sayzme

Thu, Jul 11, 2013 : 5:58 p.m.

So the point you are trying to make: You like to intimidate people cause you have a gun on your hip? It makes you feel like a big man? That's what Zimmerman thought too, we'll see if he still says the same thing as he's sitting in jail for murder.

Mitch

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.

According to our AA/MI laws that would be considered assult and or brandishing.

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 6:14 p.m.

So you suggest constitutional carry / no gov involvement at all? SOLD!

Bcar

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:58 p.m.

So clown(very fitting BTW), of all your MSNBC crap, what does any of that have to do with MY wife? Yup, NONE. Stats and probs only apply to a population, not individual. Gramma, "The type of situation you describe often ends in the gun being taken by the perpetrator and used on the victim. If your wife carries concealed, she would likely be unable to get to her concealed weapon if grabbed by a 6'5", 300# rapist." LOL! You clearly don't know my wife, her training, and her capabilities... ;) The situation I described also often ends with the perp getting aerated. Thankfully people like you two are in the minority... we'll be keeping our guns and carrying them around people like you every day!

Gramma

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.

The type of situation you describe often ends in the gun being taken by the perpetrator and used on the victim. If your wife carries concealed, she would likely be unable to get to her concealed weapon if grabbed by a 6'5", 300# rapist.

clownfish

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.

two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005) The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)

clownfish

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.

Statistics show that your wife is more likely to use the gun on you than the rare 6-5 300 lb rapist. They also say that men known to women are more likely to be the killer, rather than a stranger. Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim. 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger. 38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance More than 50% of all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by victims to have occured within 1 mile of their home or at their home.2 4 in 10 take place at the victim's home -U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005. Where the relationship could be determined, 92 percent of black females killed by males in single victim/single offender incidents knew their killers (406 of 442). Eleven times as many black females were murdered by a male they knew (406 victims) than were killed by male strangers (36 victims) in single victim/single offender incidents in 2009. Firearms - especially handguns - were the most common weapon used by males to murder black females in 2009. For the 451 homicides where the murder weapon could be identified, 59 percent of black female victims (264 victims) were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 76 percent (201 of 264) were killed with a handgun. The number of black females shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance (140 victims) was nearly four times as high as the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined (36 victims) in single victim/single offender incidents in 2009. Violence Policy Center (VPC) report "When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2009 Homicide Data" ---

Ron Smith

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.

A2comments (whoever that is) said: "In my opinion, anyone that advocates the ownership of assault weapons with large magazines is irresponsible". It is my belief (opinion) that the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the individual citizen was as well armed as the individual soldier. In 1776, that meant a single shot muzzle loader (with perhaps a bayonet). In 2013, it means a semi-automatic assault style rifle with high capacity magazines. Wisely, the framers did not know the future of weapons, so they were non-specific in their wording. I don't know the author, but I like this quote; "an armed individual is a citizen, a disarmed individual is a subject". Respectfully,

Bcar

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.

"1.3% of US should not be able to scare lawmakers, but it's because the other 98.7% of us are too quiet." OMG, are you kidding me?? OK then, lets apply that to allllll the other issues the libs are going after shall we?? Or does free choice and majority only apply when it fits your view??? please, Id love to hear your response to this!!! Guess we can toss out the DOMA ruling, oh and while we're at it, ADA, and a few others...

Usual Suspect

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:23 p.m.

"If fact, right-wing conservatives - who are mostly white, male, and Christian, are afraid of the new America that supports equality of women, multi-racialism, and secularism. Instead of embracing what has made America great, they react by buying guns, preaching their holiness, and wrapping themselves in the flag." Uh, speaking of hate, I'd say you've got a pretty good bagful of it there.

jcj

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:11 a.m.

NoSUVforMe You do realize there are more than a dozen SUV's that get over 30 mpg!

hail2thevict0r

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.

Maybe that's a reality for a few but it's mostly untrue of your average gun owner. I voted for Obama twice, and I own guns. The major, and most severe, rush for guns and ammo corresponded with a push to ban types of firearms, magazines and put restrictions on ammunition purchases over the internet. It was very clear why that happened and it happened with some justification. The rushes that went along with Obama being elected both times were minor in comparison and did mostly come from the fear, mostly pushed through by the NRA, that the "new" government officials were going to push through some sort of gun control legislation. It never actually happened until the mass shootings happened. And while a large part of the republican party does represent the values you suggested, I'm not sure those are related to guns.

Gramma

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.

Easy, Think of how many people inflicted with alcohol are carrying concealed.

hail2thevict0r

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 10:56 a.m.

Mike, do you need to be a Constitutional law scholar to fight for your right for free speech? The basic rights in the Constitution are pretty clear and you don't need to be a Constitutional lawyer to understand them and apply them to your life.

easy123

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 10:07 p.m.

sorry should spellcheck -

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 6:15 p.m.

Me too. y'all have our contact info.

Jim H

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 11:38 p.m.

I'd be glad to.

clownfish

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:45 p.m.

If the premise is flawed, the conclusion is suspect.

Bcar

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:07 p.m.

bec they can "talk" a murderer down of course! give them a free: meal, health care, money, place to stay etc...

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:20 a.m.

More times than not, it's non-criminals that get hurt.

Penz1111

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 9:51 p.m.

Ricebrnr -- Yes, we have a volunteer army, my response is so what? What makes you think that the government wouldn't turn that army against its own people if it was threatened by them? We are only now realizing that the government sees us all as possible suspects - they're monitoring our communications and collecting data on us. And the people doing this are no different than the people in the army -- they take the same oaths, are paid by the same government, and report to the same people once you get high enough. And what about the increased militarization of our police forces? Do you think that's to counter a foreign threat? Now as far as "choosing" to serve, tell me when was the last time a military unit received an order from its chain of command and refused to carry it out because it didn't uphold the Constitution? And don't tell me they've never been asked to carry out an unconstitutional order. Part of the Constitution is to uphold international treaties and agreements that the US has signed. No, when an order comes down, it's carried out. I have no idea what you mean by carrying out "only the parts of the Constitution" that I like. You have no clue what parts I like and which ones I don't. And finally, your "history lessons." The factors you are ignoring is that in the first two cases this country never committed all its resources to the conflict you describe. In this worse case scenario we are discussing, they almost certainly would. And they'd be able to sustain it longer because it wouldn't be over there. Supply lines would be much easier to maintain. And for your final case, you don't see that the technological gap between the military and what's available to civilians today is exponentially wider than the gap between the British and Americans in 1776? Really?

Penz1111

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 9:49 p.m.

Ron Smith -- Yours and Orwell's assumption is that all 100,000,000 citizens would rise up in agreement over a single cause. I do not. Look at Snowden. It's not like 100% of the population either support him or don't. No, you would lose a significant percentage of that force because they would still side with the government. And of those who don't, how many would then take up arms? Well, when the US did that in 1776 it was about 1% of the total population. Depending on how you want to break that down, you'd be looking at possibly 1-3 million, covering an area of almost 4,000,000 square miles. I grant that these are estimates and not the best ones at that, but even doubling or tripling that force across the entire country would make it too small to be anything more than a nuisance for our military, and would never be able to get enough people in one place to be much of a threat. It's one thing to combat a guerrilla army of that size in another country, but here the military knows the terrain as well as their adversaries, already has a massive intelligence gathering mechanism and communications system in place, and would have virtually unlimited supply lines.

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 6:21 p.m.

At Penz, A bit of a history lesson for you, Americans field a VOLUNTEER Army. We CHOOSE to serve and we swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution. Not just the part you like. Remind me how both the great superpowers fared in Afghanistan again? Who got beat in Vietnam? For that matter who beat the British way back when?

Ron Smith

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 5 p.m.

To Penz1111, I believe our military to be the finest in the world, with incredible resources and weapons. I hope we never reach the point you described. However, as G. Orwell points out in his post beginning "100,000,000 citizens...", there are too many targets for our soldiers to engage. I read somewhere that last deer season, the hunters taking to the woods in just three eastern states exceeded the manpower of the 5th or 6th largest army in the world. Respectfully,

Penz1111

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:14 a.m.

Orwell -- So you believe a large percentage of the military and police would never fire on citizens? If that's the case, then it demolishes your own argument. Why would you need weapons to defend yourself against a government that doesn't have control of its own armed forces? What's most baffling to me is that you are certain this would be the case, yet you cite in your own post instances where Americans have chosen to protect the government at the expense of its own citizens. Who's really the sheep here?

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.

Wait... how come " 'merica" comment doesn't get deleted but "wake up sheep!" does? That's completely erroneous. Is because I didn't use the proper form... "sheeple"? :)

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:19 a.m.

snicker :)

Frank Lee

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 5:27 p.m.

Can "sheep's" have dictionaries?

G. Orwell

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.

Lenz 100,000,000 citizens with firearms, veterans, large percentage of the military and police that swore to defend the Constitution and refuse to fire on the citizens will be more than enough to resist government tyrants and their minions. It won' even be close. That is why the overlords in DC WANT THE guns. Particularly the "assult" or semi-auto rifles EVEN THOUGH they account for only 3% of all gun violence. Handguns are used in most gun crimes because they are easy to conceal. So, why does Obama, Feinstein, and Bloomberg what the "assault" rifles. For our safety of course. Yell right.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:44 p.m.

Penz, I think there's been a philosophical shift in what place the 2nd Amendment has in our society. While the intent of the founding fathers was to give us the ability to protect ourselves from the government and to protect our rights - which I think always exists in some small way - I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in today's world is to provide citizens the ability to protect their rights when the government is unable to. To protect themselves when the government can't help in time. When the cops take 5 minutes to show up and you need someone there 30 seconds ago. You're never going to shoot down an F-16 with an AR15, but you could protect yourself against a looting mob in a worst case scenario where the government is doing nothing, or what they are doing is not working.

Penz1111

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.

Do you honestly believe that anything available on the market today would make you a match for the US Military? If we reached the point where your fears came true, they could take you out from miles away--and long before you could get to your assault rifle.

Mitch

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 5:27 p.m.

BTW the CPL count I see from MSP is 405,408 that put about 1 in 24 with a CPL in michigan.

clownfish

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.

Link to the study? Who has grabbed your guns? Anybody? Ever? Nope, not once. You are the one dealing with indoctrination if you think the feds have ever "grabbed" guns. The biggest liar in this debate is the NRA. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/nra-lie-obama-gun-control-registry-survey

Jay Thomas

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 6:18 p.m.

Hilarious that Obama's own study came back the other way!

seldon

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.

Their mandate is public health, not just diseases, despite the name.

zigziggityzoo

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.

Seems odd to me that a government arm aimed at the study of diseases would even consider doing a study on firearms.

John

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.

That's funny because the NRA blocked the CDC from doing gun studies. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban- gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/ story?id=18909347#.UdwawDufhc0 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and _science/science/2012/12/gun_ violence_research_nra_and_congress _blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

Ron Smith

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 5:06 p.m.

In agreement with Ricebrnr, I am not aware that the wild "blood in the streets" fears have been realized ANYWHERE that "shall issue" has been instituted. Respectfully,

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 11:05 a.m.

Oooo the old blood in the streets argument, wondered when someone would use that. Same arguments made to prevent shall issue and licensing everywhere else also. So please reconcile that with the uptick in licensees and gun owners with the continued decline in violent crimes and murders? Seems like people would stop trotting this poor dead horse out.

Ed Golembiewski

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 9:55 p.m.

The 45 day time frame in question begins once the concealed weapon licensing board receives the fingerprint comparison report from law enforcement agencies, NOT from the date of application. MCL 28.425b (13)

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 5:59 p.m.

The horror indeed. Apparently you have never identified an extremely violent felon for police and then had to deal with the very real threat of reprisal.

bobslowson

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.

Oh no! You might have to wait more than 45 days...the horror of it all!!!

Bcar

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:02 p.m.

seldon, chicago.... nuff said.

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:15 a.m.

Everyone here knows the difference between correlation and causation, right?

Jay Thomas

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 6:16 p.m.

Seldon, it always follows. We knew it would here back when concealed carry passed.

seldon

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.

For that statistic to mean anything, you'd have to see whether violent crime has dropped equally in states demographically similar to Michigan but which didn't relax the carry rules. Violent crime is down overall in most places, by the way, so attributing Michigan's drop to the number of concealed carry permits issued is silly.

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.

Yep, and Michigan violent crime is down (as reported by MLive) as a result. Just like in every state which relaxed their concealed carry rules And most people who die in airplane crashes are wearing socks. You know what THAT proves, statistically speaking ?

Gramma

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.

Not many homeless people carry concealed. The mental hospitals were closed out b4 the Civil Rights Movement. The initial intention was to have state/county public community mental health centers where those previously institutionalized and persons with mental health issues that would never get them institutionalized could get quality therapy. These centers were also to provide community education about mental health, parenting for mentally healthy kids, etc. The group homes were to be supervised with therapy and meds available. However, this never really happened and as soon as the mental hospitals were empty, the funds dried up. Now many of these people end up incarcerated for minimal crimes. Check out the history.

seekingsun

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 6:04 p.m.

I'm not aware that the population in Washtenaw county has been expanding 4-fold to account for this spike in applications.

Usual Suspect

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.

"There's nothing comforting about a bunch of frightened people playing vigilante." I disagree. I think an irrational fear of law-abiding citizens defending themselves is much more concerning.

clownfish

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.

MITCH: HAIL said that we would be "hard pressed to think of an instance." where a CP holder committed a crime. It was easy to find examples. I never said anything about the %. If you guys want to change the criteria YOU set, then that is your prerogative, but it is sad debate style..

whojix

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 7:11 p.m.

Gun owners have blurred the line between the two. Will be interesting to see how the Trayvon Martin plays out, which is essentially "self-defense" versus vigilantism.

Jay Thomas

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 6:15 p.m.

Self defense and vigilantism are not the same thing. Straw man much?

Mitch

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.

oooh the clown found 2.... out 405k better than most police departments.

whojix

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.

I'm sure that thought will comfort the victims families.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.

The point being, the incidents are a very rare occurrence compared to the number of licensees in the state.

dugster

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.

I tried finding a link but couldn't. I do recall an incident in Detroit a couple of years ago where a guy had his car carjacked. The carjacker wrecked the car and fled on foot. The owner of the car instead of being grateful he got his car back chased him on foot. The "law abiding citizen" with a gun permit decided to pull the gun out and shoot at the carjacker while he was running. A bullet went through a wall of a house striking and killing a woman who's only crime was that she was making a meal for her family. So yes there are incidents where law abiding permit holders have used their guns inappropriately causing death.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.

So like I said, the rates of violence from these individuals is very low. Here's the actual data from 2011, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2011_CPL_Report_376632_7.pdf There were almost 90,000 permits issued in 2011 state wide and there were 11 cases of any type of murder and 25 cases of assault with intent to murder. That's 0.0001% of the permit holders last year were involved in a murder with their firearm. And that's counting just the # of state licensees that year to the total number of violations from licensees. There are some 250,000 CPL holders in the state of Michigan. That number would be even lower if applied to the whole. What it proves is that they are no more dangerous than your average citizen, if anything, the statistics prove they are actually more law abiding than your average Michigan resident.

John

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.

PC:Michigan Reports 38 Deaths by CPL holders http://www.vpc.org/press/1204ccw.htm Quote: Washington, DC--From July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, 38 lives were ended by Michigan concealed handgun permit holders in non-self defense deaths according to the April update of the Violence Policy Center's (VPC) Concealed Carry Killers on-line resource (http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm. The Michigan concealed handgun permit deaths are comprised of: five pending criminal homicides (including the murder of a law enforcement officer); four criminal homicide convictions; and 29 suicides.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.

When was the last time you heard about a concealed carry permit holder committing a crime in Michigan? Making a situation worse by using their firearm inappropriately? I'm going to guess you're going to be hard pressed to think of an instance.

Usual Suspect

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.

If it is an NRA talking point, that does not make it false. If the NRA said the square root of 4 was 2, you would claim it's wrong just because the NRA said it.

Bcar

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.

Hey Clown, I guess MSNBC forgot to let you know about the OR mall shooting? Oh yeah, it wasn't a "mass shooting" because it was STOPPED BEFORE IT BECAME MASS... Or the CO church shooting that was stopped before it went MASS? Oh, and what about the FACT that all of these mass shooting took place in "gun free zones" except for one, the AZ shooting... hmmm... What about the fact that 500,000 people per year use a gun for self defense? And you like to talk suicides, what about japans suicide rate?? Hmmm? I thought only guns made people kill themselves? And what about other types of murder? Or do only gun murders mean anything? And what about Switzerland? They have more guns too, and what is their murder rate? And what about the USA being in the middle for homicide RATE for ALL countries in the world? If we have more guns, and more access to guns than just about every other country, why aren't we at the bottom of that list??? Hmmm? And MKEgal, stop with those pesky facts... no room for them here ;)

OLDTIMER3

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.

@clownfish, How many have police stopped in the past 30 years? ) the same as civilians.

MKEgal

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:38 a.m.

clown claims: "Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years = 0" Except the one in the movie theater in TX, and the one in the mall in OR, and the one in the mall in UT, and so on. Including those, here are 9 mass shootings and 2 mass stabbings stopped by armed citizens: There was the home invasion in Houston, TX where the father saved 7 people in the house by shooting at 3 armed home invaders. He killed 2. Saving 7 lives counts as stopping a mass shooting, right? (JUL13) And there was the attempted robbery at the Wish store in Atlanta, GA, where an armed citizen stopped an armed criminal who was threatening a group of customers. That counts as stopping a mass shooting, right? (JUN13) Astoria, OR (MAY13) a woman defended 4 people in her home by killing an armed criminal who broke in. Dallas, TX (MAY13) a grocery store manager defended his employees from 2 armed criminals. Once the criminals fled, he called police to report the robbery. They showed up 1 hour 20min later. Flint, MI (AUG12) 2 armed criminals tried to rob a group of people having a bonfire, herding them into the home. The homeowner retrieved a gun & shot one of the criminals. The criminal who was shot had been released from jail (on probation) earlier in the month, & has been charged with several other crimes committed the same night. Las Vegas, NV (AUG12) An armed criminal was shot while trying to rob a Dairy Queen, died from the wound. Salt Lake City, UT (APR12) A man armed with a knife he'd just bought attacked 2 people outside the grocery store. An armed citizen forced the criminal to drop the knife & wait for police. CO Springs, CO (MAR12) A doctor armed himself & stood between an armed criminal and "20 to 30" staff & patients, allowing them to exit the building without injury.

edredneck

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.

To Clownfish: "Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0" And how many of the "mass shooting" places were "gun free" zones? There was no one there, probably, who had a weapon because the law said they couldn't and the law-abiding citizens were obeying the law.

vivian

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:55 p.m.

If you break out the stats by demographics, the picture looks quite different. Out west, large numbers of people own guns, but few die by gun violence. Gun crime is concentrated in large urban areas. It's no surprise that many people who live in relatively lawless communities both own guns and run a high risk of being victims themselves. Look outside of those areas and you see surprisingly low numbers of deaths by firearms. And as someone pointed out above, the gun deaths that are suicides are probably not preventable by even the most extreme restrictions on gun ownership --at least the deaths aren't; they'd be from some other cause. But the stats make it clear that rural and small-town gun owners, on the whole, are not gun criminals. Someone in this thread called it a myth that armed civilians have stopped attempted mass murderers. I can't cite a source, so I'll put this out tentatively, but I believe I read fairly recently that in fact several would-be mass shootings have demonstrably been thwarted by off-duty policemen or security guards who happened to be in the right place at the right time with their firearms. The frequency of such incidents may be low, but so (thankfully) is the incidence of attempted mass shootings. And whether or not there've been cases where a looney with a gun thought twice and decided against opening fire in a place where other people were likely to be armed is (and probably always will be) pretty unknowable.

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.

Mr Ed: I guess that is why America is ranked 4th in gun deaths, (11th by per capita) beaten only by S. Africa, Thailand and Columbia? Because more guns makes us more polite? Whereas Japan, with low gun ownership and a culture of respect, has less than a hundred deaths/year by guns. I guess that is why the right wing is so polite to those that disagree with their politics?

John

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.

An armed society is a hostile society. Guns, violence and aggression go hand in hand. Clownfish, you tore those NRA tallking points to shreds. The NRA should be considered a terrorist organization.

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:57 p.m.

I love it when NRA talking points show up in debates! Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys. Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 • Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5 Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:45 p.m.

The real question, do they have a couch on their porch still?

A2comments

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 11:32 a.m.

Sounds good to me. Raise the fees!

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:11 a.m.

Exactly, which is another good reason to fix the economy!

cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.

michigan overcharges for everything.if the state werent broke,theyd never let us carry guns,shoot bottle rockets,go helmetless,etc,etc.etc.

Peggysue

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.

Everything cost more in Michigan .property taxes,insurance,licenses,registration,utilities,yet salaries are only average,our public employees are paid above average,someone as to pay !

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.

If the state issues permits at all. Some state just simply allow you to carry concealed without a permit. I do think Michigan's is a little high - considering that you need to pay for a class to get it. The class being expensive is semi-OK because you have to pay instructors, but the license itself should be cheap.

David Briegel

Thu, Jul 11, 2013 : 4:02 a.m.

Golly, I'm still waiting for evidence that proves me and clownfish wrong. What, no evidence?

Usual Suspect

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:19 p.m.

More than 24 hours later, still no evidence from DB (that "DB" stands for David Briegel, of course).

leaguebus

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 2:26 a.m.

ITs obvious that owning gun is more hazardous to your health and the health of others than not owning one. Just look at Clownfish's comment. Thankfully, responsible gun owners are the norm, but guys like George Zimmerman give gun owners a bad name. The Police told him to leave Mr Martin alone, would he have harassed him if he wasn't carrying a gun? Would George have killed Trayvon without the gun? The answer was probably no, as George's defense witnesses testified that he was less than stellar an athlete and George said that Martin was on top of him kicking his butt before he pulled the gun. The Police told Zimmerman to leave Mr Martin alone, would he have harassed him if he wasn't carrying a gun? We have enough gun deaths and don't need any more from guys like Zimmerman who do dumb things because they carry guns.

lefty48197

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:30 a.m.

I'm STILL waiting for those who dispute David's numbers from offering up another number and their source.

MKEgal

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 11:57 p.m.

And people who own cars are more likely to die from car violence. And people who own pools are more likely to die from drowning. Even if the "three times more likely" were true (it's not), it's only apropos if by stopping all deaths by firearm that means that there will be fewer deaths overall... which doesn't happen. (Or if dying by firearm were such a horrible thing, but dying by being beaten or stabbed weren't.) Criminals kill however they can. If they can't kill by gun, they'll kill by knife, or by beating someone (which is most common - only about 10% of violent crimes involve firearms). One method of killing gives identical results to another method of killing: a dead person.

tdw

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 5:43 p.m.

David....your flat out lies and made up " facts " never ceases to amaze me

Eryn

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study Linda L. Dahlberg, Robin M. Ikeda and Marcie-jo Kresnow Am. J. Epidemiol. (2004) 160 (10): 929-936. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh309 Abstract Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.

MITCH, it is not a question of stupidity, it is a question of availability and opportunity. Suicide in the US, method used: 2001 Total per 100k % of total suicides Firearms..................16,869........5.9.........55.1 All Other Methods.........13,753........4.8.........49.9 (2004) Firearms 16,750 51.6% (2005) Firearms 17,002 52.1%

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.

You are more likely to be killed by a kid with a gun than by a terrorist. You are more likely to be killed by an acquaintance with a gun than by a stranger with a gun. We need better enforcement of existing laws pertaining to kids and friends!!

Mitch

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.

The sad part is you actually think these people only died because of the gun. Do you really think they are too stupid to committ suicide with out the gun?

jcj

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:55 p.m.

David Who is more likely to die from gun violence? A hunter or farmer with a gun or someone living in Detroit that does NOT own a gun?

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:55 p.m.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer. Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. • In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument. • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. Myth #7: Guns make women safer. Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. • A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun. • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

jcj

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:52 p.m.

Mr B comes out of retirement to give us another unsubstantiated claim. wow! What a surprise. How many hunters or farmers with guns die from "gun violence"?

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.

I find this statistic to be extremely misleading. There are a number of factors involved in that stat, none of which you can use to lump everyone together into one group. A guy who lives in the middle of no where who owns a gun and keeps it locked up 364 days a year in a safe does not have the same chance of being involved in a gun crime as someone in Detroit who keeps their loaded firearm under their pillow.

Mr. Ed

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.

Where do you get your facts? I guess people who drive cars are more likely to die from auto accidents.

drewk

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.

I've never heard that statistic before. Or is this just a "sound bite" and the second half of the sentence is "than win the mega millions"

Brad

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.

The main reason - suicides. It's the #1 cause of gun deaths.

Atlas Shrugged

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.

Please cite the source of the data to back up your statement, Mr. B.

zigziggityzoo

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:03 p.m.

Is that because they own a gun, because they are in a more dangerous situation than normal, or otherwise? In other words- how is this statistic derived? Do we include emergency responders and armored car drivers in that statistic? Or is it just a well-packaged sound byte with no real backbone?

joejoeblow

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 9:56 p.m.

Maybe not the end of the world, but I dare you to name one civilization to stand the test of time. Our country will fail, it's just a matter of time. The more one party (either the right or left) changes it from the past, the greater chance that the change will be for the worse.

Candice

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.

Good to know! I've considered buying from a pawn shop, but have been taught to only buy new guns (one bad purchase at Cabelas with a used pistol did me in, luckily I was able to get them to take it back)...either way I don't have to worry about permits.

Bcar

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.

@ Jon S. " That is not even remotely the same thing as being a trained police officer." bwahahaahaa!! Good one! Do you know the training police officers get? And how much they are required to train each year? If you did, you wouldn't have made your comment, and you'd be frightened... Remember, we're not dealing with the top of class people here. National average for "hits" when a police officer shoots their gun at a suspect is around 18%... how does that make you feel? Out of the 15+1 bullets the AAPD carries in their guns, less than 3 hit their target, what about the other 13?? Guess only cops should have guns then... eyes rolling. p.s., why do you always talk about "gun" deaths? Do deaths by knives, bats, and fists not count??

hail2thevict0r

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.

Candice, I hadn't even realized that changed. I just looked it up and the state still requires anyone purchasing a handgun from a pawn shop or a private seller to obtain a purchase permit from local police department or county sheriff's office. The buyer then has 30 days to complete the agreement. But FFL dealers can now sell a handgun using the normal federal background check system; so a CPL would still be beneficial in that area.

Candice

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:27 p.m.

...proper identity and a long application form (that still just be filled out by cpl holders)

Candice

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.

Hail2thevict0r, I'm in no way disagreeing with your posts about most everything. However, recently the Michigan law has changed and no longer is a permit required in order to purchase a pistol in the state of Michigan. All that is required is a valid form of identity stating you are at the proper age. Having a CPL definitely makes the buying process easier though.

clownfish

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.

Since when is posting statistics and telling people the truth about the NRA "anti-gun"? Writing that I am anti-gun is just pure laziness and a weak attempt to take out any argument that you may disagree with. But, I expect that from NRA members and the followers of FOX "News".

Jon Saalberg

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 11:39 a.m.

OK, then: @zigziggityzoo - "Just because one has a license does not mean one carries a concealed firearm everywhere. And just because you feel safe in your neighborhood does not mean that every neighborhood in the county is safe, either." Safety is a relative thing - if you "feel" unsafe, I guess you need that gun. I'm much more concerned about all the "trained" people who carry guns, who are not law enforcement offers and whose "training" consists of some classes and shooting at targets. That is not even remotely the same thing as being a trained police officer. @a2citizen - "These tired GOP/Fox rants are just that - tired rants. I guess he is for gun control today. But he wasn't last November and he probably won't be by the next election." GOP/FOX pretty much confirm what I say, every week - yes, "The Daily Show" may be talking from a different viewpoint, but the clips they play every week of GOP/FOX lunacy are real, unless you think Comedy Central has a studio where they are shooting made-up GOP/FOX lunacy. I do not care, for one minute if people want to have guns - knock yourself out and bankrupt yourself spending every free penny on firearms. Your choice. And by the way, all those guns are do not make us safer. We have more guns than any other developed country and far, far more gun deaths than any other developed country. http://tinyurl.com/btuyny4 What is sad in our country is that our legislators are much more concerned with making sure people can have guns and ammo, of any type, if possible, than they are with making sure our children are educated, and that all Americans have affordable healthcare. You know, you can't read a gun, and guns don't heal anyone.

hail2thevict0r

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:55 a.m.

Jaime, I hope you realize Washtenaw Country encompasses more than just the City of Ann Arbor? Heck, there was just an armed robbery on Jackson and Zeeb at the CVS over the weekend. While we certainly don't live in the most dangerous place in the country, far from it, we're not immune to crime; especially with Detroit a 30 minute drive away.

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.

Jon, there are panhandlers and taggers walking the streets. It's person-eat-person. A veritable apocalypse. Washtenaw county is hardcore. We need all the weaponry we can get

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.

clownfish, if you own guns then why are you posting stats about guns being more likely to cause harm to the owner in some way than they are to be protected by their gun? That's is why I think you're anti-gun. As far as your beliefs on what should be done to curb gun violence, those opinions are fine to have and IMO they don't make you anti-gun. It's the other things you're posting that make me believe that. I personally don't think there should be any requirement to lock up your firearm because situations are different for every person. If I'm a single person living in an apartment, there's no need to lock up my firearm. Locking it up makes it harder to get if you need to use it. If I'm a dad living in a house with 4 kids and a wife - then sure, I'm going to lock it up. But everyone's situation is different and you can't force everyone to be responsible. As far as universal background checks, I don't think they'll do anything personally. I think that you can't enforce them because there's no proof of ownership. And I don't think criminals will care if they're getting a straw purchase illegally to own a firearm illegally. It will just cost me money and time to sell or buy a firearm with that law with very little benefit in preventing crime. Heck, Michigan already requires every handgun sale go through a background check to own (private and commercial sales). How has that helped our crime problem?

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.

VIVIAN, yes, if you are concerned about the DHA purchase of ammo I can call you hysterical. Just as I can call hysterical anybody that thinks Obama is coming for our guns, or that Obama taxed ammo or that the UN Gun Treaty is going to affect gun sales in the USA. Hysteria based on fairy tales and miss information.

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.

"anti-gun"? Really? I am a (multiple) gun owner and I am pushing for more and better background checks (like the NRA used to do and like Reagan did). I would like to see mandatory rules for securing guns/trigger locks to protect children. Does that make me "anti-gun"? What about when Reagan OUTLAWED carrying guns in public in California with the passage of the Mumford Act, was Reagan anti-gun too?

Usual Suspect

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.

Jon, a perfect copy-paste from your DNC emails. I'm sure you will get points for that with your party handlers.

vivian

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.

Sorry, A2citizen--maybe I'm just dense today, but I can't quite tell whose rants you're referring to and who the referent of 'he' is. Did I miss something? And Jon Saalberg, I think that people are reacting to several things, not all based in hysteria (though sensationalistic reporting certainly does whip that up): first, home invasions do seem to be increasing in our area--there was one a couple of blocks from my house a few nights ago, and hardly a week goes by that at least one isn't reported in this news outlet. Two, whether they'll be successful or not, many legislators in states across the country are proposing more restrictive gun laws, which makes 2nd Amendment fans nervous. Three, it does seem to be a fact that DHS has bought up a ton of ammo, for reasons that aren't clear. That makes the same folks uneasy. These fears may be groundless, but I don't think you can call them hysterical or call their response ignorance- based (except to the extent that we're all pretty ignorant when it comes to whatever is really going on in the halls of power).

Jack Gladney

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.

Jon.... I see the words "FOX" and "right-wing." You forgot to use the words "Koch" and "Brothers." We would also would have given bonus points for using "nut jobs" in association with "right-wing." Otherwise, great party-line rant.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:58 p.m.

Clownfish, both sides are responsible for stretching the truth to further their agenda. The anti-gun side is using the same inflated statistics to push for more gun control, despite crime being at it's lowest in 20 years.

clownfish

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.

The NRA is doing their job, whipping up fear to generate sales. "Heckuva job, Wayne!" Just look above to see that we have to use quotes from 1994 to prop up our fear of a folk tale. Since 2009 the only real change in gun laws has been to INCREASE the number of places that we can take our guns. Would not know that listening to the NRA and it's acolytes. Plain and simple...the NRA lies and it's members gobble up the propaganda. Crime is down, sales of guns are up, nobody is taking any guns. Try not to live in fear of fairy tales, people!

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.

And to add, A lot of people don't necessarily get CPLs to carry a firearm in public. If you get a CPL in Michigan you do not need a license to purchase a handgun every single time you want to buy one. You can show your CPL to the dealer every time you want to buy a handgun vs. having to get a license to purchase from the county sheriff's office every time you want to buy on. The license to purchase certificates also expire after 10 days. So if you can't find a gun you want to buy within that time frame, you have to go and get another one and pay more money to the office. If you buy and sell a lot of handguns, it makes sense. Furthermore, it makes transportation easier. Unless you have a CPL you have to keep your handgun in a box, with the magazines out and in the trunk of your car. With a CPL you don't necessarily have to be as strict. You could throw the box in your back seat for instance.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.

I don't care what side you're on Jon, but there HAVE been attempts to literally confiscate guns. One of the most influential anti-gun senators, Dianne Feinstein, said in 1994 (when the original "assault weapons ban" was put in place) that she would have placed an outright ban on them and pushed through a confiscation bill on them if she had the votes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dl-93t1ksw Now, while this may be a smaller minority of people - there are efforts to confiscate types of weapons and put strict limits on ammunition, potential bans on types. Has there been any "real" effort to outright ban ALL firearms? No. Has there been efforts to ban and confiscate types of weapons and magazines? Yes. They've failed because of pro-gun efforts, but those pushes have been made. Furthermore, there have been other discussions about how to, in a round about way, take away guns from public hands. An idea that has strong support in many states says that essentially the gun dies with the person. If you have an AR15 that is grandfathered into any new law, once you die it cannot be transferred to anyone else - thus, it must be destroyed. This was part of the law that Feinstein tried to get pushed through in her latest gun bill that failed to even get a vote in the Senate earlier this year. Just another type of gun confiscation effort.

a2citizen

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:07 p.m.

These tired GOP/Fox rants are just that - tired rants. I guess he is for gun control today. But he wasn't last November and he probably won't be by the next election. http://tinyurl.com/mng4hux

zigziggityzoo

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.

Just because one has a license does not mean one carries a concealed firearm everywhere. And just because you feel safe in your neighborhood does not mean that every neighborhood in the county is safe, either.

Amy Biolchini

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.

If you apply and are granted a CPL, you can carry more than one firearm under the concealed carry state law.

Indymama

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.

I wondered the same thing!! ?? Were there some people who got permits for several types of guns??

Amy Biolchini

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.

I did not list the number of permits pending for all of those time periods, so that partly accounts for the greater number of permits issued than the number of applications received. For example, for the July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 time frame, there were 230 applications pending.

jcj

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

I don't think you would have a backlog if the previous year more permits were received than applications.

zigziggityzoo

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 11:31 a.m.

Either a mistake or a backlog.

MKEgal

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 11:44 p.m.

"based on the applicant being honest" And have there been any problems with those who weren't honest? In fact, have there been any problems in the Constitutional Carry states (no gov't interference with exercising a right), or in the states where only a background check is required for a permit? No. There's no reason to require training, a tax, & gov't registration in order to exercise a right. It does not make us safer, because it's not stopping criminals.

Amy Biolchini

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.

Thanks for the clarification. I've updated the story to make it more clear. I wanted to raise the point that the renewal process is based on the applicant being honest about meeting those two requirements.

Mitch

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.

Sorry Navy, you could get 6 month suspension if you carry on the UofM MSU or Wayne State campus. maybe more.

GoNavy

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 5 p.m.

I don't suppose your internet connection is broken, or www.google.com is down - However, the short answer is "No", you can carry a gun anywhere you please. For example, into a courtroom, or into your child's classroom. You can definitely bring a firearm to a bar (especially if you've been drinking). Michigan Stadium prohibits lots of things, but definitely not firearms. So, as you can see, without an internet connection or the ability to do a web search, your information is based solely on what random individuals on the internet provide you.

Mitch

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 2:57 p.m.

The whole point of concealment is to keep it under cover like a convict.

nickcarraweigh

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.

The whole point of concealing a weapon is to let you get the drop on somebody. You can't do that if they know where it is. Treat your gun like an ATM PIN, and never let anyone know where it is. If you lose your gun because of excessive drinking or early onset Alzheimer's, don't worry. It happens to all of us. It will turn up, of course, but you may want to buy a backup just for those awkward interregnums.

Mitch

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.

Sorry Amy please consider http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf which make Ziggy just as right as you.

Amy Biolchini

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 1:39 p.m.

Ann, there are a number of "pistol free areas" where you can't carry a concealed pistol under Michigan law: Schools, school property (though you can carry while in a vehicle while dropping off a child if you're a parent or legal guardian), public or private day care center, sports arena/stadium, bars, places of worship or any facility owned or operated by a place of worship unless the officials presiding over the organization allow it, an entertainment facility that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more, hospitals, dorms or classrooms of colleges/universities, and casinos. More information on the MSP's website: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

zigziggityzoo

Tue, Jul 9, 2013 : 11:24 a.m.

MCL 28.425o lists places where individuals are prohibited from carrying a CONCEALED pistol. Openly carried pistols are exempt. MCL 750.234d lists places where individuals are prohibited from carrying any firearms, but concealed licensees are exempt. Which means that concealed pistol licensees may carry most everywhere, except certain federal grounds, casinos, secure areas of airports, and courthouses (There may be other places too).