So, a full decade ago, Michigan loosened the laws on concealed carry. The results?
Before July 1, 2001, applicants had to prove why they needed to carry a gun for protection. Since then, any nominally sane adult without a felony record qualifies. During the debate, opponents of the change warned of gun-toting, trigger-happy citizens loose on the streets. But violent crimes have been rare among carrying a concealed weapon license holders. Only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, State Police records show.
Before July 1, 2001, applicants had to prove why they needed to carry a gun for protection. Since then, any nominally sane adult without a felony record qualifies.
During the debate, opponents of the change warned of gun-toting, trigger-happy citizens loose on the streets.
But violent crimes have been rare among carrying a concealed weapon license holders. Only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, State Police records show.
Emphasis mine. However, when the facts are against you and you're the Brady Campaign, the best course of action is to double down on stupid.
Still, anti-gun activists say changing the law was a grave mistake. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Web site describes state reforms like the one enacted in Michigan as "a recipe for disaster."
If it’s a recipe for disaster, then where is the disaster? Where are the bodies littering the streets from the shootouts over Justin Bieber tickets? Why aren’t concealed carriers going on murderous rampages? Where is the proof of your assertion that these laws are bad for society?
No wonder the Brady Campaign is practically irrelevant in today’s society.