Arizona’s permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried an AR-15 rifle to a protest outside a speech by President Obama.
Now, gun rights advocates are hoping for even fewer restrictions on where they can have a firearm. Among their top goals is to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Bills in the House and the Senate would also eliminate background checks and training classes for people to carry hidden guns.
That sounds pretty wild to me. What do you think? What are they thinking? The State of Arizona is in the news daily with national-headline-making stories of gun violence. More permissive gun laws would only make that worse, don't you think?
In Arizona, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a misdemeanor. Mr. Pearce’s bill, and an identical one in the House, would make the permit and background check optional. It also would eliminate a required firearms safety class for permit seekers.
Complete insanity, is my take on it. What's yours?
Please leave a comment.
Good for Arizona. I think they have a decent chance of getting this badly needed reform passed, now that they've managed to foist Janet "Skunk Mullet" Napolitano off on the rest of the country (she would have vetoed it instantly).
ReplyDeleteSeems to work OK in Alaska and Vermont. They have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.
ReplyDelete--Not Jade Gold
http://gunloon.com
Sounds good to me. I mean I've already gone through the background check each & every time I bought a gun, why should I have to do it yet again when applying for a permit I shouldn't need in the 1st place?
ReplyDeleteThose other 2 states arent exactly awash with gun violence MikeB.
Alaska, 27 murders; Vermont 17 murders; Delaware 57 murders; Rhode Island 29 murders.
ReplyDeleteSource: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html
Population numbers (approx):
Alaska 699,000; Vermont 622,000; Delaware 885,000; Rhode Island 1,050,000.
Alaska with about 70% of RI's population has about 90% as many murders. Vermont with about 60% of RI's population has about the same percentage (slightly lower) of murders. Deleware with about 90% of Rhode Islands population has about double the number of murders. All four states have no requirements for licensing of handguns. RI does, however, have a law requiring that buyers apply for a firearms card and wait 7 days before taking delivery of a purchased firearm.
I'm sure that distinction amongst the four states is meaningless.
I hate to break it to FWM, but AK has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
Heh, and Democommie completely contradicts himself from one sentence to the next.....
ReplyDeleteAlso, looking at violent crime rates (per 100K) rather than simply murder.
VT's rate is 135.9
AK's is 651.9
DE's is 703.4
RI's is 249.4
So we have 4 states that we can group into 2 categories.
VT and AK both have lax gun laws. I think we can all agree on that.
RI and DE both have a similar amount of gun control to eachother as well as significantly more restrictions than either VT or AK.
VT and AK have very few restrictions and are alltogether very similar in their overall gun laws. Despite this there's a huge discrepancy b/t their violent crime rates. This means that lack of strict gun control IS NOT the variable causing the difference in crime rates.
MD's gun laws are some of the most strict in the nation, certainly FAR worse than AK, yet their violent crime rate is 628.2, on par with AK's rate.
So we have MD and AK, two states on opposite ends of the gun control spectrum, exhibiting almost identical violent crime rates.
If gun control worked then that would never be the case. If it worked then states with strict gun laws would always be "safer" (as a function of violent crime rate) than states which were awash with guns and lax gun laws.
I mean how could VT's crime rate possibly be THAT low when anyone who can legally purchase a gun can carry it without a permit for purchase or carry? VT's crime rate should be through the roof if the anti-rights folks are correct.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html
mikey:
ReplyDeleteThat's the problems with statistics. You pick the ones you like, I pick the ones I like, they are both accurate.
Of course you say that other "intangibles" that you agree with account for states like VT having a low overall crime rate. You conveniently ignore the fact that VT is peopled by a lot of folks who don't own weapons and are not apparently in any greater danger than those who do. Oh, wait that's because criminals are all scared shitless that everybody in the state is carrying and so they wouldn't dare to simply shoot them first and then take their gun after they're dead.
Those pesky stats also show that the Northeast has a crime rate 370.8/100K and the Middle Atlantic has a rate of 386.4/100K. Otoh, the South has a rate of 533.9/100K and the Mountain West has a rate of 417.8/100K. Of course there is CA with a rate of 522.6/100K, only about 140 less than Alaska's 661.2/100K. Oh, and CA's violent crime rate dropped by 3.6% over the same period that Alaska's dropped by 1.4%.
You and a handful of other boneheads that I run into on the blogs like every stat that supports your premise and dismiss every stat that doesn't. You also tend to think that because you personally are fearful of:
a.) Being attacked by roving gangs in your own home
b.) Being attacked by motorized roving gangs while driving
c.) Being attacked by other areas' roving gangs when away from home and on foot or
d.) Having the black fatigued, jack booted minions of the Obamanation come and attack you to confiscate your guns
that the rest of the country's citizenry shares your paranoiac delusions.
I think democommie is right. We all can pick and choose the stats that support our argument. That's why I rely on good old common sense. And that's why I say it's early days to say guns are up and crime is down. I suggest it's really going the other way and beofe long it'll become undeniable.
ReplyDeleteI also like demo's A,B,C and Ds of gun ownership. That's right on.
The facts simply do not show that gun control has the effect of lowering violent crime rates.
ReplyDeleteI know it pisses Democommie off that I prove this, but it remains demonstratably true.
We all can pick and choose the stats that support our argument.
ReplyDeleteExcept you and demo have none.
You have shown NO PROOF that strict gun control = lower violent crime rates.
If your overall premise is correct then the raw data should back you up in a conclusive manner. It does not.
I also notice Democommie offers no counterpoint or refutation of my facts.
ReplyDeleteWhy am I not surprised?
mikey:
ReplyDeleteThat you're a liar is not in dispute. I know it salves your wounded little boy psyche to project on others, but that's really all it's good for.
"You have shown NO PROOF that strict gun control = lower violent crime rates."
In the first place, mikey, it's impossible to prove a negative, as you and your gunnutz friends love to point out whenever someone says the opposite--that there is no proof that proliferation of guns reduces crime. Secondly, as is always the case with you and some other gunnutz, you simply refuse to understand that your cause is the result of an unfounded fear about being emasculated and defenseless when the gummint confiscates your guns. It is quite sad, but there it is.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI also like demo's A,B,C and Ds of gun ownership. That's right on.
Of course you like it--you wouldn't be an anti-gun bigot if you didn't like gross mischaracterizations that demonize gun owners.
"Of course you like it--you wouldn't be an anti-gun bigot if you didn't like gross mischaracterizations that demonize gun owners."
ReplyDeleteNo, no. Only morons like you and mikey. There are oodles of responsible gun owners, I know a number of them. They think that people like you and mikey make it hard for the rest of them to have a dialogue with other folks.
there is no proof that proliferation of guns reduces crime
ReplyDeleteEven if true, the onus isn't on me to prove that. YOU want to restrict individual rights. The onus falls on you and your ilk to prove the efficacy of your restrictions.
If gun control works then you should have easily avaliable evidence that strict gun control = lower violent crime rates.
As has been shown in this thread, you have no such evidence.
Where's your proof that more gun control will lead to lower violent crime rates?
mikey:
ReplyDeleteYou keep telling me that the "onus of proof" is on me. You also keep telling me that the facts are on your side. However, when the facts aren't on your side you get off the thread. You say an increase in gun ownership lowers crime rates. Prove it. Show some peer reviewed studies that back up your bullshit. You think that because you say it that everyone is bound to believe it?
Just bring the proof, or admit that it's just your opinion which is what you WANT the situation to be. You have no way to prove your assertion, so you think bullshit will baffle everyone else. Nice try, no cigar.
You say an increase in gun ownership lowers crime rates. Prove it.
ReplyDeleteI have not made this claim. Some do, but I have not. In fact, if you'd look at the comments in this thread and the numbers I've presented it would be clear that I made no such claim.
You consistently claim that strict gun control lowers crime. Prove it. Since you want to restrict the rights of Americans the onus is on you folks to prove the efficacy of those restrictions.
Also demo - All that talk, yet you still haven't brought any facts. No raw data.
ReplyDeleteBring some facts big boy. Back up your crap or go home.
AK and MD are on entirely different ends of the gun control spectrum, yet have nearly identical crime rates.
ReplyDeleteIf gun control lowers crime then how could that be? If gun control lowers crime how could a state like VT have such an incredibly low crime rate?
Show some peer reviewed studies that back up your bullshit. You think that because you say it that everyone is bound to believe it?
ReplyDeleteActually yes. All I'm doing here is looking at raw data RE violent crime rates.
The raw data clearly shows that states with strict gun control do not have lower violent crime rates than states with lax restrictions.
If strict gun control lead to low violent crime rates evidence of such would be immediately and obviously apparent upon looking at UCR crime rates.
The data simply doesn't show that gun control has any favorable impact on violent crime rates.
You keep telling me that the "onus of proof" is on me
ReplyDeleteThe onus of proof is always on the group who wants to restrict individual liberties. That's one of the most basic tenets of Constitutional Law.
Unsurprisingly Democommie & MikeB have been proven wrong and have now run away from the discussion.
ReplyDeleteMike W., I must ahve missed where we "have been proven wrong."
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think your disagreeing with someone is the same as proving them wrong.