Concealed Carry Permits Skyrocket in Michigan

[TPaine7]

Between 2007 and 2008, 26,500 people applied for a concealed weapons permit, in 2009 that jumped to 66,500.

In Branch County, all those applications are putting a strain on workers.

In 2007 Branch County had only 71 applications for a concealed gun license, but in 2009 that number jumped to 400.

“We saw a huge increase in concealed weapons,” said Branch County Clerk Terry Kubasiak.

Source: http://www.wwmt.com/articles/margin-1373889-bottom-newschannel.html

If this keeps up, the question of whether guns in civilian hands deter crime as well as preventing it will be definitively solved. The scientific issue so far, IMO, has been the relatively small percentage of the population that is armed.

[catbyte]

1. Great. I feel so much safer now.

:sarcasm:

There's too many idjits here as it is without them being armed as well.

Diane

Anishnabe in MI

[shadowrider]

2. You should

[TheWraith]

5. Don't worry. Statistically you're more likely to be shot by a cop than a civilian CCW holder. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. While a cop is ~5X more likey to shoot you... there are WAY MORE than 5X the amount of CCW. (n/t)

[TPaine7]

8. But cops are--I would guess--much more likely to be involved in shootings.

Personally, I don't know enough to evaluate the claim.

(Actually, I think it's that cops are ~5 times more likely to shoot you wrongly DUE TO MISIDENTIFICATION.)

[benEzra]

10. Not nationwide.

I saw some numbers a while back that IIRC indicated there are more CHL holders than LEO's nationwide (and I believe this included all LEO in the total, not just local).

[PavePusher]

13. I believe that stat is 5X more likely overall...

not per capita.

Safe is safe.

[TPaine7]

6. I feel safer too...

(without the sarcasm).

In some places, at least, women are driving the concealed carry trend ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x300392 ).
Idjits rarely get concealed carry permits. Citizens who defend themselves with guns do very well:

Civilian Shooters

Another argument is that civilians are not skilled enough to use guns; they are likely to shoot innocents—or even themselves. This, while at least intuitively reasonable, is wrong.

Evidence pertaining to police use of firearms also indicates that civilians who use guns
for self-protection are actually less likely to shoot innocent parties than police officers.{42}

Civilians are safer in real life shootings according to several measures:

A nationwide comparative study conducted by Mr. Kates at St. Louis University School
of Law found that police succeeded in shooting, wounding or driving off criminals 68%
of the time, while 83% of the armed citizens succeeded; 21% of the officers and 17.8% of
the citizens were wounded or killed. Incidentally, 11% of the police shootings but only
2% of those by armed citizens involved innocent people misidentified as criminals.{43}

They are 1.22 times more likely to shoot, wound, or drive off criminals; they are 15% less likely to be wounded or killed; they are 5.5 times less likely to shoot the wrong person due to misidentification.

Much of this, at least, is a function of difficulty. Police must go to the felon, who is often strategically positioned; they are seldom attacked in their stations, while citizens often repel home invaders. Police go into dynamic and difficult situations where split second decisions are required. It is often hard to tell the innocent from the guilty. Citizens face little difficulty in knowing who is trying to rape, rob or kill them. Most violent crime also requires the perpetrator to get close, so close it is easy to shoot him. Gun battles with police are not always so intimate. Finally, a felon knows that a uniformed officer is armed, whereas a nice lady who produces a weapon may very well catch him flat-footed.

But even though this comparative data is no indictment of police officers, it definitely puts the overblown danger of citizen shootings in perspective.

Criminological studies also demonstrate that citizens are more likely than police to need a
handgun for self-defense. Particularly in urban areas, armed citizens annually encounter,
and kill, as many as three times more violent felons than do police. Using survey data
(collected, incidentally, not by the gun lobby but by anti-gun organizations),
criminologists conclude that instances of lawful defensive gun use by citizens each year
actually exceed gun misuse by felons.{44}

Simply put, honest citizens can, should, and have a right to defend themselves. Their active participation in their own security improves society.

Source and to see the footnotes: www.obamaonsecond.com

Sometimes science and intuition don't agree. The data says that citizens are safer than police officers and more effective. If you believe that putting more armed police on the streets is good for society, how can you deny that allowing more sane adults, after training and thorough FBI background checks, to carry concealed weapons is good?

Citizens are safer and more effective in shootings, and cost the taxpayer $0.00.

[gorfle]

9. good thing most CCW holders aren't "idjits"

I'm not sure what your definition of an "idjit" is, but you may be comforted in knowing that CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than your average citizen.

Most people who commit violent firearm crimes, about 90%, have an extensive prior criminal background that would exclude them from obtaining a CCW permit and legally carrying a concealed firearm.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

People with CCW permits have no felony background and have no disqualifying mental conditions. This should be comforting, not distressing.

[louis-t]

3. I remember when CCW rules were relaxed.

Macomb County jail was where you had to go. The guys coming out of the drunk tank had to wade through 40 guys in line with their weapons in boxes. I remember thinking that probably wasn't a good idea.

[safeinOhio]

4. I see all of those strict regulations

on buying and registering hand guns in Michigan don't stop law abiding people from taking advantage of their Second Amendment rights. Even sales between individuals must go thru a background check and a permit to purchase. Even though there is no "gun show" loop hole in that state there are plenty of gun shows every week end too.

[spin]

11. While I have no problem with a background check for privates sales...

I have a major problem with registering handguns.

[safeinOhio]

12. I never had a problem with it

when I live there. I was glad to know what I was buying was a clean gun and the buyer was legal. Also made it possible to get your gun back if stolen. I have more of a problem with registering long guns. If they ever come to take away your guns, I never worry about that, it'll be long guns. No revolt was ever fought with hand guns, they'd be useless.

[PavePusher]

14. Incorrect.

A handgun would be highly useful, at close range, for obtaining one of the enemies long-guns.

Just requires a bit of planning, some team-work and some major courage.

[safeinOhio]

15. That could be true, however

I can't think of any war or battle won with hand guns vs long guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. When the Jews revolted in the Warsaw Ghetto, and they asked...

...for help, they asked for long guns. They said that handguns were next to useless. Sorry, I don't have a link. I saw it on a History Channel program about the uprising.

Regretfully, they got no help.

[Statistical]

16. Reigstration = information and action won't be limited to handguns.

If you have a handgun registered it is unlikely they will come for you handgun and allow you to keep an armory of long-guns because it "isn't on the list".

Registration is wrong. Thankfully VA law prohibits registrations and preempts any local attempt at a registration system.

[safeinOhio]

19. I'd guess membership in the NRA

would work even better. They sell the list.

As the op shows it doesn't cause a problem for law abiding people in Michigan. I don't know what they do with the information, I just know they are registered at time of purchase and requires a background check. My guess is there is a record of every purchase with the FBI anyway. I have no problem with it and keep no tin foil in my home.

[armueller2001]

18. Registration

historically leads to confiscation

[safeinOhio]

20. does that mean that some day they

will come for my chevy and ford?x(

[armueller2001]

21. I don't recall any time when

cars have been confiscated...

[safeinOhio]

22. Not even "historically"? n/t

[armueller2001]

23. Nope.

Can you?

[safeinOhio]

25. Nope

that is why I questioned your statement.

[X_Digger]

17. Somehow when I read the title..

I asked myself, "Yes, but can you conceal a skyrocket in your pocket?"

[safeinOhio]

24. As kids we use to

conceal them in our pockets coming back from Windsor.
:nuke: