• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats' ignorance on guns guns is why they'll never pass another ban, plus the Supreme Court

There's no such thing as permitless carry. The second amendment permits carrying a weapon.

The right to keep and BEAR arms. Bear means carry.
 
I really resent the idea that I need state permission for my rights.

A state requiring a permit to bear arms is like requiring a permit to read a newspaper or join a religion.
 
More info on permitless/constitutional carry.

Research Highlights the Impact of Permitless Carry Laws on Crime and Violence - University of Wyoming

In March of 2024, Governor Henry McMaster signed legislation into law that made South Carolina the 29th state in the nation...
firearmsresearchcenter.org

Let’s start with a research project I did with Colorado State University Professor Youngsung Kim where we studied crime statistics from all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 1980 to 2018.

As detailed in our paper, we “accounted for 30 control variables—that is, factors other than constitutional carry that might raise or lower a state’s crime rate. The control variables included population density, alcohol consumption, poverty rates, unemployment rates, the Fryer crack-cocaine index, incarceration rates, age cohorts in five-year blocks from age 15 to over 65 years of age, police per capita, other gun control (such as “assault-weapons” bans), racial variables and more.”

Our conclusion was clear: “constitutional carry does not lead to large-scale change in homicides or in firearm suicides. The doomsday scenarios of constitutional-carry opponents are not supported by social science.”

As a follow-up to the paper being published, Dave Kopel, Senior Fellow at the Firearms Research Center, and I published an Article highlighting the report’s findings.

“The relationship between constitutional-carry laws and homicide is negative, which is the opposite of what gun-control activists have predicted. Constitutional-carry laws were associated with about 6% lower homicide rates; but, again, the result was not statistically significant. In other words, we cannot be 99%, 95% or 90% sure that this happy result was not due to chance.”

Other academic studies have come to the same conclusion. Hamill et al. (2019) found no significant shifts in homicide when states liberalized their concealed carry laws, including the adoption of permitless carry, and neither did Smith and Petrocelli(2018) find an effect of permitless carry when studying handgun-related crime in Tucson, Arizona.

At the beginning of this year, a study published by the Center for Justice Research, a partnership between the Ohio Attorney General’s office and Bowling Green State University, affirmed the largely beneficial impact of permitless carry on crime and violence in Ohio. According to a press release highlighting the research, “Beginning June 13, 2022, Ohio became the 23rd state to allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. In the year following, crime involving guns dropped across Ohio’s eight largest cities as a whole and in six of the eight individually.”
 

I believe I misread it, thinking it mentioned Florida's crime rate.
So your response to my apparently biased source is linking to an article that simply republished an article by ammo.com?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I really resent the idea that I need state permission for my rights.

A state requiring a permit to bear arms is like requiring a permit to read a newspaper or join a religion.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you. I just wish we could get open carry in FL but we have a bunch of RINOs running our state senate.
 
Maccabee said:
I believe I misread it, thinking it mentioned Florida's crime rate.

So your response to my apparently biased source is linking to an article that simply republished an article by ammo.com?
Click to expand...
I linked to legalreader.com. Where is this ammo.com link you are talking about?

I do love how your source uses a study published in 2022 to attack a law that did not go into effect till 2023 though.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
I linked to legalreader.com. Where is this ammo.com link you are talking about?
Click to expand...

At the bottom of your link:

"Sources:

Concealed Carry and Reciprocity
National Firearms Survey (Defensive Use)
CDC Wonder
FBI Crime Data Explorer
LegalReader thanks our friends at Ammo.com for permission to republish this piece. The original is found here."
JMB1911A1 said:
I do love how your source uses a study published in 2022 to attack a law that did not go into effect till 2023 though.
Click to expand...
If that law has a pattern of increasing gun homicides and assaults in states that already implemented it at the time of this study, it's only logical to conclude that Florida will follow the same path. Now, Florida could be an outlier and I'm overlooking a study that illustrates that, but until then, I'm not sure why you consider it as such a foreign concept of using previous data to predict future outcomes.
 
CLAX1911 said:
We have open carry here but I never do it.
Click to expand...
I would just like the option when going to the range and having to stop for gas, etc.

I do need a nice tooled leather holster and a BBQ gun.
 
So, it was published in ammo.com but actually used CDC and FBI data. And that data showed that permitless carry did NOT result in a 22% increase.
And I just showed you a bunch of studies that proved that GVPedia was wrong (or lying). In fact, considering the board of GVPedia, I’ll go with lying.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
I would just like the option when going to the range and having to stop for gas, etc.
Click to expand...
My reasons for but doing it is I didn't have to worry as much about retention
JMB1911A1 said:
I do need a nice tooled leather holster and a BBQ gun.
Click to expand...
When I open carried guy work I insisted on a lock holster. Too easy due sometime just to lift it out. But I wore a sam brown belt too.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
So, it was published in ammo.com but actually used CDC and FBI data. And that data showed that permitless carry did NOT result in a 22% increase.
Click to expand...

So did my source that said it did had an increase.
JMB1911A1 said:
And I just showed you a bunch of studies that proved that GVPedia was wrong (or lying). In fact, considering the board of GVPedia, I’ll go with lying.
Click to expand...
No, you provided a biased analysis to disprove my apparent biased analysis. This is why we should have a neutral government organization like the CDC look into this so that way we're not sourcing our claims from sources with agendas.
 
The CDC is not neutral in this. They sway with the demands of their political masters.

Did you also look at the studies I linked to in post 378?
 
JMB1911A1 said:
The CDC is not neutral in this. They sway with the demands of their political masters.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence of this?
JMB1911A1 said:
Did you also look at the studies I linked to in post 378?
Click to expand...
You mean another pro-2A site? Look, I wouldn't harp on the fact that your sources have an obvious agenda behind it if it wasn't for the fact to you handwaved mine as biased because they may or may not have a different opinion than yours. If you have a neutral government study, I'll take a look at it.
 
The government cannot be neutral it's his goal is to impress you so of course it's going to give every reason why it needs to why you need it to.

I think the best thing our government has done in recent years is forbid the CDC from commenting on social and cultural issues as it has nothing to do with them.

As far as the mental health that's more of an APA thing.
 
Maccabee said:
Do you have evidence of this?
Click to expand...
Absolutely the CDC is a government entity. They represent the government interest therefore they cannot possibly be neutral in any way.
Anything against the second amendment has an agenda too it's just more nefarious.
 
The question of permits was actually answered 17 Dec 1791 when the 2A was ratified. “Shall not be infringed”. We don’t require permits for speech or to exercise a religion. It was not an issue for 150 years until the modern Democrat party came around. That is when gun control started. Because it is about control and preventing the people from stopping the “progressive” agenda.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
The question of permits was actually answered 17 Dec 1791 when the 2A was ratified. “Shall not be infringed”. We don’t require permits for speech or to exercise a religion.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. You wanna stage a protest at the park, you usually get a permit. You wanna build a church or house of worship, you get a building permit and apply for a 501(C)3.
JMB1911A1 said:
It was not an issue for 150 years until the modern Democrat party came around. That is when gun control started. Because it is about control and preventing the people from stopping the “progressive” agenda.
Click to expand...
What is the progressive agenda?
 
Maccabee said:
Yes we do. You wanna stage a protest at the park, you usually get a permit. You wanna build a church or house of worship, you get a building permit and apply for a 501(C)3.
Click to expand...
I don’t need a permit to stand on a street corner and speak. I don’t need a permit to pray. Your examples are more analogous to building a firearms factory.
Maccabee said:
What is the progressive agenda?
Click to expand...
Look up Woodrow Wilson.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
I don’t need a permit to stand on a street corner and speak. I don’t need a permit to pray. Your examples are more analogous to building a firearms factory.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that your first amendment rights isn't completely permitless. There are aspects of the 1st amendment where you do need the government's permission to exercise. Also, depending on where and how you stand at a corner and speak, you could be arrested/fined for disorderly conduct and/or loitering, so there goes that.
JMB1911A1 said:
Look up Woodrow Wilson.
Click to expand...
I'm not chasing ambiguous rabbit trails. Do you have a specific example of what Wilson did and how it pertained to the 2nd amendment?
 
Yup. Liberals’ fear of guns will make them easy to subdue when the time comes.
 
Maccabee said:
A 22% increase in firearm related homicides and assaults in Florida just a couple of years since we've allowed permitless carry IS a significant amount.
Click to expand...
Actually no it isn’t.
But let’s think about this. You think a class on gun safety is going to stop homicide and assaults. ?
You didn’t see a giant jump in ACCIDENTS with constitutional carry.
Which is what a permit is going to supposedly prevent.
Maccabee said:
If they're not experienced in handling firearms then absolutely they're unsafe.
Click to expand...
That’s not true . For one they may be seeking out mentors etc to teach them etc.
the bottom line. If these folks are so unsafe? Why wasn’t there an explosions of accidents.
Maccabee said:
A permit ensures that you at least know the four rules of firearms and
Click to expand...
Maccabee said:
safety and can put rounds on target.
Click to expand...
Sure.
Surely this doesn’t need to be done every year or frankly ever again.
And you need to be honest. A class is just icing on the cake . Permitless carry has not resulted in an explosions of accidents.
Maccabee said:
Because they have the permit to show that they went through the training to obtain it
Click to expand...
Wishkibble. I am all for training but objectively , there has not been an explosion of accidents with constitutional carry .
Maccabee said:
I'm completely fine with prosecuting people who lie on 4473 forms.
Click to expand...
Yet interestingly the government is not. Which certainly puts into question whether the purpose of the background checks are really to stop criminals from getting guns or the purpose is to impede legitimate gun owners.
You however don’t seem to understand how your proposal could and would do the very thing you say you are against at .
Classes cost money, take time and thus ARE a discouragement for law abiding responsible citizens.
The nearest class for me is 60 miles away and given 2x year.
The cost of liability insurance is prohibitive and what if a person cannot obtain it say because they live in a rough neighborhood. ?



Maccabee said:
Which is why I'm not demanding the level of training police and military go through.
Click to expand...
Except you did suggest it.
Maccabee said:
Just a refresher course every so often in my proposed CIVSA permit. Could be yearly, every two years, 5 years, or whenever you need to renew your permit.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you really think people need to be refreshed on the rules of firearm safety?
Maccabee said:
1. Permitless carry is a bad idea because it leads to an increase in firearm related homicides and assaults.
Click to expand...
As stated because of police changing enforcement.
I mean think about it. How does it LEAD to more homicides and assaults ?
If you can’t obtain a permit in your proposed system it’s because why? You are a prohibited person right?
Which means it’s illegal for you to possess a firearm much less carry it.
So what is permit-less carry going to really do to this person.? They still aren’t legally allowed to even possess!!
Maccabee said:
People should be trained on safety, justified use of force, and relevant firearm laws in order to be allowed to carry.
Click to expand...
Frankly it’s icing on the cake. Permitless carry has not resulted in a huge increase in accidents.
Maccabee said:
2. To respect states rights and honestly, help sell the idea of national reciprocity, we should have a CIVSA permit in the same way
Click to expand...
No. I am all for a permitting system for classes etc for nationwide reciprocity but frankly you are talking about only nine states that you would gain access to.

Maccabee said:
States can run their own standards for their state CCW permit, however CIVSA permit holders must go through regular training and have liability insurance in order to maintain their CIVSA permit.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Maccabee said:
And there are seasoned cops/service members who only shoot once a year that wound up having a ND. Your point?
Click to expand...
How is training going to affect homicides and assaults?
Maccabee said:
It's not just accidents. It's also the firearm related homicides and assaults.
Click to expand...
See above. The reason a person will not get a permit is because they can’t pass the background check.
Which means carry permit or permit less carry is moot since they are not allowed to even possess a firearm.
Maccabee said:
CIVSA would provide an incentive to create more classes to more people. Hell, have it be ran/held by the DMV.
Click to expand...
wtf?
Maccabee said:
Sounds like an issue universal healthcare could solve.
Click to expand...
Canada has universal healthcare and pharmaceutical are not covered by Canadian government insurance .

Maccabee said:
Who says they don't need it?
Click to expand...
Show me the need for liability insurance.
Maccabee said:
This is specifically for CIVSA permits. Anything else is subject to existing state laws.

Which ones?
Click to expand...
 
At this point, I'm having to cut out sections of your post in order to fit a proper response and we're starting to rehash old talking points. So I'm not going to engage further. I'm pretty sure you can find a post I made that addressed the points you brought up.
 
Nope there is no such post.

1. How does firearms training and being better able to put rounds on target reduce homicide and assault?

2. Demonstrate the need for liability insurance and what happens to a persons ability to carry if through no fault of their own they cannot obtain insurance.

3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…