Michigan Concealed Carry

[mikeb302000]

http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy?odyssey=tab">The Detroit Free Press has published a two-part article about how well the Concealed Carry Permit laws are working out for Michigan.

Ten years after Michigan made it much easier for its citizens to get a license to carry a concealed gun, predictions of widespread lawless behavior and bloodshed have failed to materialize.

Today, nearly 276,000 -- or about four out of every 100 eligible adult Michiganders -- are licensed.

But violent crimes have been rare among carrying a concealed weapon license holders. Only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, State Police records show.

I have two problems with that.

First, I don't believe the "Police records" that show this statistic are reliable or comprehensive. There are often problems in communicating between cities and counties, people who commit crimes in one district, continue to enjoy gun rights in another. So, the percentage is much higher.

Second, who decided that 2% is low? Even if it were an accurate number, which I've already shown in unlikely, it's HIGH. Did you do the math? 2% of 276,000 is 5,520. To me that's not acceptable.

Consider another thing. The 5,520 are concealed carry permit holders whom we KNOW have committed crimes. Imagine how many have not been caught. It's hard to guess, but what would you think, another 2% only? I'd say the percentage of hidden criminals among the 276,000 CCW guys is much higher than that. Let's use a universally accepted standard, the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-10.html">Famous 10%. That would give us another 27,000 dangerous people with carry permits.

Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the article's attempt to spin the Michigan situation. But, did we really even have to go through all that. Michigan is the proud home of Detroit. 'Nuff said?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

3. +100. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. The crack about Detroit is below the belt

Such a remark could be interpreted to mean that you don't think black people should have the right to defend themselves.


Detroit is 84% black.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Gun control has classist and racist roots, rare to see it so obvious though

[Blown330]

4. My opinion.

Is that you failed math and statistics. I strongly disagree with your attempt to spin the Michigan situation. Your personal bias is not a substitute for facts. Either present evidence or go find somewhere else to peddle your blog. Unrec.

[mikeb302000]

8. Exactly for whom do you speak?

Do you have some position of responsibility around here which allows you to tell me to go away? And what the hell does "unrec" in a comment actually mean anyway, other than an indication that you, like an adolescent bully, cannot stand anyone who disagrees with him.

[Blown330]

24. I speak for anyone with...

...a shred of common sense. You have no facts to back up you claims. None. When you can post up actual numbers upon which your opinion can even approach validity THEN there will at least be some mechanism in which a proper debate can be framed. Unrec means exactly what it means, you post drivel and it's not recommended.

[mikeb302000]

26. I don't think you're right about that

What I post is stuff you don't like. That's your problem. Tell me this, if I posted links to studies and surveys that support what I write, would you accept them? No, of course not, because your mind is made up. On my blog there are plenty of examples of "actual numbers," but you know what the problem is, in the gun debate both sides can come up with stats that support what they believe. It "proves" nothing.

What I challenge you to do is use your head and argue from a point to rational thinking and common sense. You can't handle that.

So, "unrec" all you want. The more you do it the more of an idiot you appear to be.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. He is correct, you just don't like it. First you ask

"What's your opinion" He gives it and you ask "Do you have some position of responsibility around here which allows you to tell me to go away?" So what is it really? Do you want peoples' opinion, or just opinions that agree with you?

You post "stuff" here without any citations and want to be taken seriously? Now you say, I have the states on my blog and want us to increase your traffic???!!! NOT very likely. If you are relying on false data (like "children" being 24 years old) I can see why you don't want to post it, otherwise. . . As far a a persons "mind (being) made up" perhaps you should go back and read some of your own posts. What is it you said is your goal. . . Oh yeah, "the destruction of the 2A" and the possible confiscation of all firearms. Yeah, you've got a real open mind there don't ya?

As far as "unrec" goes. The folks at DU are not real happy about your blog flogging on DU's coat tails. Did you read the post in the Ask the Admins forum regarding your activity? I suspect it will be dealt with eventually. And for you to suggest that a person following Skinner's advice is an idiot is laughable on its face.

[mikeb302000]

37. when I ask what's your opinion

I mean on the post, not on me personally and what you think my motivations are. But, you knew that and what you're doing is some kind of flim-flam confusing of the two things.

The stuff I write without any citations is the way I like to do it. In many cases the citations are there, you can look them up if you want. Other times what I do is use my head a bit and suggest things that seem to me like common sense. What you and your friends do is derail the discussion and make it about me and what I do and how I do it. And here I am sucked in and justifying myslef. You win.

You describe me like this:

"Oh yeah, "the destruction of the 2A" and the possible confiscation of all firearms. Yeah, you've got a real open mind there don't ya?"

Maybe you haven't been reading along in your undue haste to attack personally. About the 2A, I say it's been bastardized over the last 5 or 6 decades into a state of unrecognizability. It should be restored to its rightful place, which would be equal to the 3A in modern-day applicability. If you want to call that "destruction" I think that makes you a bit of a drama queen, but fine.

About the "confiscation of all firearms," you must be a totally paranoid gun owner as well as a shitty mind reader to think that's my goal. My ideal world would have the worst half of the present lawful gunowners disarmed for various reasons that make them unfit. The other half would be of such a high quality as a group, everyone would be happy. That's basically what I envision.

[Hoopla Phil]

48. Oh this is rich, LOL. . . .

Text "I mean on the post, not on me personally and what you think my motivations are. But, you knew that and what you're doing is some kind of flim-flam confusing of the two things."

Are these not your words? "What's your opinion? Please leave a comment." I believe they are. I'll let your own words speak for themselves. LOL

The stuff I write without any citations is the way I like to do it. In many cases the citations are there, you can look them up if you want.

I'm sure you like to do it that way - makes it much easier to post BS when you don't have to back it up with anything. It's not MY job to look up what YOU post - it's YOUR job to back up what you post, if you can that is.

Other times what I do is use my head a bit and suggest things that seem to me like common sense. What you and your friends do is derail the discussion and make it about me and what I do and how I do it. And here I am sucked in and justifying myslef. You win.

Now that is just too rich: "Suggest things that seem like common sense". What was it Albert Einstein said . . . Oh, here it is: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.". It means PROVE yourself and don't just pull stuff out of your rectal orifice because it will be taken as such. Please note that it is not derailing a discussion to ask for citations or point out flaws in your logic. It may be inconvenient for you, but it is essential for a frank and open discussion.

You describe me like this:

"Oh yeah, "the destruction of the 2A" and the possible confiscation of all firearms. Yeah, you've got a real open mind there don't ya?"

I didn't "describe" you. I QUOTED you, and commented on your own words.

Maybe you haven't been reading along in your undue haste to attack personally.

I've made no personal attacks, but keep reading as the personal attacks are coming.


About the 2A, I say it's been bastardized over the last 5 or 6 decades into a state of unrecognizability. It should be restored to its rightful place, which would be equal to the 3A in modern-day applicability. If you want to call that "destruction" I think that makes you a bit of a drama queen, but fine.

No, the 2A is being restored to it's correct meaning after being under assault sense around the 1930's. Please read the Federalist papers (or the citations in the Heller decision) on what the 2A is supposed to be about. If you feel we no longer need the 2A you are welcome to try and have it repealed. Until then, it is still part of the constitution and not to simply be ignored.

I didn't call it "destruction". Again, I quoted you on that so please do not assign that to me - it was in fact YOUR assertion. Remember that bit about personal attacks? "I think that makes you a bit of a drama queen" You now start name calling because I quoted YOUR WORDS. Odd that you felt them appropriate when you wrote them but consider a person quoting you a "drama queen" for. . . um, quoting your own words. LMAO


About the "confiscation of all firearms," you must be a totally paranoid gun owner as well as a shitty mind reader to think that's my goal.

Remember that accusation of personal attacks??? LOL

Again I QUOTED you about that. YOU said it. It is not paranoia or mind reading when it is a quote that YOU wrote. You may wish that you hadn't let your real agenda slip but you did. Other gun control proponents have slipped at times and let there true agenda out. (Dianne Feinstein - "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

So when faced with facts and quotations you make personal attacks. . .typical


My ideal world would have the worst half of the present lawful gunowners disarmed for various reasons that make them unfit. The other half would be of such a high quality as a group, everyone would be happy. That's basically what I envision.

If they are currently lawful gun owners then it's frankly none of your business, and they/we fortunately have the protections of the 2A against people with your agenda.

Oh, I notice again that you state that you want (half) of present lawful gun owners disarmed. Would it be paranoia, or mind reading to quote you on that? LOL

[Blown330]

36. You post garbage...

...and it would be rational for you to keep it to your own blog.


When you post links to credible surveys, studies, and any other type of research supporting anything I'd like to know. You have done none of that to date. I would throw your challenge back in your face but I know you are severely handicapped in this debate. You have nothing original or substantive and all you've shown so far is the ability to parrot so called "facts" from the likes of the VPC which have been thoroughly debunked by plenty of those who exercise rational thinking and common sense.

[pipoman]

5. Covert blog spamming is no better than your usual fare...unrec..n/t

[michreject]

6. "which I've already shown in unlikely"

You have shown no such thing.

Your speculations are nothing more than speculations.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. You don't get to invent "facts".

Your are inflating "any kind of sanction" and imagining it to be a violent felony. "Any kind of sanction" can mean that you were given a ticket for an out of date car registration. Think I'm exegerating? Well, three of those sanctions were for exctly that. Here is a complete list from the Michigan state police of all of the sanctions and you will see that only a few of them are for violent crimes. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2009-10_CPL_Annual_Report_343621_7.pdf

Here is a really, really bad criminal charge: Failure to wear hunter orange during hunting season - One person. Horrors! It's a CCW crime wave. That's just in one county.

Read through the list. You will find that very few of those sanctions are for violence.

While it is true that all counties did not report, there is no reason to believe that the non-reporting counties have greater problems with CCWers than the reporting counties.

Nor can you disregard the 2% just because it doesn't fit your bias.

[mikeb302000]

9. if you weren't so close-minded and biased

you'd see that my ideas make a good deal of sense. Think about it (if you can).

[PavePusher]

10. Jello. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. The ideologue with the closed mind and rabid bias is you...

The rest of us are somewhat diverse in our views but do come together to support broad civil rights as defined in the US Constitution.

[one-eyed fat man]

20. THIS explains everything.....

Why you are an ex-pat living in Italy. Why your posts read like they do.

Italy Relaxes Cannabis Laws

Livia Turco, the Minister of Health and a member of the former Communist Democrats of the Left, said today that she would act immediately on the amount of cannabis permitted, an administrative measure that does not require parliamentary approval.

She said the amount of cannabis allowed for personal use — 500mg — would be doubled. Nearly 10 per cent of Italians smoke cannabis regularly, according to a recent survey.

Small wonder you are besides yourself with apprehension over those who might "toke and tote."

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Your ideas are not backed up by facts.

You have not reasoned from facts but have begun with a conclusion and invented "facts" to support that conclusion. Yes, I do have a stron bias toward logical reasoning from established facts.

[Hoopla Phil]

33. "close-minded and biased"? This from the person that says he wants to

"destroy the second (and then) we may just decide to come for your guns after all."??? Yeah, aren't you just the paragon of open mindedness there ain't ha?

Edit to add citation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438276#438536

[ileus]

11. Excellent article....looks like they've discovered what most states with CC already know.

[DonP]

12. Who to believe, the Michigan legal authorities or you? - tough call

"I don't believe the police records..."

Well, la de frickin da!

That's that, the rest of us might as well pack up and head for home I guess.

Your doubt is based on .... your opinion supported by nothing beyond what you think it should be?

All of your subsequent conclusions are based on what you "think" (using that term very loosely) and are therefore dependent on your first assumption that the cops and DA's in Michigan are cooking the books for some reason that you can't, or won't, reveal. You then proceed to pull random percentages from your nether regions, again supported by squat.

Ah, maybe its a conspiracy and the same people that fought CCW for years are now in on the plot? Are we going to switch to talking about who was on the grassy knoll soon?

In a few short weeks you, your blog and your posts have become the stuff on entertainment for many.

Please, please do not go back to your job as a Vespa repairman and part time blogger, your sense of humor is needed here. But I am curious if I can fit a 30mm Dellorto carb on a '62 VNB?

[mikeb302000]

17. I guess that makes us really different, Don.

When I hear something like "it's only 2%," I think about. I ask myself if that makes sense or if the one who said that has an agenda. What do you do when you hear things like that? You just blindly accept them?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. What about your agenda?

Blog flogging and the rest?

[ileus]

21. who's agenda to believe....Humm....

[DonP]

22. And, of course, you have no agenda to plug?

Except ... none of your answers bears any relationship to the real facts on the ground. You are incapable of accepting that your base premise has been disproven by the reality in front of you.

You, and others, can't accept that CCW really doesn't result in a blood bath and that crime and violence continues to drop. There's a lot of that going around though. So we actually have people here hoping for a blood bath to prove they were right, and highlighting every criminal shooting as if it proves something about the law abiding, how sick is that?

When confronted with facts that are contrary to your espoused and embraced POV your typical reaction is "Well, that can't be true". Geez, you sound like the people confronting Galileo. "We don't want to accept your POV and we don't have to".

Again, basic question, why do you think that the very people who fought against CCW for years are now saying it's not a real issue for their area?

What could their possible motivation be? Bought off by the evil NRA? Paid under the table by the firearms industry? Reporter lied about what they said? They have bodies hidden all over town so they don't have to count them?

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Speaking of "agenda". How about this blast from the not so distant past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438276#438536

it's not "destroy the second"
your side's already done that. You heroes, the slave-owning, misogynist but sacred founding fathers would not even recognize what's become of the 2A. It needs to be restored to its proper place, which is as completely anachronistic and meaningless in today's society as the 3rd.

That's what's coming eventually. So, you better stock up on guns and ammo while you can because once we destroy the second we may just decide to come for your guns after all.


Some people have very short memories.

[mikeb302000]

27. that's not a good example of "agenda."

My low opinion of the 2A is just that, a low opinion. I'm not operating an agenda to abolish it. Ibelieve it's meaningless, that's all.

My "agenda," if it could be said that I have one, is for proper gun control laws.

[Hoopla Phil]

31. Your own words make it pretty clear. It's not just your "low opinion of the 2A" it the

fact that you want to "destroy the second (and then) we may just decide to come for your guns after all." That is a very clear agenda you have there (destroy the second). Your own words.


edit for citation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438276#438536

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Covert blog spamming this time...unreced

[Upton]

16. Unrec..

the blog spamming is bad enough, but when I asked you for a source to back up your ridiculous claim in your MM thread, you just gave me a BS response sans any link..

You're wasting your time here and you're not doing your anti civil liberty crusade any good either..

[rrneck]

19. Listen to me

"The cops got it wrong *read my blog* the percentages are much higher *read my blog* it's really ten percent *read my blog* and that's the way it is *read my blog* because I pulled my bullshit opinion *read my blog* out of my ass *read my blog*. "

Shameless self promotion works much better when you have something to promote.

[mikeb302000]

28. you're exaggerating

I don't do it like that. You, in typical fashion, accuse me of doing it like that and then pretend to be outraged at it. What I do is obviously acceptable or the real moderators whould have intervened.

You're problem with me is that you cannot accept someone who doesn't see things your way.

[pipoman]

29. I can't comment for rrneck,

but my problem with some posters (who usually end up with a pizza dinner) is shameless self promotion, one issue posters, no participation in anyone's threads beyond their own, and obvious thread bumps disguised as actual comments. DU is for the sharing of Democratic and Progressive viewpoints. It is free to use. It is an affront to the purpose and those of us who believe in the mission, to be abused as someone's personal billboard...it really is shameless.

[mikeb302000]

38. if that's what DU is all about

then why do you and your buddies try so hard to shut me down. Why do you disrupt my attempts at having a discussion about guns and gun control?

"Free and open ideas" as long as they agree with yours, right?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Many anti rights posters are accepted, you are not. Perhaps it is because of the blog flogging not

content

[pipoman]

47. Find another example of a gun control advocate

in this forum who gets noncomments continually in their threads. There aren't any. Have you noticed that none of those who share your position, come to your defense on your blog spamming? I, for one, would participate in your threads and interact with you if it wasn't for the not so subtle blog billboarding.

[pipoman]

30. Maybe this...

I manage a restaurant, we have a basket with Andes mints on the cash register stand. They are free and intended for customers. 99% of customers take a mint and are on their way. 1% take a handful of mints coming into the restaurant and a handful going out. It is without shame these people do this. I credit it to complete lack of manners and decorum. Do I kick them out? Only once when it was excessive, and the person was only coming to the restaurant to take mints, after being asked nicely several times without results I told him not to return.

[rrneck]

34. I'm commenting. Get used to it.

You have long since been busted as a self promotional blog spammer.

You'd "do it" like that if you thought you could get away with it.

Busted again.

[mikeb302000]

39. do you even know what the topic of this post is? n/t

[rrneck]

42. You clearly dont care. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Actually he is not

The you have not been tombstoned for the behavior does not mean the mods like it.

Community pressure means something here on DU. You might want to consider that as well

[mikeb302000]

40. sure I'll consider it

but all I've seen here is a bunch of bullying guys who don't like my position and are trying to disrupt the discussions by attacking me personally. Either I "don't use links" or I "only want to drive traffic to my blog." I think the real problem is they don't like someone who can put a couple sentences together and is not easily intimidated off.

[mikeb302000]

41. furthermore

I can't believe anyone who has any authority on a site called "Democratic" anything, would condone what my antagonists do. Repeatedly unreccing and accusing me of "blogspamming" doesn't sound like the way to achieve free and open exchanges of ideas. That sounds like the way to drive people away with whom you disagree.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Epic fail

Get a clue there are other anti rights posters who are not getting the grief you are.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. If you don't believe Michigan's data, try the other 48 states that allow CCW.

First, I don't believe the "Police records" that show this statistic are reliable or comprehensive. There are often problems in communicating between cities and counties, people who commit crimes in one district, continue to enjoy gun rights in another. So, the percentage is much higher.


Well, the good news is there are 48 other states that allow CCW whose data you can check. Texas, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

Frankly, I don't know why you are so surprised. Carrying a concealed weapon is completely voluntary, and it entails a lot of bureaucracy and expense to do it. People who are going to go to the trouble to comply with all the rules and regulations to carry a concealed firearm are obviously very concerned about following the letter of the law. A criminal or thug would simply jam their pistol in their pocket and call it good. But CCW permit holders give up their privacy, pay fees, and undergo training so as to comply fully with the law.

It should not be surprising to anyone that these kinds of people are law-abiding in other aspects of their lives as well.

Second, who decided that 2% is low? Even if it were an accurate number, which I've already shown in unlikely, it's HIGH. Did you do the math? 2% of 276,000 is 5,520. To me that's not acceptable.

Bear in mind, this is 2% of CCW permit holders who "have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior". If this is anything like Texas' data, this means any crime from Public Lewdness to Homicide. The number of CCW permit holders involved in violent crime is probably miniscule.

But even if that were not the case, 2% is low. When 98% of the people obey the law, why would you take action against the 98% for the sake of 2%?

Consider another thing. The 5,520 are concealed carry permit holders whom we KNOW have committed crimes. Imagine how many have not been caught. It's hard to guess, but what would you think, another 2% only? I'd say the percentage of hidden criminals among the 276,000 CCW guys is much higher than that. Let's use a universally accepted standard, the Famous 10%. That would give us another 27,000 dangerous people with carry permits.

Here's a better idea: Why not look at the actual data instead of guessing?

Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the article's attempt to spin the Michigan situation.

You should check out some of the other state's data also. It paints the same picture.

But, did we really even have to go through all that. Michigan is the proud home of Detroit. 'Nuff said?

No, because what you didn't say is that Detroit's crime problem is not caused by people with concealed carry permits.

Just because Detroit is full of criminals does not mean that law-abiding people should not be able to keep and bear arms, or carry them concealed on their person.

You could revoke every single CCW permit in Michigan and it would not affect the criminals in Detroit one bit.