Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (safer, manufactured)

[Natural510]

I thought CCW laws were just fine as is. Any citizen within reason could apply for a permit to carry a firearm on their person with a weekend’s worth of safety training. Something many states out there still don’t allow. But no, the virtue signaling, culture warrior party couldn’t leave well enough alone and had to allow all guns anywhere with no restrictions. What could go wrong?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Discuss them in what way? They are not hypothetical, they are real. Most voting restrictions today are methods to prevent people from voting and participating in the democratic system that threatens certain political groups and outcomes. And you'll never guess which side tends to support those restrictions.

Gun regulations, at least in terms of what most people support, are not about preventing people from owning guns, so I don't really see them being the same thing. So, I don't think you have the gotcha on your hands you think you do.

This is what you said that started this line of discussion. You seem to have forgotten it, so here it is. Note the highlight:

Originally Posted by cheech14

It's not the nationality, it's the tolerance of violence- but especially gun violence- that makes the US unique. But I would argue that based on polling, most people- including most gun owners- actually support gun control and regulations like training, background checks, magazine limitations, etc. So I'm not even sure if it's tolerance of gun violence so much as we are being held hostage by special interests who make billions on creating a culture of fear.

We can disregard magazine capacity limitations for purposes of this discussion as there is nothing really analogous in the voting realm, but the other two are perfectly appropriate.

Would you support a requirement of mandatory education for prospective voters? How about mandatory background checks as a requirement? Would these restrictions be acceptable to you, or are those restrictions only acceptable when placed on gun owners?

There are only a handful of reasons people are dead-set against any kind of gun regulations- 1. Because they believe they're going to stop a tyrannical government one day, 2. They're going to stop a bad guy from harming others, or 3. They're going to stop a bad guy from harming them.

I don’t really care if you answer the question or not, but what you wrote above is a non-answer.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Eliminating training requirements is just entirely asinine, for example. People should be familiar and trained in how to handle a potentially deadly weapon, especially if the claim about self-defense is not entirely BS. Yet too many states have done this. Let's start with that and go from there.

So, training requirements is the answer? Why? Do you evidence to share to support that, or do you just have a warm fuzzy inside of you, telling that that’s going be a significant positive?

How will you get around the 2nd amendment protections?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

My mistake. Confused you for another poster whose handle starts with a "T"; unfortunately, not for the first time in the last few days.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

If you feel like the danger is so high that you must carry a firearm at all times, it just means that your potential response to perceived danger is going to be more drastic. It's arguably not a healthy assumption to expect a deadly threat at all times, and I can't imagine it leaves people like that in a good frame of mind when a threat- real or perceived- presents itself. Simply put, you're more likely to use your gun because you expect there to eventually be a reason to have to use it.

Do you have evidence that supports the above conclusions?

[TomJones123]

https://www.toddstarnes.com/crime/i-...-with-robbers/

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by JR_C

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just glad that crime didn't increase, generally.

If we're talking about common sense, common sense tells me that more guns would equal more shooting. So, I don't buy that lower gun crime is linked to constitutional carry.

As long as the right ones (the criminals) get shot.
And yes, the presence of guns in the law-abiding citizens’ hands do deter criminals.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

This is what you said that started this line of discussion. You seem to have forgotten it, so here it is. Note the highlight:



We can disregard magazine capacity limitations for purposes of this discussion as there is nothing really analogous in the voting realm, but the other two are perfectly appropriate.

Would you support a requirement of mandatory education for prospective voters? How about mandatory background checks as a requirement? Would these restrictions be acceptable to you, or are those restrictions only acceptable when placed on gun owners?



I don’t really care if you answer the question or not, but what you wrote above is a non-answer.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

I can think of multiple ways to reduce gun violence and the overall number of guns available.

So give me some examples of laws you think we should apply to law abiding citizens.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by Natural510

I thought CCW laws were just fine as is. Any citizen within reason could apply for a permit to carry a firearm on their person with a weekend’s worth of safety training. Something many states out there still don’t allow. But no, the virtue signaling, culture warrior party couldn’t leave well enough alone and had to allow all guns anywhere with no restrictions. What could go wrong?

You tell me, but remember, as stated in the title of the thread, gun crime is down in six of eight of Ohio's largest cities since the law change.