By NRA-ILA
We’ve reached week four in the Bloomberg School of Public Health open online course, “Reducing Gun Violence in America: Evidence for Change.”
Previous weeks have covered the selective use and criticism of research, the lack of respect for Constitutional rights, and the lack of evidence used to push “evidence-based” policies.
Mercifully, we’re almost through the program. The fourth module starts the tail end of the program and the anti-gun agenda is front and center. This week’s module is titled, “Guns in Public Places, Schools, and Homes.” Last week was all about access-restriction policies anti-gun billionaires want. This week includes a strong focus on restricting concealed carry laws.
Right to carry laws are still a target of the anti-gun crowd, despite being the law in 42 states and the District of Columbia. Doctor Alex McCourt of the Bloomberg School offers a presentation on “standards for civilian gun carrying” and downplays the difference between may-issue and shall issue systems for concealed carry permits.
McCourt says that,
The strongest or most strict of these laws is May Issue. Under these laws, applicants have to meet a set of baseline criteria. They have to be a certain age, they have to not have felony convictions. As long as they meet these baseline criteria, they can qualify for a concealed carry license but the state still has some discretion as to whether or not they issue that license. If they think that you might be a person that’s at risk of harming yourself or others, they may deny your application.
That sounds so simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, that isn’t the way the world works. The problem with may-issue laws is that the authorities charged with issuing permits made it so difficult to obtain a permit that only the politically connected or the wealthy could obtain a permit.
Permits weren’t difficult to obtain because the requirements were so stringent, they were difficult to obtain because the anti-gun authorities in these states don’t want people carrying a firearm to protect themselves.
Daniel Webster, the Bloomberg Chair of American Health and the Director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, presents research that purports to show that right to carry laws are associated with increases in homicide and/or violent crime, but offers no criticism of the research.
Well, the first study Webster cites plays games with a weighting methodology to find the most favored result. Webster says the study found, “that in many cases, as states adopted these laws, when you compare them to the best estimates of a counterfactual…they found a clear link between the number of years a right to carry law was in place and the estimated increase in violent crime.”
That research posits that the best “counterfactual” for Ohio is about 21% Hawaii, 20% California, and 60% Rhode Island. If Webster believes that is the correct balance for an artificial “counterfactual” state of Ohio, then we’re pretty sure that he’s never been to the Buckeye state.
The most egregious issues with the programming this week are the complete misrepresentation of laws. Doctor Alex McCourt of the Bloomberg School says that in three states (Idaho, Kansas, and Mississippi) you don’t need to have a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm on college or university campuses. That is incorrect.
In Idaho and Kansas an enhanced permit is required to carry on public college and university campuses. Campus carry laws do not apply to private schools, despite McCourt’s assertion that the states with such laws “allow the concealed carry of firearms on all college and university campuses in the state.”
You’d think that a course conducted by “experts” on firearms policy would at least be able to correctly describe the firearms laws that they are criticizing.
Perhaps next week there will be more “evidence” in this supposedly “evidence-based” course, but we’re not holding our breath.
What they hate are firearms. Period.
“What they hate are firearms. Period.”
Besides those that own them, they hate most not being able to tell you you can’t own or carry one on you open or concealed…
☝️This guy gets it.
And the people who own them.
Pretty much anything that slows their roll on feudal Lord fantasies.
As the bottom line you are spot on.
Tyranny is timeless
“Policies Anti-Gunners Hate: Concealed Carry and Guns on Campus”
All of them, whether they’re affected or not…
Too bad,who gives a Eff what they like or dislike when it comes to rights,their Feelz don’t overcome my natural rights.
They get enough lemmings your rights go off the cliff. Can’t respect their views but will damn well know them and what it can lead to
A couple questions… are there any billionaires that are openly for the 2nd Amendment and civilian firearms ownership? Are there any billionaires that are openly for abolishing the NFA/GCA68 and instituting constitutional carry for all?
Or is every billionaire pretty much on board for selective civil disarmament (because, you know, pretty sure their security forces won’t be using just fists in a “gun free” world)?
Can’t think of any. The vast majority are now leftists. Quite ironic, when you think of it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Same as with governmemts.
Cant have the peons wielding any power to resist the supreme intellect of the elite.
Donald John Trump comes to mind.
You may have heard of him.
Really? Last I checked wasn’t he the one who, with a stroke of a pen, recategorized a stock accessory to be regulated with as much scrutiny as machine guns and suppressors/silencers? Is that not more restrictive and adding more to the NFA/GCA68?
Additionally, wasn’t Hudson’s Bill introduced a couple years ago? Where is at at now?
Look, I’m all for reducing the number of regulations and laws on civilian arms (not just small arms) ownership. However, to place your faith on one person in a seat of power who has incentives to go both ways (and has gone both ways) on the subject is utterly foolish.
yea….not so much, but he’s better than most I suppose.
Rich people hire bodyguards so they dont have much interest in the 2nd amendment. Things go full totalitarian here, they’ll be heading elsewhere in a netjet.
Lord Bloomberg is so much smarter than gun owners, regular citizens that what he wants is to be in charge of our simple little lives, tell us what to do, when and how to do it. Remember the ban on large sodas in NY? Only he is qualified to be in charge and since we are stupid we will believe any lies we hear in a class he puts on
Is it possible, Shannon’s Sugar Daddy worships at a shrine dedicated to Franz Kafka? I am just asking…..
We need to send the EXPENDABLES after Bloomberg. People thought Obama was the Antichrist, but I am thinking Bloomberg is the Antichrist. Who do you know of that has ever been any more anti American than Bloomberg. I am 100% for taxing the rich.The only thing that makes Bloomberg such an ass is his damn money. Bloomberg needs to go, along with a few more. Maybe we can get this country back to some sort of sanity. No one, not Bloomberg, nor any of these damn billionaire liberals are ever going to tell me how to think or live my life.
Soros is at least on par w/Bloomberg, and might even be more dangerous. He’s definitely more anti-American, as unbelievable as that sounds. Both are NWO globalists, which makes then undeniably and inherently evil.
You do NOT need a permit to carry concealed on public campuses in Kansas. The only way a public university can disallow concealed carry is if all entrances are secured in a way that prevents anyone from carrying. I support Kansas’s position on this but I’m surprised the NRA would get this wrong in trying to make the odd argument that someone else doesn’t know the law. Kansas has a great law and the NRA should get familiar with it and support it instead of getting it wrong.
What’s the proper term for a billionaire. with communist beliefs?
Billionaire. Except the correct term is Marxist.
Evil globalist P.O.S.
soros…
Asshole.
Royalist. The L’Etat, c’est moi types. Actually, not quite. They prefer to remain behind the scenes pulling the elected politicians’ strings.
All that applies to “shall issue,” except for the last clause. Shall issue states don’t allow the sheriff to deny an application only because he doesn’t like a person’s color, choice of deity, gender, political party, or social status. That’s why may issue was made in the first place – gotta keep guns outta da hands of dem darkies.
“May Issue” doesn’t end with the color of one’s skin, sex, wealth etc The limits of “May Issue” is limited only to the imagination of the issuer! If you can think of a reason/excuse to Not issue, then that is good enough in any “May Issue” jurisdiction. May Issue is BAD BAD, Shall Issue is Better but Constitutional Carry is BEST!
imo…”May Issue” opens the door to requiring “proof” that the requestor needs to be allowed to carry. Therefore the proof of “insufficient reason provided” to carry is all the proof the issuer needs to deny, even to the point that the issuer is not required to prove “insufficient reason.” That is how you get only a chosen few who are “allowed” to carry. It comes down to trust. Those with a statist mindset find it easier to not trust by default, and therefore deny rights or power.
How much is it that they hate guns and how much that they hate the use of force in self defense by the victims of violent crime? Someday, a mass murderer will be taken out hand to hand by one of his intended victims. When he finally appears in court after months of recuperation, the hearing will be to determine if he is well enough to go on trial. Either the defender’s actions will be cited as an example of why guns aren’t needed for self defense or they will be condemned as excessive force. I expect the latter.
These idiots confound me…….my only response to ANY anti-gunner out there, and most if not all are Demorats……I don’t listen to filthy people who complain about guns and gun violence, but think it’s okay to kill unborn babies……I wouldn’t give an anti-gunner air if they were in a jug!!!
Imagine that your Drivers License was being issued by a member of Earth First or Sierra Club.
“You don’t need a truck that large and you live close enough to a bus stop”
Thet is how May Issue works.
Pretty sure Bloomberg & Co would love that, too.
“You don’t need that truck, plebe, you can walk! I take a private jet, because I matter.”
It is the Obama mindset of Evil A Pro LGBTQ Agenda as they use $ to bribe to make illegal laws And sjhizst on the US Bill of Rights. Is it to To help the illegal invasion, is to disarm the USA So they can take over our Homes and Communities? Bloomba Bitchja is a two-bit CArpetbagger who needs to stay in NY and S T F Up.S NV is turning into a Libtard blue State Shizst hole.
Ever been to a Mississippi BBQ? We had one yesterday at a local range. About 60 people attended, bringing about 200 assorted firearms, including full auto rifles with drum mags, suppressed pistols and rifles right up to .338 Lapua. Some had voluntary carry permits, some didn’t. Nobody cared whether you had a permit or not.
Everyone had a great time and shared what they brought. And left their firearms unattended on the fireing line when they went to get smoked sausage, and other delicious Southern food. And you know what? Nobody had to worry about some stupid background check to borrow or loan a gun, getting a permit for the BBQ/shoot, or being raided by the local police. It was a great day with great food, friendly folks, including some wives and young kids, and nobody got stupid or had a negligent discharge.
This is what Freedom looks like, for those of you who have forgotten. 🙂
One thing you can always count on is the NRA pandering not to the majority of its members but increasingly to the less educated Far Right Fanatics who are easily brainwashed with their propaganda.
IN THE REAL WORLD everything is not black and white but has varying shades of grey in between.
NOW LETS LOOK PAST PURE NRA PROPAGANDA AND TAKE A BALANCED VIEW OF CONCEALED CARRY WITH THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
Most people in my concealed carry class including some very well educated people like a Doctor were often so unfamiliar with firearms that the Doctor ended up being a danger to us all when we had our live fire part of the course. I personally finished first on purpose and although I would have liked to have stayed and helped the very worried instructor my own safety was paramount and that was to get the hell out there as soon as I finished that part of the course. The point I am trying to make is that when you have large numbers of people, even those that went through a concealed handgun course, they are often more of a danger to the public and even themselves than ever being able to play hero and save the day during an attack by street smart thugs or nut cases that do not care if they are killed.
I think large numbers of guns on Campus is a mistake as well. Recent psychological studies show that young adults below the age of 20 years still do not have fully developed brains that make them realize the full consequences of their actions either in the short or long term. I guess that is why its been in the past so easy for the Military to turn young men into mindless robotic killers with little or no conscience at least until they regret what they have done when they have fully matured years later. The point being that when you get young men all armed to the teeth and all drunken up at a party or fighting over women coupled with the fact that many are not people who grew up with guns its a prescription for social disaster.
And we have the problem of first responder’s storming a class room and seeing many people running around with guns in their hands. The the first responders do not know who is the nut case and who are the innocent people carrying guns. Another prescription for total disaster in regards to the wrong people getting shot and killed.
Accidentally discharges in class rooms are also a concern especially since guns do not fall under the Consumer Safety Division of the Government that has been powerless to stop the sale of totally unsafe weapons like the Glock that are cocked internally and will fire with the accidental snag of the trigger because the gun has no manual safety. Example of accidental shootings with the Glock and copy cat brands of weapons are far too numerous to even go into here.
Another point on Campus is freedom of speech and the freedom to teach without fear of some Right Wing Hot head shooting a Professor because he had to listen to an opposing political viewpoint that was in direct opposition of what he had been taught at home by his parents who may have never had the opportunity of attending an institution of higher learning. Once you lose freedom of speech on Campus by the faculty you defeat the very essence of a College education.
Due to the total lack of any Federal effort to stop mass shootings on Campus the NRA does make a strong point for campus carry but this does little to help teachers in high schools or grade schools many of which have no experience with firearms and know perfectly well they may get shot by cops storming the building if they are running around with a weapon in their hands.
Like anything in life there are no easy solutions short of extreme banning of most firearms which has proved to be successful in stopping mass shootings in schools. Britain is a good example on how a crack down on firearms ownership stopped mass shootings in schools to almost zero over the last many decades since the grade school shooting in the 80’s. The foiled bridge terrorist attack was another example of terrorists failing to get arms in Britain to carry out a mass attack. Many other countries in Europe also have stopped mass shootings in schools as well. Since 2009 there were only two as compared to the 288 and counting of mass shootings in the U.S. It is true that stopping State sponsored terrorism by outside hostile countries is very difficult to stop as the Paris night club shooting proved a year or so ago.
Again no laws are perfect but to do nothing as the U.S. has chosen to do simply guarantees mass shootings have now become “the norm” in the U.S. at least as long as the Republicans remain in power. They will fund no mental health care, fund no armed guards in schools and support no mental health checks for prospective gun buyers or complete vetting of all firearms purchases, none of which ban or confiscate guns. These are just common sense basics that prevent the U.S. from even achieving stage 1 in preventing gun violence and mass shootings. All this will eventually result in a back lash from a panicked public that will be willing to go along with complete bans on most types of firearms because the majority of people in the U.S. no longer own firearms and do not understand why anyone would want to own a firearm except in “their way of thinking” , lunatics, terrorists, criminals and uneducated back woods hillbillies. That is the reality all gun owners face in the coming 2020 elections. We failed to do anything and will end up losing everything. History is not on our side.
Comments are closed.