Posted on 12/23/2012 1:52:50 PM PST by GreaterSwiss
Nowadays, however, there are four states that require no permit at all to carry a gun, and 35 states have permissive “shall issue” or “right-to-carry” laws that effectively take the decision of who should carry a weapon out of law enforcement’s hands. These laws say that if an applicant meets minimal criteria — one is not having been convicted of a felony, and another is not having a severe mental illness — officials have no choice about whether to issue a permit.
Some states go even further by expressly allowing guns where they should not be. Nine states now have “carry laws” that permit guns on campuses; eight permit them in bars; five permit them in places of worship. In Utah, holders of permits can now carry concealed guns in elementary schools.
Among the arguments advanced for these irresponsible statutes is the claim that “shall issue” laws have played a major role in reducing violent crime. But the National Research Council has thoroughly discredited this argument for analytical errors. In fact, the legal scholar John Donohue III and others have found that from 1977 to 2006, “shall issue” laws increased aggravated assaults by “roughly 3 to 5 percent each year.”
The federal government could help protect the public from lax state gun laws. For starters, the Fix Gun Checks Act, proposed last year in Congress, would close gaping loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and make a huge difference in identifying many people who should be denied permits under “shall issue” laws yet slip through the state systems.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I can see how NYT would think that liberal/islamic loons being denied self-expression through mass murder would be a scourge.
Personally, I think it’s a scourge that most of the NYT and owners have not been lynched.
Of course the NYT is against CC. It might threaten their favorite constituents, the feral inner city Amish.
My view is that about the time of the 2008 primaries, the MSM went from being biased to full supporting members of the progressive/Democrat agenda.
When they spent more resources investigating Joe the Plumber’s trade license and the DNA of Palin’s Down Syndrome child than they did Baraq Obama’s dubious citizenship, I knew the game was over.
It has already started. It’s just not at full speed yet.
If the New York Times really believed their baloney about guns they'd program their phones to never be able to dial out 911.
Pyongyang, NY.
Simple question ny time..whats the pre capital crime rate of ny vs say az?
Bingo! Just turn it around on these people: Newsrooms are no place for guns. Word out to wannabe mass shooters.
John R. Lott's rebuttal to Donohue’s research can be viewed and downloaded here . One thing I've recently learned is that one of the reasons that the murder rate has been coming down is because of better medical treatment. For many years, I've pointed to the decrease in the murder rate as evidence that the number of firearms in the hands of private citizens is no big deal as well as the effectiveness of concealed carry by citizens (with a permit or not).
Well, someone pointed out that if someone doesn't actually kill you, they are typically charged with some type of "Aggravated Assault". So you have to keep an eye on BOTH of those numbers.
I said all that to say this: Just because the Aggravated Assault number is increasing, that doesn't mean that CHL is not working. By preventing a murder and detaining a bad guy, you might end up having him arrested for Aggravated Assault.
There's no way to say that the good guys with their CHLs are the ones getting arrested for Aggravated Assault. At least not with the data available at hand.
Ha! I call Austin Hanoi in the Hill Country....
“...throw out the Constitution and replace it with God knows what.”
Replace it with Executive Orders supported by CBS/NYT Public Opinion Polls.
Hey, I watched the Green Hornet yesterday on cable and when Brett Reed took over the paper at the news meeting, he insisted on using the word “scourge”. He was laughed at and LOOK, now the New York Times is using the word. They’re laughed at too.
Because having someone fight back goes against their goal of anarcho-tyranny.
Violence will get you shot. It would be better simply not to cooperate, but be passive.
The stat your talking about is not as scary as those concernibg gun free zones, if yours are even true after all it is printed in the times. One reason for “shall issue” is there were entirely too many places where it is or was only political connections or the fact that you were a celebrity. I’m not a celebrity and if I do have political connections I’ll not use them for any personal gain or favor. There is NO reason for Mississippi to not issue me a license so they “shall issue” me a license without me having to kiss anyones butt.
There are some real big problems of making a statement like the one above. First of all not all aggravated assaults are done with firearms, in fact very few aggravated assaults are done with firearms. Second of all it doesn't tell you what the rates were for the states that do not issue concealed weapons permits. But the big thing is it is a lie, if you go to the US Department of Justice webpage you can find that aggravated assaults rose on the average of 26.3% across the United States during that time. If the case could be made that the shall issue states had a 3 to 5% increase each year this would be amazing and a definite argument for carrying concealed weapons.
Well crap! is that all! I was expecting something much worse!
How has our country come to this point? Have we become so selfish and uncaring?
Rapes down. Murders down. Armed robberies down. Home invasions down. So this POS focuses on “aggravated assaults” and links those to CCW laws?
Typical lib scum.
Liberalism is a serious mental illness...
I for one hold a CCL and often carry a semiautomatic handgun EVERYWHERE I go. Church, my childrens school, restaurants and bars. I do not drink. The reason WHY I carry is because scumbag criminals DO NOT follow the laws. They are not hindered by societal regulations.
I have been the victim of armed robbery on more than one occasion and after my ciousin was carjacked by a couple of ‘Amish’ youths, we both decided thaT WE WHERE not GOING TO LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN. We have families we want to come home to.
What do you think all these mass killing events all have in common? Except for the Gabby Gifford's shooting, they all have occurred in ‘gun free zones’ almost all in states with strict gun control laws and ALL of them continued until someone with a gun showed up to stop them.
Has there ever been a mass shooting at a gun show? Or how about a shooting range? I’d prefer it if a**hats that don’t know the difference between an AR-15 and a USGI M-4 would just be quiet. I don’t advise New Yorkers on proper homosexual activities or the best ways to sniff drugs.
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.