Posted on 01/13/2005 10:51:21 AM PST by TWohlford
Shall-issue gun law: Any objections now? Thursday, January 13, 2005
It was a contentious debate that led lawmakers in 2001 to add Michigan to the roster of states with shall-carry gun laws. The debate is over, and a recent Citizen Patriot review of the past three years makes us wonder what all the fuss was about.
Many feared that if you let lots of people carry concealed guns, there would be shoot-outs, assassinations and general mayhem. It hasn't happened, though.
Lawmakers passed the Michigan law in July 2001. In Jackson County, CCW permits were running about 10 per month before the law -- a total of 125 in 2000. The next year, when the law was passed, there were 742 issued in Jackson County. There were 771 in 2002, 421 in 2003 and 690 last year. Many were renewals. Statewide, 31,121 permits were issued in the year that ended June 30.
For all the potential problems inherent in thousands of newly issued gun permits, there have been virtually no big issues. No rampant vigilantism has been reported by police. There have been a few cases of Jackson County permit-holders brandishing weapons, but there are no reports of legal gun carriers firing a weapon at anyone.
On the plus side, the new law has stimulated a cottage industry in classes on firearm safety. About 40 percent of those taking the instruction are women.
How does Michigan's experience square with the national experience? More than 30 states have enacted laws similar to Michigan's. If there were problems in any of those states, it is certain that the gun-control groups that oppose shall-carry laws would be proclaiming the failure from one coast to the other.
That isn't the case, though. In fact, a recent study refutes the notion that gun-control laws of any kind reduce crime.
Last month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws in America. The study was begun during the Clinton administration; most of the panelists favored gun control. And yet, after reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
John R. Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime and the Bias Against Guns," said in a Chicago Sun-Times column that if panelists were honest about their own evidence, it supported this conclusion: Gun control doesn't help reduce crime, while broader gun ownership does.
The body of evidence seems to support shall-carry laws like the one Michigan has enacted. The law certainly hasn't caused havoc in Michigan, and may be doing more to ensure homeland security than anyone yet realizes.
Facts don't matter......we're dealing with peoples FEEEEEEELINGS here.
Talked to my local Sherrif...he's all for conceal and carry and I live in a town with a population thats less tha 500 people...
MD
Ping
"What? Our local fairly-liberal editorial staff comes out in favor of shall-carry concealed weapons laws?"
No, they figured out that the gun control stance kills newspaper sales and keeps their liberal co-horts out of office. You have to adapt or perish. :)
For all the potential problems inherent in thousands of newly issued gun permits, there have been virtually no big issues. No rampant vigilantism has been reported by police. There have been a few cases of Jackson County permit-holders brandishing weapons, but there are no reports of legal gun carriers firing a weapon at anyone.
Shall issue laws always have this same result, and as you note, it is seldom reported in the MSM and newspapers in general, and never reprised in an article or editorial advocating gun control.
Ping!
Hay, what ever happened to Gwizdz? I thought I heard he had passed to Glory?
Nice to see an occasional CitPat article. Even nicer to see a conservative one.
(I was Born and raised in Albion)
are people actually getting their "shall issue" permits
in Michigan?
My guess is that Gov. Madame Canuck has outsourced all of the processing to a firm in Myanmar that runs on 286MHz PC's.
She "shall issue"...when the paperwork gets done in 10 or 12 years!
A pregnant woman, fearing for her life and the life of her children, as well as the life in her womb, arms herself with a handgun after she hears glass breaking in the other room. With one hand on the phone with the 911 operator who is telling her he will dispatch the police, with the other hand she fires at an intruder brandishing a large knife who is advancing on her and her off-spring.
And then pose the following question: Does this pregnant woman have the right to defend her body, as well as the bodies of her offspring by using whatever means are available? Or would you limit her choice by preventing her from keeping arms within arm's reach? Ask the question: So what are you then? Pro-choice and pro-life? Or are you anti-life in this case as well?
And if one has the inalienable right to defend oneself from harm, doesn't one have that right anywhere, not only in the home, but wherever harm may find you?
Make up your mind. Do you want an efficient lowest-buck government, or do you want to protect Union jobs?
And, since I've talked with her on this issue (that makes one of us in this conversation) I can assure you that she's pro-gun, and hasn't wavered on that one.
She's basically a Republican who is Democrat due to the abortion issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.