More on Michigan Concealed Carry

[mikeb302000]

http://www.freep.com/article/20110804/OPINION01/108040410/Editorial-dueling-views-concealed-guns-caution-still-best-policy?odyssey=mod">The Detroit Free Press

With nearly 276,000 Michiganders now licensed to carry concealed weapons, there has been no epidemic of bloodshed and violence; only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior.

Still, these encouraging statistics and trends do not mean that Michigan should loosen its laws on carrying concealed weapons -- or, for that matter, not consider reasonable restrictions on the current law. While the law has not demonstrably made Michigan more dangerous, neither has it conclusively made it safer. There is no way of knowing even how many people with concealed weapons permits actually carry guns.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/michigan-concealed-carry.html">We've already pointed out why that 2% figure is bogus, namely that the police records are incomplete due to counties in Michigan that don't report. But this article brings up another. To get an accurate picture of how many guys who carry guns are committing crimes, you have to first determine how many are carrying guns.

In other words, the 2% figure was reached by using an too-small number for the crimes and a too-big number for the gun carriers.

One thing we can agree on is that biased and close-minded pro-gun arguments are ofetn made up of exaggerations and distortions. This is just the latest example.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[Blown330]

1. More garbage...

...that you have posted on here. Unrec for biased and close-minded anti-gun arguments that are made up of...well...just made up apparently.

[PuffedMica]

2. This is just the latest example

mikeb302000 Detroit Free Press article was regulated to the gutter in his previous post, but it is back for another round.

To get an accurate picture of how many guys who carry guns are committing crimes, you have to first determine how many are carrying guns

You have a glaring hole in your argument because you are not including the predatory criminals who carry guns.



Unrec for serial blog spamming.

[mikeb302000]

10. well, not really

there's no glaring hole. There's a suggestion that the 2% is bullshit. It's been backed up with common sense and logic. Don't you agree the 276,000 include some who never or rarely carry? Don't you agree that the crimes are under-reported?

You and your friends are pretending there's nothing to what I'm saying. But, actually it makes perfect sense. The only argument is how bad is it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Quite Really

You have nothing to support your conjecture and facts to the contrary abound

[mikeb302000]

17. if you say so, prof. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. I am far from theo only one pointing this out blog flogger

[PuffedMica]

19. Mikeb302000 just does not seem to be getting the message

The people on this discussion board can see your motives.

Mikeb302000 posts a single article from the Detroit Free Press and attempts to start an argument where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good, "please continue the discussion over at my blog", but no one is interested.

It is pointed out in several posts that the data from the article is flawed and there is no point in conducting a discussion using flawed data. Mikeb302000 responds by proposing a hypothetical change to the data to bolster the weak argument, "please continue the discussion over at my blog", but no one wants to participate in a discussion using flawed hypothetical data either.

The bottom line is the people on this board are not unsophisticated ideologues who debate hair splitting semantics for entertainment. Mikeb302000 has found the DemocraticUnderground where 170,000 users have made 50,000,000 posts across 10 years. Mikeb302000 amateurish attempts to generate blog traffic using the success of DU have been noted by many who participate here.

Mikeb302000 might be able to drum up a few willing trolls over at talk.politics.guns on the USENET. Otherwise, half the pathetic traffic over at his blog will continue to be generated by his own DSL and dialup sock puppet accounts.

[mikeb302000]

21. thanks for your contribution PuffedMica n/t

[michreject]

3. What do I think?

I'm one of the 276,000. My wife is another.

You don't want to know what I think.

[ileus]

4. how often a licensed gun got its owner into legal trouble.....so it is the gun that kills people.

[mvccd1000]

5. What do I think? I think blog spam has no place here.

That aside, I think your reasoning is colored much more by emotional bias than by the facts on the ground.

You should post some snippets from today's Freep editorial followup, in which they say, "Even though the CCW law did not lead to any increase in gun violence, we still think firearms laws should be tightened." That seems to be right up your alley...

[mikeb302000]

9. yeah I like that n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Indeed, but he continues to do so. Unreced as well

[Hangingon]

6. More BS. The journalistic "We've" is pretentious.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Katya Mullethov]

8. Advertizing with no paid sponsors

Exactly the kind of innovative thinking that is driving our uh..national.... economic ....uuh....recovery .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Your position on this demolished the last time you posted on it

and I see you continue to flog your blog...Unrec

[Union Scribe]

13. What, no slam on the brown people in Detroit this time?

And you still don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to stats or my home.

[mikeb302000]

18. no you're confused

what "I know" differs from what "you know." That's your problem.

[Glassunion]

14. Your missing some key words from the article and your math is bad.

Key Words: "only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior." What crimes are we talking about? Are we talking murder or are we talking check fraud?

We've already pointed out why that 2% figure is bogus, namely that the police records are incomplete due to counties in Michigan that don't report. But this article brings up another. To get an accurate picture of how many guys who carry guns are committing crimes, you have to first determine how many are carrying guns.

Math: The 2% spans the life of the program = 10 years.
Math: The 2% figure is not bogus. We are talking sanctions(legal actions), which are accurate and up to date. Not arrest data.
Math: Of those 2%(using your own theory) how many were carrying their guns at the time? Those who were not, should be excluded per your own rules.

One thing we can agree on is that biased and close-minded pro-gun arguments are ofetn made up of exaggerations and distortions.

I don't agree

This is just the latest example.

It is not.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. It's amazing how long people will keep looking for something to support their argument.

We've already pointed out why that 2% figure is bogus, namely that the police records are incomplete due to counties in Michigan that don't report. But this article brings up another. To get an accurate picture of how many guys who carry guns are committing crimes, you have to first determine how many are carrying guns.

In other words, the 2% figure was reached by using an too-small number for the crimes and a too-big number for the gun carriers.

One thing we can agree on is that biased and close-minded pro-gun arguments are ofetn made up of exaggerations and distortions. This is just the latest example.

Look, it's really a waste of time to keep having this discussion.

Over the course of the last 25 years, we've gone from virtually no states allowing CCW to now every state except Illinois allowing CCW.

There is now a large body of information concerning CCW permit holders available.

You don't have to just look at Michigan. You can look at Texas, Florida, or a host of other states that publish their CCW conviction information.

That data is irrefutable. CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime. Not just violent crime, or firearm-related crime. ANY crime.

Just because a few Michigan counties don't or didn't report data does not mean that that data is somehow damning. In fact, it's likely that if they did report, their data would reflect the same trend seen everywhere else in the country.

But it's up to you to support your claim that somehow the fact that they didn't report somehow skews the data in your favor.

If you feel that CCW permit holders are involved in more crime than is suggested, provide some data to support your argument.

You won't be able to.