I thought CCW's weren't allowed in Maryland?

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
Cops charge N.Y. man in bar slaying

HAGERSTOWN, MD - Hagerstown City Police have charged a man with first-degree murder in a shooting death last month inside a North Jonathan Street bar.

Stephen Lamar Urquhart is charged in the death of Christopher Jason Ayala, 23, who was pronounced dead May 22 at Washington County Hospital after he was shot at about 11 p.m.
This brings up my point about how criminals don't care about laws. Having gun control does NOTHING. Maryland is a may issue CCW state. This means unless you have a letter from God you don't get a CCW.

This criminal had a gun in public which is considered illegal in Maryland.

He shot another man obviosuly not carring about the CCW laws. Why worry about a wimpy little law like that when you have murder on your mind?

Another example of how gun control only favors the criminals. You don't hear about that here in PA just 4 miles north of Hargerstown, MD.

We are allowed CCW permits and guns. Criminals think twice before fleeing to PA and trying to rob someone here.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
Ya in Texas if your tall enough to put cash on the counter you get a gun. PA isn't really too bad on gun laws. We have CCW permits, realitive ease in purchasing guns etc... I always hate going into MD though. I always forget to take my gun out of my car before I go, and then realize it once I'm in MD. So I drive the exact speed limit until I get home...

I guess I turn into a gun crazed criminal once I cross the border. Even though I have a legal CCW permit in PA. :mad:
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#4
No policy will prevent 100% of crimes all the time. You cannot magic away a problem by banning it, but you can make it more difficult to enngage it, take more effort.

Gun control laws do make it harder to engage in gun related crimes AND, more importantly, accidents using them. Although, this usually leads to an increase in crimes using other tools. But it makes it a lot harder. It's more difficult to chase someone down with a bat than it is to shoot him.

Some criminals will have guns whether you ban them or not, just as some criminals will engage in robbery whether you ban it or not. Banning it doesn't magic the problem away. It can only, at best reduce it and make it harder, more annoying, more expensive, etc.
 

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
#5
The nice thing about the CCW is when someone who has guns but no CCW gets questioned by the police, that alone can give the police what they need to make the arrest.

In theory if this guy was pulled over before commiting the crime the police could have arrested him for just having the gun.

It helps get illegal guns off the street.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#6
As we can see from the statistic below states that don't allow CCW permits have higher crime then states that allow them.


If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the
alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6?. Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian
gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2,
California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? The
"guns-cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder.

Criminals know where to get the weapons. They don't care about laws, or they wouldn't be criminals.

I understand the theroy Duke... I don't agree with the theroy, based on the statistics it doesn't work. If I read it the way you meant
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#7
As we can see from the statistic below states that don't allow CCW permits have higher crime then states that allow them.


If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the
alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6?. Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian
gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2,
California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? The
"guns-cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder.

Criminals know where to get the weapons. They don't care about laws, or they wouldn't be criminals.

I understand the theroy Duke... I don't agree with the theroy, based on the statistics it doesn't work.

Who said that guns cause violence uniquely?

One actually said that the only use would be cutting down on gun related crimes and accidents through gun regulation. The first one, however, is unclear as there is contradictory evidence put forth in studies.

One also must take into account cross-national studies of correlation. American methods seem to be ineffective.

This is an interesting article.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DeZeeQuarterly.htm

And where is the link to your source for that information?


It's also interesting that you compare the crime rates of very big, wide-open country bumpkin areas to areas that tend to be very small, densely packed regions with high crime cities. Should we take the crime rate of bumblefuck iowa and compare it to NY?
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#8
If I passed a law who would follow it? Criminals or law abiding citizens?

http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm

Theres ur stats link right there. Along with many other useful anti-gun control facts. You should take a few minutes to read them.

Gun grabbers always call for common sense gun laws. Common sense is realizing the police cant be everywhere, that laws only affect law abiding gun owners who aren't going to shoot up a school, and criminals who don't buy their guns legally.

I decree from here on out for every gun grabber I meet, I'm buying three.
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#9
If I passed a law who would follow it? Criminals or law abiding citizens?
Well silly, of course the law abiding people wouldn't break it! But that's true for any law that prohibits something. The people who are criminals will break it anyway! But that itself doesn't mean you shouldn't have a law making something illegal. Lots of people break many laws. That doesn't mean we should make it legal because the people who wouldn't break them anyway wouldn't break it.

There's a better, more important reason to argue against not using the current gun ban laws, but not because people will break the law anyway.


Do you believe there should be no regulations of weapons, or just gun bans? There are certainly many good, sane regulations to place on firearms ownership for people who won't break the law.

I also wonder why you choose to believe that website. You do know that someone can put MYTH before anything. That doesn't actually make what he says true. In the gun debate, it's always interesting as each side runs to find blatanly biased pro or anti "this and that" leagues and takes their word as holy writ while launching tirades against everyone else's studies.

Why not believe them as "lying" if everyone else is lying or using "bought statistics" as they claim? Preference.
 

ermcool

Registered Member
#10
Admittedly the gun debate does go in circles. But nevertheless, it is imporant.

Someone once asked me once, "Did I want there to be gun fights?" I replied, "Well, gun fight implies that its not massacre, so yeah, as long as massacre is prevented."

Its kind of like this: War is bad, but war is better than genocide.

Would one prefer to have the next 'VA tech' be a massacre, or a gun fight? I'll take a gunfight please.

But, guns aren't to blame. So, what is to blame? Nothing deters criminals, not prison, not the death sentence. Deterence is the least of our concerns. But, we do know that by arming a law abiding citizen we at least give them the opportunity to fight back. Why should they not be allowed to fight back on equal footing?