Anti Gun rights activists proven wrong... again.

Guess What Happened to Violent Crime Rates After Ohio Adopted Permitless Carry?

At the time, gun control activists and anti-gun politicians decried the move and declared it would make the state a more dangerous place. State Rep. Allison Russo even claimed that “Republicans have made it crystal clear that they value the approval of the gun lobby more than the lives of Ohioans and the police officers who protect our communities every day.”

With the FBI’s crime statistics for 2022 now publicly available, was Russo right? Did Ohio become a more dangerous place because of permitless carry? Were Republicans really casting their votes because they had no care or concern about the safety of their constituents or those tasked with enforcing the laws they approved at the state capitol?

Nope to all of the above. . . . Not only did violent crime and homicide rates both decline last year, the drop in violent crime in Ohio far outpaced the national average. The doom-and-gloom predictions of the anti-gunners were flat-out wrong, and Ohio is a safer state today than it was when Gov. Mike DeWine signed SB 215 into law.

Thanks for providing a citation.

I think your spin (and theirs) is a tad, er, "spinny."

Remember the Maine!

If Robert Card “was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, that would have precluded him from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm. A voluntary commitment, on the other hand, wouldn’t necessarily have resulted in a NICS denial after he was released.” However, if Card “did self-report mental health issues including a threat to shoot up an army base and was committed to a mental health facility, that likely would have been seen as ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that he presented a danger to himself or others.”

When existing mechanisms to keep guns away from the mentally ill aren’t used, that’s not a reason for more gun control that won’t actually solve the problem.

So once again the experts/authorities failed to do their jobs and people are dead and the only solution idiots can come up with is to violate the rights of the innocent.

When existing mechanisms to keep guns away from the mentally ill aren’t used, that’s not a reason for more gun control that won’t actually solve the problem.

So once again the experts/authorities failed to do their jobs and people are dead and the only solution idiots can come up with is to violate the rights of the innocent. Originally Posted by texassapper

Okay, I agree with the first paragraph. Who should be charged for not enforcing the law?

If all that he did happened in California, he would not have been allowed to keep the weapon of war. Maine is hunting country isn't it?


By the way, you sound a baby-killer's apologist. Just sayin'.

I have little faith that mental health professionals, be they Psychologists or Psychiatrists, can really deal with any of these wack-o shooters in any effective way.

However, in a few other states I think that the so-called "Red Flag" laws could have kicked in and the local authorities would have collecte4d his guns. The state of Florida comes to mind, though they too have dropped the ball.

I'm against the red flag laws. The ones that I've seen allow the confiscation of your guns on someone's statement that you are a danger to yourself or others and require very little or no investigation. Then you have to fight to get your property back. What about innocent until proven guilty?

As to the OP's topic it has been shown time and time again that when concealed carry is allowed, violent crime goes down.

Also let's not forget that most of these shootings occur in "gun free zones" proving that criminals will not obey the law, who would of thought?

I'm against the red flag laws. The ones that I've seen allow the confiscation of your guns on someone's statement that you are a danger to yourself or others and require very little or no investigation. Then you have to fight to get your property back. What about innocent until proven guilty?

As to the OP's topic it has been shown time and time again that when concealed carry is allowed, violent crime goes down.

Also let's not forget that most of these shootings occur in "gun free zones" proving that criminals will not obey the law, who would of thought? Originally Posted by Iceman

I agree. "Red Flag Laws" are in place to further division and resentment among the masses that's all they are good for.

I'm against the red flag laws. The ones that I've seen allow the confiscation of your guns on someone's statement that you are a danger to yourself or others and require very little or no investigation. Then you have to fight to get your property back. What about innocent until proven guilty?

As to the OP's topic it has been shown time and time again that when concealed carry is allowed, violent crime goes down.

Also let's not forget that most of these shootings occur in "gun free zones" proving that criminals will not obey the law, who would of thought? Originally Posted by Iceman

Red Flag laws allow guns to be removed from the possession of those thought to be threat against themselves or others.

"The Red Flag Law, also known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order law, prevents individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm.

The Red Flag Law provides procedural safeguards to ensure that no firearm is removed without due process while helping to prevent tragedies, like the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the racist mass shooting in Buffalo."

A person's guns are not removed from his possession until that person is deemed unfit at the time to have possession of those guns and that determination is made by close family/friends and agreed to by a judge.

You may also be correct when you state that when concealed carry is allowed, violent crime goes down. But it is also true that the states with more guns per capita have more homicides per capita. 9 of the 10 states with the most homicides per capita are red states. There is also a high correlation between states that are considered to be "gun-friendly" and high homicide rates.

https://www.criminalattorneycincinna...ides-by-state/

And while many, but far from all, the mass shootings do occur in schools which are fun-free zones, there is little to indicate that the locations for the shootings were chosen because of that. Usually the shooter has a vendetta against the school.

"Study Finds Significant Increase in Firearm Assaults in States that Relaxed Conceal Carry Permit Restrictions"

"The study found that moving to less restrictive laws was associated with a 24 percent increase in the rate of assaults with firearms (12.75 per 100,000) when individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors were eligible to obtain concealed-carry licenses. The researchers also found that states with shall issue laws that had live-fire firearm safety training requirements did not see the significant increases in firearm assaults that were estimated for states that lacked such requirements."

I have always supported concealed carry but I was of the opinion that people who wanted to carry should undergo a short course in the handling of handguns and knowledge of the laws pertaining to handguns. The study suppoorts my opinion.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/st...t-restrictions

"Impact of Changes to Concealed-Carry Weapons Laws on Fatal and Nonfatal Violent Crime, 1980-2019"

"Adoption of a shall-issue CCW law was associated with a 9.5% increase in rates of assault with a firearm during the first 10 years after law adoption and was associated with an 8.8% increase in rates of homicide by other means. When shall-issue laws allowed violent misdemeanants to acquire CCW permits, the laws were associated with higher rates of gun assaults. It is likely that adoption of shall-issue CCW laws has increased rates of nonfatal violent crime committed with firearms. Harmful effects of shall-issue laws are most clear when provisions intended to reduce risks associated with civilian gun-carrying are absent."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36104849/

"Due process" under the red flag law consists of someone filing a complaint and a judge deciding on the issue. The person who is accused of being a threat has no chance to defend themselves until after the fact and the burden is put on them instead of the accuser.

In stating that violent crime went down, I wasn't limiting it to homicides but all violent crime. Approximately half of gun deaths are suicide so carry permits would have nothing to do with those.

Gun free zones aren't limited to schools. According to the CPRC 94% of mass public shootings from 1950 - 2019 occurred in gun free zones.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/mo...ass-shootings/

"Due process" under the red flag law consists of someone filing a complaint and a judge deciding on the issue. The person who is accused of being a threat has no chance to defend themselves until after the fact and the burden is put on them instead of the accuser.

In stating that violent crime went down, I wasn't limiting it to homicides but all violent crime. Approximately half of gun deaths are suicide so carry permits would have nothing to do with those.

Gun free zones aren't limited to schools. According to the CPRC 94% of mass public shootings from 1950 - 2019 occurred in gun free zones.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/mo...ass-shootings/ Originally Posted by Iceman

Yes, Red Flag laws put the accusers against the accused and the accused has little recourse. But as usual I put the upside versus the downside and to TEMPORARILY take away a person's right to possess a gun when people close to him and a judge deem him to be a risk I see little downside. The guy in Lewiston, Maine should not have had access to guns.

There is no proof that I can find that correlates right-to-carry with a decrease in violent crime.

"Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime
Updated January 10, 2023

Summary: There is supportive evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase total and firearm homicides. Evidence for the effect of permitless-carry laws on total homicides is inconclusive. Evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase violent crime is limited.

Some studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, others find that the effects are negligible, and still others find that such laws increase violent crime. The committee concludes that it is not possible to reach any scientifically supported conclusion because of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there were many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the statistical imprecision of the results. The evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. "

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...iolent%20crime.

The CPRC is led by John Lott and if you are familiar with him his statements are almost always totally flawed.

"CLAIM: More than 90% of all mass shootings have happened in so-called “gun-free zones.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The oft-cited figure comes from a study by a gun rights advocacy group that gun violence experts say is flawed. They say the study draws from federal data on “active shooter” incidents, which is not the same as a mass shooting. It also excludes gang-related incidents, yet includes military bases and other locations that aren’t arguably “gun free.” There is no definitive data on how many “mass shootings” occur in “gun-free” zones, because there is no consensus on how to define either term, experts said.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...e-712807001259

"Do Most Mass Shootings Happen In 'Gun-Free Zones'? Analysts Disagree"
https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjustice...lysts-disagree

"MYTH: 98% of Mass Shootings Occur in Gun-Free Zones

Summary:

Researcher John Lott claimed that 98% or more of mass shootings
from 1950 to the present occurred in gun-free zones.

Lott’s false claim is based on a basic error. For the period 1977–1997, Lott counts each individual mass shooting death as an entire mass shooting incident.

Even after Lott corrected his mistake, he made a new claim that 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun-free places, which is also based on flawed data and contradicts other research that concludes that 12% to 13% of mass shootings occur where guns are prohibited.

https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/occur-in/

We could go back and forth with studies and polls to support our positions, so I think it's time to agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

umm, we have a mass shooting problem. it's not even debatable. we need bipartisan laws and regs to fix that. we're the only first world country that is totally off the charts on mass shootings and gun deaths. the status quo is not acceptable. banning assault rifles would be a great start.

We could go back and forth with studies and polls to support our positions, so I think it's time to agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that. Originally Posted by Iceman

This is true, no matter what law's are active, the bad guys always have weapons and the citizens that follow the law become victims, next they'll want to ban vehicles because they are involved in deadly accidents