Detroit police chief: Want crime to drop? Start carrying

posted at 11:31 am on January 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

James Craig just took over the office of police chief last summer, but he’s already making waves in Detroit. A reorganization of the police force in the bankrupt metropolis has resulted in a higher clearance rate in murder cases, and the murder rate dropped almost 14% in 2013 from its two-decade high in 2012. However, Craig has some advice for his fellow citizens in Motor City if they really want a drop in crime — arm yourselves:

If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.

Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.

“When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,” Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

Craig wasn’t always in favor of carry permits. While serving in Los Angeles, where permits are issued on a notoriously miserly (and some would add arbitrary) manner, Craig thought that disarmament was the answer. It wasn’t until he went to a carry-friendly jurisdiction that he understood the difference:

Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.

“Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

It’s not the first time that Craig has endorsed carry permits. Two weeks ago, the Detroit News notes, he told a local radio show that responsibly armed citizens act as a deterrent, in a city that can clearly use one. Even though the murder rate has dropped, Detroit had as many homicides in 2013 as New York City, which has more than ten times its population. Chicago had only 29 more than Detroit despite having nearly four times the population. It’s worth noting that both New York City and Chicago have extraordinary restrictions on gun ownership, let alone carry permits, and Chicago routinely ranks among the worst American metropolitan areas for homicides and violent crime.

At least one recent study suggests that Craig hits the nail on the head. A long-range study by a Quinnipiac University economist shows that states with more restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits had higher murder rates by guns than gun-friendly states, and suggests that increasing restrictions on concealed-carry permits pushes the murder rate up, not down. It also showed that assault-weapons bans had no effect on murder rates.

Perhaps more police chiefs will change their orientation with this information at hand. State legislatures should get ahead of that curve.

Addendum: Via Instapundit, let’s not forget that increasing restrictions on gun ownership can be bad for the economy as well as the crime rate, as it will be in Colorado:

Magpul Industries announced today that it is relocating its operations to Wyoming and Texas.

The company is relocating manufacturing, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Magpul is leasing a 58,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution facility during the construction of a 100,000 square foot build-to-suit facility in the Cheyenne Business Parkway. The Wyoming relocation is being completed with support from Governor Matt Mead, the Wyoming Business Council and Cheyenne LEADS.

Magpul is moving its corporate headquarters to Texas. Three North Central Texas sites are under final consideration, and the transition to the Texas headquarters will begin as soon as the facility is selected. The Texas relocation is being accomplished with support from Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Economic Development Corporation.

“Magpul made the decision to relocate in March 2013 and has proceeded on an aggressive but deliberate path” says Doug Smith, Chief Operating Officer for Magpul Industries. “These dual moves will be carried out in a manner that ensures our operations and supply chain will not be interrupted and our loyal customers will not be affected.”

The company began a nationwide search for a new base of operations after legislation was enacted in Colorado that dramatically limits the sale of firearms accessories – the core of Magpul’s business. Magpul plans on initially transitioning 92% of its current workforce outside of Colorado within 12-16 months and will maintain only limited operations in Colorado.

“Moving operations to states that support our culture of individual liberties and personal responsibility is important,” says Richard Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer for Magpul Industries. “This relocation will also improve business operations and logistics as we utilize the strengths of Texas and Wyoming in our expansion.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2014 at 5:04 PM

And skeet guns only tickle those tough little skeets…

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Good for him….

t on January 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Many of the complaints about modern sidearms(M9, various SIG models, FN, Glock etc.) are about how easy they are to break. Modern sidearms are not design to handle the rigors of war. Their great for target shooting, or civilian policing, but will always break down in the stress of modern combat. Sometimes older IS better.

flackcatcher on January 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM

I’m not denying anything you’re saying, but I have a co-worker who’s retired Army SF – says they once tested/evaluated a bunch of different sidearms for their unit. In one test they dropped them from a helicopter 100 feet up over the tarmac. He says out of ALL of them, only the Glock survived the drop and immediately still functioned perfectly at the range. All others turned into pieces of scrap as soon as they hit the ground.

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower Injury Rates Among Gun Using Crime Victims”

Though statistics prove time and again that disarming a free people leads to more violent crime and the potential for mass government democide, it hasn’t stopped President Barrack Obama and his Congressional entourage from doing everything in their power to make it more difficult for Americans to legally own firearms.

Citing the Sandy Hook mass shooting last year, democrats on the hill have claimed that we must restrict gun ownership and strip the Second Amendment for the safety of our children and the general public.

But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”

To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…

The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self protective strategies.

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Oh, my 10 year old keeps reminding me, to put in my will that she gets my colt 1911 when I “pass on”. As she puts it.”It’s a real gun daddy.” That kid scares me sometimes:)

flackcatcher on January 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Another one of the Liberal’s 10 Commandments bites the dust. Or is that two?

Thou shall not take the phrase “assault weapon ban” in vain.

Thou shall not allow private citizens to possess fire arms.

Yep, two.

Kraken on January 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Arm the proletariat? Why, it’s lunacy!
What happens if we want to eradicate their rights, and make ‘em do stuff? They could resist!

Exactly.

orangemtl on January 3, 2014 at 5:57 PM

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM
I know what your co-worker is talking about. Every SF or SOF unit ran field tests on various sidearms. Without having a baseline to judge, these “tests” were worthless. Back then, Special Operations and Army SF(not to mention the “teams”) were spending money on new gear like drunken fools. Most of the small arms went Thu the only field test that counted, in combat. Almost all of them broke, Glock included. See, no one knew what kinds of stress the polymer used in modern weapons could handle.(As a aside, we too dropped various sidearms from 100 feet from a UH-1. They all were scrap too, even the Glock. What a waste.The only weapon that came Thur: the M-16 M-4 family, just pure dumb luck. Irony does abound.)

flackcatcher on January 3, 2014 at 6:06 PM

flackcatcher on January 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

It’s always the daughters that scare you. When mine was about 3 she started screaming at a store, “I want dead cow now!” She wasn’t happy until we put a couple of steaks in the cart. When she was in 2nd grade she had to write a story about Thanksgiving. Her story consisted of how to stalk, kill, pluck, gut and cook a turkey. The strange part was that I never discussed such a thing with her nor did we ever have a fresh kill turkey. She use to always look at animals and bugs and ask if they were good to eat. She was a strange little girl. I taught her to shoot at 12 and the Neos .22 I mentioned back a ways was picked out by her when she was 12 or 13. She has an antique, over a 100 years old, single shot .22 long gun that she loves. It breaks into two parts so it can be put into a backpack. A couple of weeks ago she was looking at it and said she wasn’t sure it was powerful enough for when it all hits the fan. She is coming up on 23 and still scares me sometimes.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 3, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 3, 2014 at 6:12 PM

How funny. Kids will always surprise you. She sounds like the kind of girl I’d like my boys to meet – good self-sufficient carnivore….
My 2 boys are now 21 and 23, and very different types – but both learned how to shoot early on – in Cub Scouts. The older one now has several guns of his own (including an AK-47), the younger one has none of his own yet (but just bought a house) – and both have already been through CCW training to be able to get their CHPs (Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit).

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Why do democrats take SOOOOOOoooooo long to stumble upon (what’s that word again, oh yes) TRUTH.

Mojave Mark on January 3, 2014 at 6:27 PM

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 2:32 PM

I will always have trust in Mozambique. Good luck with the range.

DDay on January 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:47 AM

NP: getting almost as much attention as when NP’s head bounced on the pavement. Obviously wasn’t dropped from a high enough level.

Hammie on January 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Why do democrats take SOOOOOOoooooo long to stumble upon (what’s that word again, oh yes) TRUTH.

Because, to a liberal, the truth isn’t what’s important to them, the purity of their socialist ideal is what’s more important. And, actually, it’s more important than your lives are, too. Even if you buried them in data and forced them to admit that gun control doesn’t make people’s lives safer, they’d still want it.

Socratease on January 3, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Why do democrats take SOOOOOOoooooo long to stumble upon (what’s that word again, oh yes) TRUTH.

Mojave Mark on January 3, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Because the TRUTH doesn’t care about emotions, only what is true.

ProfShadow on January 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

imagine this simple scenario:

would the world be better if there was not ONE single gun or would it be better if EVERY human had a gun

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM

The naivete is scary but funny as heck too.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 3, 2014 at 6:42 PM

THIS is the kind of prudent, wise, common-sense, and I’ll say it….COMPASSIONATE decision to make.

Nothing is more beautiful and touching than a loving, devoted mother with her child getting money from the ATM machine at night for an emergency with one hand working the buttons and the other on the pistol in the holster ready to draw, courageously and selflessly protecting the cubs from the rogue males (and females) out there like a Mommabear protecting Littlebear.

Just knowing that we give women this right to be a good mother makes my eyes water.

There is something GOOD about a country where we can walk with alertness but in confidence due to the low odds of being attacked by the feral segment of the population.

Just beautiful.

KirknBurker on January 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM

KirknBurker on January 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Dang, you activated my allergies somehow…
(sniff……)

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM

BTW What about Switzerland. You guys never mention that country where nearly every house has a military rifle in it. Huh?
FOWG1 on January 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM

.
switzerland is a racially homogenous country, its conclusions cannot be applied to the US, a racially heterogenous country

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM

I’ll bite. Why would that be?

MJBrutus on January 3, 2014 at 12:14 PM

a study of cardiac medicine on white subjects would not necessarily be applicable to african american populace

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM

So, based on this and the fact that this discussion is about guns and violence, you believe that all non-whites are more violent that whites.

That is pure Bigotry.

Hammie on January 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM

That is pure Bigotry.

Hammie on January 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM

The true heart of the left revealed.

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 7:21 PM

There is something GOOD about a country where we can walk with alertness but in confidence due to the low odds of being attacked by the feral segment of the population.

Just beautiful.

KirknBurker on January 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Sadly in too many Liberal bastions the above is NOT acceptable, this mother must be disarmed by the very same LYIN RATS that now presume to tell us what healthcare, what insurance, what doctors we will have and how much we will pay for it by the enforcement of the IRS who will have all of our very personal and private information! I WILL NOT COMPLY!

ConcealedKerry on January 3, 2014 at 7:22 PM

switzerland is a racially homogenous country, its conclusions cannot be applied to the US, a racially heterogenous country

noforeskin on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM

…are you trying to compete with libfreeorgan for HA… ignorant black bigot of the year?

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2014 at 7:28 PM

this myth pisses me off

that a gun free zone is such a easier target for a criminal

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Why are so many schools targeted by mass shooters and yet zero police stations are?

Alberta_Patriot on January 3, 2014 at 7:37 PM

OMG. A black democratic political appointee who can think for himself, and says what he believes.

He’s toast.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Too bad he doesn’t run for President. Can’t be worse.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM

…are you trying to compete with libfreeorgan for HA… ignorant black bigot of the year?

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2014 at 7:28 PM

no man parts is going for effhead of the year and he has already won this month.

arnold ziffel on January 3, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Nothing is more beautiful and touching than a loving, devoted mother with her child getting money from the ATM machine at night for an emergency with one hand working the buttons and the other on the pistol in the holster ready to draw, courageously and selflessly protecting the cubs from the

Just knowing that we give women this right to be a good mother makes my eyes water.

There is something GOOD about a country where we can walk with alertness but in confidence due to the low odds of being attacked by the feral segment of the population.

Just beautiful

KirknBurker on January 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM

I could not agree more and have to questions why all feminist groups “fighting for women” are also for gun control.

Frankly if one day I decide to get all “rapey” on a women I hope she has a gun to defend herself because she would be doing me a favor. The person I am today has a mind that thinks women should be treated with respect and not have a man that can easily overpower her get all “rapey” on her.

F15Mech on January 3, 2014 at 8:38 PM

this myth pisses me off

that a gun free zone is such a easier target for a criminal

noforeskin on January 3, 2014 at 11:53 AM

…it’s not fair my favorite piggy…^ ^ ^… that he can win…with just ONE comment…and libfreeorgan… has to work for it!

no man parts is going for effhead of the year and he has already won this month.

arnold ziffel on January 3, 2014 at 8:31 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2014 at 9:25 PM

…it’s not fair my favorite piggy…^ ^ ^… that he can win…with just ONE comment…and libfreeorgan… has to work for it!

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Oh no sir, it wasn’t just one comment. It was a plethora of pleasure this morning hearing from the Harvard lawyer who is gets extra tips out back of Starbucks on his break.

arnold ziffel on January 3, 2014 at 9:29 PM

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”
Hmmm I wonder why Maine is so safe…

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 94.1%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2012 (a) 1.3%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 (b) 1.4%

Compared to Los Angeles, where this Mensa candidate was previously…

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 27.3%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2012 (a) 9.3%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 (b) 48.2%

So forget about concealed carry, just import White people. Crime will drop, unemployment will drop, taxes will increase.

IraqVet on January 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Come see the violence inherent in the system….

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Help, help, I’m being repressed!
Did you see him repressin’ me? That’s what I’m on about.

talkingpoints on January 3, 2014 at 10:54 PM

Many of the complaints about modern sidearms(M9, various SIG models, FN, Glock etc.) are about how easy they are to break. Modern sidearms are not design to handle the rigors of war. Their great for target shooting, or civilian policing, but will always break down in the stress of modern combat. Sometimes older IS better.

flackcatcher on January 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Huh? SIG and Beretta pistols are in use in the US Armed forces and Glock is NATO qualified (also accounts for 65% of US police Dept purchases).

mad scientist on January 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM

I’m not racist for stating the obvious

or is hotair now a PC haven?

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM

“Obvious”?

You seem to be saying that it’s obvious that black people are not to be trusted with weapons.

Labeling actual racism as racism is not PC.

And your every comment on this thread has exposed the racism behind (mostly leftist proposed) gun control laws.

Please keep digging. I’ll even replace the shovel that you’re obviously gonna wear out.

soundingboard on January 3, 2014 at 11:19 PM

switzerland is a racially homogenous country, its conclusions cannot be applied to the US, a racially heterogenous country

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM
uh, different demographics should be treated differently

a study of cardiac medicine on white subjects would not necessarily be applicable to african american populace

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Are you seriously stating african americans are genetically unfit for gun ownership?

There are genetic differences in response to medication, but gun ownership?

talkingpoints on January 3, 2014 at 11:26 PM

when was the last time the winner of the 100m dash was not black…hrrrmmmmmm

there are differences between races..that is simply evolution

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I see you’ve ditched the shovel in favor of a track hoe.

soundingboard on January 3, 2014 at 11:28 PM

a study of cardiac medicine on white subjects would not necessarily be applicable to african american populace

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM

.
Are you seriously stating african americans are genetically unfit for gun ownership?

There are genetic differences in response to medication, but gun ownership?

talkingpoints on January 3, 2014 at 11:26 PM

.
Re-posting my reply to ‘partisan‘s original “racial” remark, from earlier in the day:

switzerland is a racially homogenous country, its conclusions cannot be applied to the US, a racially heterogenous country

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM

.
That’s the “Freudian slip” to end all “Freadian slips.”

Discipline recognizes NO ethnic boundaries.

I don’t believe mankind is sub-divided into different “races.”

listens2glenn
on January 3, 2014 at 12:10 PM

listens2glenn on January 3, 2014 at 11:50 PM

I never said or implied such…your comprehension is lacking or you’re projecting. either way, buzz off.

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Hah! You’ve done nothing but imply such, since Switzerland was referenced.

In fact it was you yourself who first brought the differing demographics into the argument.

NotCoach asked a series of direct questions which you mostly dodged. And which you have now completely blown off.

Precious.

soundingboard on January 3, 2014 at 11:51 PM

switzerland is a racially homogenous country, its conclusions cannot be applied to the US, a racially heterogenous country

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Isn’t most gun crime in America black on black?

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2014 at 6:02 AM

this myth pisses me off

that a gun free zone is such a easier target for a criminal

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:53 AM

You mean like a hotel in Mumbai or a mall in Kenya?

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2014 at 8:08 AM

nonpartisan,
You have completed your training as an idi-ite may the farce be with you.

kregg on January 4, 2014 at 8:43 AM

For those who think that banning guns will save lives, let me give you this story from Colorado that happened when I was a teenager.

A local woman was kidnapped by a man with a gun (may have been her ex-husband or some relation). She was taken up into the mountains. His intent was to kill her. When he tried to shoot her the gun jammed. He couldn’t get it to fire at all. So what did he do? He picked up a rock and beat her to death with it.

The moral of the story is that banning guns will not stop crime. The problem isn’t with the guns. The problem is people.

MeAlice on January 4, 2014 at 11:39 AM

nonpartisan is a hoot. Such entertainment. Funnier than most modern day comedies.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 4, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Someone really needs to develop a way to distinguish good suck from bad suck….

dentarthurdent on January 3, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Check with libfree.

He’ll give you the straight poop…so to speak.

Solaratov on January 4, 2014 at 7:25 PM

imagine this simple scenario:

would the world be better if there was not ONE single gun or would it be better if EVERY human had a gun

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM

The naivete is scary but funny as heck too.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 3, 2014 at 6:42 PM

No it’s not funny. Harvard man, almost all the world’s bloodiest single days have occurred before anyone had a gun. Raping women has nothing to do with gunpowder.

You have a seriously flawed wiring.

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2014 at 11:20 PM

In Detroit, top cop says: “Carry a gun!”

But in Texas, believe it or else:

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

Akzed on January 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM

imagine this simple scenario:

would the world be better if there was not ONE single gun or would it be better if EVERY human had a gun nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM

The Second Amendment was written with your kind in mind.

First, this is not a “simple scenario” but a hypothetical question (without a question mark). People who don’t think straight don’t write straight either.

Second, if there were no guns people would be carrying knives or pointed sticks and despotic govts would be banning them.

Third, once you have found a way to change human nature, get back to us.

The “vision of the anointed,” as Thomas Sowell puts it, ignores human nature and seeks to advance policies that ignore it as we4ll, despite all evidence that human nature is immutable. The “tragic vision,” as he calls it, understands reality and acts accordingly.

However much dopes like NP think their idiocy is actually high-mindedness, it ain’t. It just sounds good to them, and if you don’t agree you’re a racist sexist homophobic Nazi.

Akzed on January 5, 2014 at 12:13 PM

In Detroit, top cop says: “Carry a gun!”

But in Texas, believe it or else:

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

Akzed on January 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM

.
Thank you for posting that link, Akzed.

(multiple expletives) “black-robed bench sitters.”

Texas citizens should raise the BIGGEST outcry, over this.

How (expletive) flagrant can you (expletive) get ?

HEY ! … RELEVANT TEXAS COURT ….. I hold YOU in contempt of law abiding citizens and the U.S. Constitution.

listens2glenn on January 5, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Second, if there were no guns people would be carrying knives or pointed sticks and despotic govts would be banning them.
Akzed on January 5, 2014 at 12:13 PM

I’m a bit late here but a good example of the is the Asian countries. Anyone that studies Asian Martial Arts that a great deal of the physical fighting styles were developed by peasants that could not legally own weapons and that a great deal of their weapons were derived from farm equipment.

The simple point is that gun crabbers are deathly afraid of guns and want them gone. It’s a phobia based fear and just like all phobias you cannot reason with the person. Just look at the Brady Campaign. A major political movement spurred on because the Brady’s are afraid of guns because of the assassination attempt. If that attempt was never made or if Brady was not shot the Brady Campaign would not exist today. The fact that people are hurt or killed with guns allows this phobia to be given valid attention by the media and officials. If it was the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Spider Violence” nobody would give them a second of their time.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM

.
Well stated.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM

I feel badly: nonpartisan hasn’t posted on this thread the entire weekend and I am way late to this party. I was really hoping he would explain how genetic differences between humans relate to the topic of responsible gun ownership.

I also wonder, regarding his magical world-with-no-guns utopia, if he saw the monkey’s paw episode of The Simpsons, when Lisa wished for world peace and then humanity was promptly enslaved by Kang and Kodos using only a slingshot and a club:
“Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!”
until Moe finally drives them off with a board-with-a-nail.

A gun is a means. A criminal also requires motive and opportunity, and usually a motivated individual with an opportunity will contrive the means one way or another.

The Schaef on January 6, 2014 at 10:45 AM

I feel badly: nonpartisan hasn’t posted on this thread the entire weekend and I am way late to this party. I was really hoping he would explain how genetic differences between humans relate to the topic of responsible gun ownership.

The Schaef on January 6, 2014 at 10:45 AM

.
I thought nonpartisan was referred to by others here, as a “she.”
It’s irrelevant to the debate, and if I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected.
.
BTW, that episode of ‘The Simpsons’ is a good analogy for the debate.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

I thought nonpartisan was referred to by others here, as a “she.”
It’s irrelevant to the debate, and if I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

It’s possible. I have no personal knowledge of his/her/its gender, there is no indication of it in the name or in any of his/her/its posts that spring to my mind, and living in an evil patriarchal society or whatever, the default for gender non-specific is to the masculine.

Being male or female makes no difference to me, and if somehow it bothers him/her/it, I apologize for that. But the questions are not gender-specific (you know, the way a question about gun-ownership is race-specific), so they still stand.

The Schaef on January 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM

But the questions are not gender-specific (you know, the way a question about gun-ownership is race-specific), so they still stand.

The Schaef on January 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM

.
Your question is totally valid, but I tend to think nonpartisan won’t come back to this thread.

ORnonpartisan could show up, just to show how wrong I am.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM

I said ….… nonpartisan COULD show up, just to show how WRONG I am.
.
. . . . . . . . . ( “crickets” )

listens2glenn on January 7, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4