Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:40 PM
friendly_iconoclast (10,553 posts)
A bold claim- with some justification
March 21, 2012
THE COLORADO Supreme Court put some noses out of joint when it ruled unanimously this month that the University of Colorado’s campus gun ban violated a 2003 state law that entitles residents with permits to carry concealed weapons.
One of those noses belonged to Abraham Nowels, a University of Colorado student who wrote to the Denver Post: “We’re in the middle of midterms right now, and I can’t think of anything I’d rather be focusing on than which of my fellow over-stressed, binge-drinking peers is carrying a concealed weapon into class with me.’’ The Post agreed, pleading in an editorial for “legislators with enough gumption’’ to change the state’s concealed-carry law and “give colleges the power they need to keep students safe.’’...
...While the University of Colorado spent much of the past decade resisting the state’s concealed-carry law, Colorado State University complied with it. If the gun controllers are right, Colorado State should have seen a surge in crime, while its gun-banning sister institution should have been an Eden of security and lawfulness. That’s not what happened. As Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett write in a new monograph for the Cato Institute, “crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame.’’
Something similar happened after the US Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision striking down a gun ban in Washington, DC. The city’s mayor predicted in dismay that “more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,’’ yet crime in the nation’s capital plunged. Murder nose-dived to its lowest rate in half a century, falling from 186 in 2008 to 144 in 2009 to 132 in 2010 to 108 in 2011...
Added on edit:
In before the genetic fallacy gets dredged up...
12 replies, 1825 views
A bold claim- with some justification (Original post)
|Atypical Liberal||Mar 2012||#7|
Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)
Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:53 PM
xchrom (106,197 posts)
1. Time hasn't magically stopped.
What is true today may not be true tomorrow.
No increase in out of hand shootings doesn't mean There won't be - there is simply an increase for that option to occur w/ this rule.
Response to xchrom (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:13 PM
Clames (2,038 posts)
3. No...simply not true.
There's is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that there could be an increase "waiting to happen" with such legislation. Heard such similar things every time a state passed shall-issue CCW and those never came true either.
Response to Clames (Reply #3)
Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:24 PM
Hoyt (17,052 posts)
5. No evidence it improves society either.
Just makes it easier for more yahoos like Zimmerman to walk around in public with lethal weapon, and play cowboy and/or policeman.
Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #7)
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:17 AM
beevul (8,004 posts)
9. The answer to that question is obvious.
People that don't like guns or gun culture, but aren't content to make decisions based on that for themselves, and feel compelled to make decisions based on that dislike, for everyone else, as well.
Reminds me of other groups...Like the anti-abortion types, and the anti-MJ types.
No doubt someone will be along soon to tell us how its not because of a dislike of guns or gun culture, gosh no, its because they care about society.
Yeah right. I'll buy that for a dollar.
The demeaning way in which they regularly describe, refer, and talk to us, makes it all quite crystal clear.
Response to beevul (Reply #9)
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:02 PM
friendly_iconoclast (10,553 posts)
11. Social cleansers are more alike than they're willing to admit.
Eric Hoffer had 'em pegged sixty years ago: