California sheriff considering allowing more concealed carry permits...

I hear Spray-n-Wash gets blood out of concrete better than the other national brands.

'Blood in the streets' is the common contrarian mating call about Concealed Carry.


Edit: On further review, I may have mistakenly interpreted that post as sarcasm.

I mean it is used over and over and over and over by antis and it is always wrong so as an expression it is utterly bankrupt.

However it is xeno so I assure he it was intended with 100% sincerity.

xeno is in the ultra extreme anti-camp of all firearms should be outlawed.

Here are some oldie but goldies

"Good. The fewer guns out there, the safer we will be."
- in reference to lower gun ownership survey


- in reference to a thread about a CCW shooting an armed robber

"So, youre basicaly saying screw em to human life."
- in reference to a member of DU saying they would use a firearm in self defense of a robbery attempt

field enough officers to respond to violent crimes, and felt it prudent to allow more of the people living there to arm themselves, you have to post that weaksauce response.

I'll bet the police response times in YOUR neighborhood are just fine.


Bonus cleaning tip:


After dad killed himself, I used purex and a scrub brush to scrub the blood off of the concrete floor. Worked just fine.


He used a knife, not wanting to alarm the neighbors by using the gun he had in the other room.

Oh wait that is in NO state in which that happened.

bringing the truth into these discussions. I wasn't done insulting the OP yet.

:evilgrin:

As a CCW holder, I go through 2-3 speedloaders just getting from my front door to my car. ;-)

We allow carry on college campuses here. i won't step on the property of the UW without a ballistic vest.

I won't travel to any of them in anything less then company strength. With full artie support.

So many times, people say "Blood in the streets"

So many times, it does not happen...

One day, the anti's will give up on that one.

:thumbsup:

Think it would be useful as a visual tool?

Similar map but changing the colors. Red is generally associated negative and green positive.
At the bottom have a line chart showing the reduction in homicide & violent crime rate

Grabbers seem to respond more to pictures rather than facts anyway.

I'd like to see it.

:thumbsup:

that will stop the bloodshed.

After all, it's those legally licensed concealed carry people that are running around shooting people for no reason.

All because they were born with short dicks and they are cowards.

(It shouldn't be necessary but ':sarcasm:')

Between October 1, 1987 - July 31, 2009, 1,565,251 concealed weapons permits were issued.

Of that number, a total of 167 were revoked for a crime committed using a firearm after the license was granted.

Let's read that again 167 licenses our of 1,565,251. That turns out to be 0.01%. A TOTAL OF 167 LICENSES REVOKED OVER A 12 YEAR PERIOD!!!

Somehow, if the Californians with concealed carry permits are anywhere near as law abiding as the Floridians, the sheriff shouldn't have to buy a lot of Spray-n-Wash.

The link to the monthly report is at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Let's read that again 167 licenses our of 1,565,251. That turns out to be 0.01%. A TOTAL OF 167 LICENSES REVOKED OVER A 12 YEAR PERIOD!!!

Somehow, if the Californians with concealed carry permits are anywhere near as law abiding as the Floridians, the sheriff shouldn't have to buy a lot of Spray-n-Wash.

Come on now, spin! You can't call those people "law-abiding"! You know that those 99.9% of Floridians with CCW permits just haven't been caught yet. You know that secretly these people are all a bunch of raping, robbing, pillaging, baby-eating savages who just haven't been exposed yet for the beasts that they are.

-sarcasm-

http://www.srcsd.com/

;-)

:rofl:

PA has approx 500,000 people who have concealed carry permits. And blood is not running in the streets!

In fact, they are the most law-abiding citizens in the country.

lets just see what happens :sarcasm:

I bet the lines in the DMV move faster.

I would happily move there. No crime.

Rather than the 2-3% of the population that seeks carry licenses?

nobody else on this thread has suggested that. Hell the original story didn't suggest that.

Why are you in favor of arming everyone (even felons, infants, the mental ill, and those who have religious or mental objection to firearms)?

They could engrave "This machine kills Fascists" on their carry guns!

Its the old "we will have to shut down the morgue and there will be bodies in the street" tactic.

But he's not going to get any more money. There isn't any.

it would make sense to do this now. Their previous plan to limit CCW and revoke many in use wouldn't help deal with the likely looming rise in crime they're about to enjoy.

to protect myself and my family.

The criminals will carry concealed no matter what the laws are.

Fewer cops will mean that criminals will be able to rape and pillage with impunity. The innocent victims deserve a fair chance to protect themselves.

So far it's just talk.

their financial woes aren't getting any better any time soon.

He's almost 55 and never hurt anyone in his life. Unfortunately he's a second-striker, due to be released in 2018.

I'd even put him up in my house if he'd just stay off heroin.

The fact that there are tons of people carrying concealed all across the country, and it is utterly uneventful, is not relevant to California humans.
Clearly Californians are not like people in the rest of the country. They can't handle this much freedom.

...you might have some reason to believe that the Golden State addles brains sufficiently that none of its inhabitants (over 1/6 of the U.S. population) can be trusted with a concealed handgun.

Of course, if the powers that be stopped issuing only to movie actors, police chiefs who failed the marksmanship test, anti-gun state legislators, and people who donate to the sheriff's campaign fund, they might find that some of the people who have thus far been excluded are perfectly competent.

Former Sac'to County Sheriff Glen Craig turned out to have issued a CCW permit, along with an honorary deputization, to some building contractor named James Colafrancesco who had contributed generously to the campaign coffers of both Craig and his Undersheriff (and successor), Lou Blanas. It created some (but not enough) embarrassment when Colafrancesco was arrested for flashing his .45 and making threatening statements at a guy with whom he'd got into an argument at a bar (yep, drinking while packing).

When Blanas became sheriff, the Sac'to Sheriff's Office refused to accept permit applications from people living within the city limits of Sacramento, stating in at least one refusal that it had an agreement with Sac'to City PD not to issue permits to city residents. Neither the Sheriff's Office or PD's policy manuals (which issuing authorities are legally obliged to publish) mentioned any such arrangement at the time. Sac'to City PD records indicated that permits were practically only issued to police reserves, while there was a conspicuous absence of applications by private citizens; in a "may-issue" states, a sure sign that the issuing authority simply refuses to accept them. Interestingly, at the time, the overwhelming majority of Sacramento County's black, Hispanic and low-income population lived within the Sacramento City limits. Could the policies of the sheriff and police chief have been intended to deny permits to minorities? Perish the thought!

This page has an interesting run-down of issuing authorities in California abusing, rather than exercising, their discretionary powers: http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/expose.html
It's pretty good evidence that it's a mistake to rely on the judgment of elected officials (like sheriffs) and political appointees (like police chiefs) to keep CCW permits out of the hands of the undeserving. Turns out the undeserving can just buy their permits anyway.

If the previous sheriff's (or another Law Enforcement officer he works for) wife seperated becaused of spousal abuse how likely do you think he would be to approve the application?

Even worse once it becomes "common knowledge" that the permit system is broken and permits are only issued to buddies and financial backers most people simply never even apply. This is why "may infringe" is supported by Brady bunch and VPC. It is a way to defacto reduce the number of permits. Then they can point to the low number of applications and say "see the residents DONT EVENT WANT to carry a gun".

As I alluded in my previous post, a lack of applications need not even be the result of non-connected persons not applying; it can be the result of issuing authorities simply refusing to accept applications from anyone not invited to do so. Oh sure, that's technically illegal, but the overriding flaw in every "may issue" regime is that there is no effective oversight (nobody really checks whether sheriffs and police chiefs aren't abusing their "discretion") and no real appeals procedure.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not an acceptable argument in most scientific endeavors, but when a single human entity has the ability to destroy or otherwise obfuscate the one specific form of evidence in question.