,000 more are wounded.
If you read the linked study, you will find that gun owners are directly asked if they have ever used a gun in self-defense or defense of themselves. The findings are that the opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner--against a criminal during the commission of a crime--will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime.
The bottom line: the solution to the epidemic of gun violence is not more guns.
Once again, anonymous coward, I am still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
I'm glad to see Mike Green back in the legislature. He's a stand up guy. Now as for this comment.
"""Great; let’s arm drunks in Ford Field, and instead of the law enforcement officials who know their community issuing CCW permits, where they have to have a good reason to deny the permit, over to a clerk at the local SOS office.""""
1. It's still illegal to carry with ANY alcohol in one's system, although law enforcement wants to change that (if they haven't yet)....for themselves of course. I fully understand that alcohol and guns don't mix, but that needs to apply to all - badge or not.
2. Concealed Pistol License holders are more law abiding than the police. Because of that, if those areas are off limits to CPL holders, than no exception should apply to law enforcement.
3. The only extent the cops should give for approval are those who don't pass the background check. That's it.
I'm glad to see you failed to debunk any facts.
1.So, how do you know a drunk is carrying until he, either, is arrested or used the weapon?
2. “Concealed Pistol License holders are more law abiding than the police?” Based on what, your own poll?
3. Why shouldn’t local law enforcement be part of that background check at the point of issue?
I have an idea Kev. Why don't you post a sign out front of your house saying that your property is a "WEAPONS FREE ZONE... no guns kept here or allowed! Dirtbags stay away!"
We will check back with you next year to see how effective it has been. ;)
As for my property... protected by Mr's Smith and Wesson.
Why would I do that, and what does that have to do with this post?
I have never advocated for not allowing people to keep a gun in their home. The fact that I have never had a gun in my home while I lived in places like, as I have said in the past, like North Chicago, San Diego, Norfolk, Va., Charleston, SC. And Jacksonville, Fl. And have never had a break in or an act of violence perpetrated against me just reinforces the study I referred to that found “The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner--against a criminal during the commission of a crime--will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime.”
Post a Comment