Concealed Carry Works – Obama Ignores Facts

The state of Michigan recently celebrated an anniversary. Six years ago state legislature passed, and the governor signed, a new law that effectively made Michigan a shall-issue state when it comes to right-to-carry. Those opposed to concealed carry in Michigan were distressed, convinced that additional weapons would result in more armed robberies, innocent people getting shot and an increase in the suicide rate.

Author note: While I’m away from the computer, I’m republishing my top 20 posts from 2008 each afternoon. -Steve

So, if you were against concealed carry in Michigan six years ago and claimed the sky would fall; but crime and suicide rates went down after the law went into effect, what would you do? If you’re Barack Obama and running for president, you ignore the facts and tell people you think concealed carry is a bad idea because more innocent people could get shot during altercations. Doesn’t that feel good…

Second Amendment advocates do not insist that everyone be armed at all times, but they do insist that citizens have the right to protect themselves, their family and home, and have the option to carry a weapon.

Those who choose to carry in one of 42 states that permit concealed weapons generally go through required background checks and training. Vermont and Alaska trust their citizens so much that they simply require the mandated federal background check to purchase a pistol. No additional checks or training are required to carry your pistol – goodness grief!

So what did happen in Michigan? Prior to the laws, only 25,000 residents were permitted to carry. After six years, more than 155,00 residents of the state have a permit. That number does not include residents of other states who are allowed to carry in Michigan. Although you need to conform to normal Michigan law, the state offers full reciprocity for residents in other states that have a permit. In other words if you have a pistol permit in Connecticut, you can carry in Michigan.

So did gun crimes increase six-fold? Nope. Overall, the violent crime rate and suicide rate went down.

Over at Malkin’s site, see-dubya has more. So does Hot Air, and Amanda Carpenter has a piece today on Townhall. So yes, there are a lot of conservative writers posting today about this issue. It’s important!

Obama’s most recent comments concerning concealed carry come from an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review just yesterday.

Rather than create a national registry, “I do think we have to do a better job sharing information between local and federal officials,” Obama said yesterday. He differs with McCain and Clinton about whether people should be allowed to carry concealed guns. Clinton and McCain oppose outlawing it.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Obama’s position can not be ignored, and someone needs to go tell him that there are no Wild West shootouts happening in the streets of states that support your Second Amendment rights, even in those crazy states – Vermont or Alaska – that don’t regulate concealed carry.

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. George Dawiczyk on February 13, 2009 at 2:54 am

    President Obama must think he is the father of all the people  knowing what is good for his children who are not capable of rational thought. This is a scary thought but as I keep listening to his rhetoric I have no doubt he believes and feels he is just that. Enough.

  2. Dimsdale on February 13, 2009 at 5:10 am

    davis?  Your ball.

    The bottom line: benefit of the doubt.  Everyone benefits when you don't know if someone is packing.  Wanna find out?  Walk through a dicey neighborhood with a sign saying you are "gun free."  You odds just went down.

    Obama ignores the Laffer curve in the name of social justice (engineering?), and ignores this as well in the face of facts.  Bottom line, BO: if your dire predictions don't come true, it's because they are false.

    Insisting you are correct in the face of contrary evidence is hubris, ignorance or both.

    I am voting for both, given BO's resume (what there is of it).

  3. Dimsdale on February 13, 2009 at 5:30 am

    Let us not forget the lessons of Great Britain and Australia, where crime has risen steadily and sometimes rapidly, after the government banned weapons for personal protection ( and prosecuted homeowners more than the criminals assaulting them). 

    Who are they going to blame now?

    Why is it that the track record of countries that put into practice these crackpot socialist schemes are never taken into account when our own crackpots start legislating here?

    How many times do we have to reinvent the wheel?  Or more accurately, smash the wheel?

  4. Dimsdale on February 13, 2009 at 11:13 am

    What is the phrase?  Oh yeah: never let the facts get in the way of a good story (or bad legislation).

  5. Lazybum on February 14, 2009 at 3:44 am

    An armed society is a polite society- Ted Nugent

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.