Depending on who is crunching the data, the effect of concealed carry on crime is either 1) concealed carry causes a reduction in violent crime, or 2) concealed carry has no effect on the rate of violent crime.

My amateur analysis is just a little different.  Reports out of Chicago show a decrease in crime as a result of Illinois CCW.  Reports out of Texas, show that more concealed carry does nothing to reduce crime.  The way I see it, concealed carry is a deterrent.  Some percentage of criminals will avoid committing certain crimes because of the risk that a CCW permit holder will shoot back.  As more people get carry permits, the crime rate decreases, until as many criminals who can be deterred by CCW will be deterred, and the decrease in crime levels off.  An increase in the number of CCW after this point has no additional effect.  So a state like Illinois, which didn’t have concealed carry, adopts CCW and the crime rate goes down.  Texas has had CCW for years, so adding more permit holders really doesn’t do much at a statistical level.

What we can agree on, is that concealed carry has not turned every fender bending into a shootout at the OK Corral or caused the streets to run red with blood.  This is the inconvenient truth that anti-gunners do their damnedest to play down.  They will lie, they will obfuscate, they will look rape survivors in the eye and say concealed carry wound’t have protected them, or that their gun would have been taken and turned against them.  They will tell you that 0.0066% of carry permit holders are representative of concealed carry as a whole and so CCW needs to be banned (849 “concealed carry killers” according to the VPC out of 12.8 MILLION people with CCW permits nation wide).

So when 6,000 Minnesotans a month apply for concealed carry, it causes the anti-gunners to go into rectal pucker mode.  Not content with that fact that Minnesota requires CCW applicants to go through firearms safety training and a comprehensive background check, antis feel compelled to try and “reeducate” their fellow citizens with lies.

“[A] significant number of Minnesotans believe that having a gun makes them safer, and unfortunately, this is not true except in very narrow circumstances. It means we have a lot of work to do in educating the public about the hazards posed by guns..”

They antis are losing on the issue of concealed carry big time.  The demands for permits is shooting through the roof.  So what is it that the antis do?

In the words of Adam Savage:

Hat Tip Sheriff Jim Wilson.

RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s spokesman lashed out this week at a national gun-control group, which answered McAuliffe’s call for help in fall Senate races with a $2 million TV blitz but more recently blasted the governor’s gun deal with Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

Brian Coy spoke dismissively of Everytown for Gun Safety, which is associated with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, as a “group from New York” that does not have the interests of Virginians at heart.

McAuliffe spokesman lashes out at Bloomberg’s ‘group from New York’ Washington Post

You get the sense that they don’t like each other anymore. And I don’t think they are going to get together anytime soon. Just check the artillery rounds thrown back and forth:

Brian Coy spoke dismissively of Everytown for Gun Safety, which is associated with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, as a “group from New York” that does not have the interests of Virginians at heart.

“One group from New York and its affiliates are upset, but that does not represent Virginia views on this,” Coy said. “We had no interaction with Everytown, the national folks, until after this deal became public. We wouldn’t have even known who to call.”

To which Everytown riposted with:

On Saturday, Everytown released a copy of an email showing that the group and the administration had been in contact forat least 18 months. The August 2014 email, which concerned a letter McAuliffe wrote praising Everytown for its advocacy, was between Everytown’s communications director, Erika Soto Lamb, and three members of the McAuliffe administration, including Coy. The others were Jamie Radice, then McAuliffe’s communications chief, and Ryan O’Toole, a special assistant in constituent service.

Everytown also released a photo of McAuliffe with John Feinblatt, president of Everytown, taken at September rally organized by the group. McAuliffe had been a featured speaker at the event.

Maybe, I don’t know for certain if this is confirmation of the theory that Bloomberg’s name toxic after all. And Virginia being the South, the concept of a carpetbagging meddler does resonate mighty awful.

Now McAuliffe is pure Clinton Machinery. They tend to have a highly developed instinct for political survival. Was there some focus group that told the Governor that the reciprocity boondoggle was going to be more costly than pissing off Michael Bloomberg so he better fix it? Who knows, but McAuliffe sure looks like he burned his bridges with him.

And you have to understand why Everytown/Moms are pissed beyond the backtracking on reciprocity: A Democrat who used their money has shown the rest of the Country that the combo Bloomberg/Watts has no real political power other than a happy checkbook, that they can be used and disposed of, that they are not as relevant as they try to portray themselves. Not saying that Emperor Michael is naked, but he is prancing around in his tighty-whities.

If anything, the above is possibly the best outcome for Gun Right short of Virginia going Constitutional Carry and no sale tax on ammo.

In July 1964, a group of men from Jonesboro, La., led by Earnest “Chilly Willy” Thomas and Frederick Douglas Kirkpatrick founded the Deacons for Defense and Justice. The group was organized to protect members of the Congress of Racial Equality from Ku Klux Klan violence.
Robert Hicks, along with Charles Sims and A.Z. Young, started the first affiliate chapter in Bogalusa. The group’s intense confrontations with the Klan in Bogalusa was pivotal in forcing the federal government’s involvement on the behalf of the local African-American community.
The Deacons emerged as one of the first visible self-defense forces in the South and represented a new, more assertive face of the civil rights movement. The group was successful in providing protection for local African Americans who wanted to register to vote and for white and black civil rights workers in the area.
According to Tulane University professor Lance Hill’s book titled “The Deacons of Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement,” the group grew to several hundred members and 21 chapters in the Deep South.

Source: Deacons of Defense provided protection when no one else would

Strangely, they mention defense and even the word ‘armed’ appears, but no specifics.

After a few tense moments the police arrived and attempted to defuse the volatile situation . They asked the Deacons to leave first, but the black men refused . Bums recalls the Deacons’ terse response to the police request . “We been leaving first all of our lives,” said Bums. “This time we not going in peace.” Infuriated by the Deacons’ defiance, Paul Farmer suddenly pulled his pistol . In a reflex response, one of the Deacons drew his revolver and in an instant there were half a dozen pistols waving menacingly in the air. Surveying the weapons arrayed against them, the band of Klansmen grudgingly pocketed their weapons and departed .

The Deacons for Defense and Justice had faced death and never flinched. “From that day forward,” says Bums, “we didn’t have too many more problems.”

The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement.

Fixed that for you, Jordan.

A subset of “This is why we can’t have nice things.”

For most of the history of this blog, I left Gun Owners of America alone. To me they are just a shrill group that is very good at chest beating, shouting “NO COMPROMISE” and nothing else. I don’t have to point out they have been as successful as a fart in a category 5 hurricane, but for the sake of keeping the laundry properly stashed in the laundry room, I ignore them.

But this one? To actually trying to fuck up real advancements because their stupid interpretation of the deal? I have to call it sabotage for relevance’s sake.

What are they bitching about? Let’s quote them and see:

* By establishing “voluntary” background checks — such as in HB 1386 and SB 715 — the infrastructure will be created for “mandatory” background checks in the future.

Newsflash: The infrastructure has been there since pretty much the Brady Background Checks have been working. So, you are not discovering life in Mars but tadpoles in the canals near the Everglades.

* Expanding background checks to cover private sales — with a police officer present — multiplies the possibility that innocent gun owners will be arrested when their NICS check erroneously reports them as “denied.”

I guess they forgot the “voluntary” part of the background check. I have to ask, was this an oversight or in purpose? And in case you have not figured it yet, nobody gives a damn about Denials anymore. Feds don’t care and certainly not cops…the same cops that work at gun stores and run background checks when you buy a gun. Some of those transactions end up as Denials and the cops themselves tell you to appeal the denial.

* Expanding background checks to cover all gun sales puts the final puzzle piece in place to implement a Universal Registration System.

Seriously, see above.

* Finally, in regard to protective orders, two of the compromise bills (HB 1391 and SB 49) can result in the incarceration of non-violent individuals who had no idea they even had a protective order against them.

On this one, I am going to quote Sebastian:

GOA’s other premise is that there’s no state analogue mens rea requirement of “knowingly” in the state mirror to the Domestic Violence Restraining Order prohibitions from the Lautenberg Amendment. Looking at the federal statute, 18 USC 922(g)(8), I’m not seeing where it says knowingly. The Virginia bill does in fact say “knowingly.” I’m pretty sure if you can show that the person knew they were subject of a DVRO, and knew they were in possession of a firearm, the mens rea requirement is fulfilled. I admit, I don’t really understand GOA’s argument here. Proving mens rea is always part of the state’s burden for a serious offense even if the statute does not explicitly say so.

Source: GOA Sides With the Anti-Gunners | Shall Not Be Questioned

And besides, if VCDL (Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. A.K.A The local team) is not opposing the bills because they “simply codify federal law.” And only a fool would dismiss what VCDL has to say knowing that it has been one of the most effective pro-gun state organizations in the country, if not the most.

The other win that the deal has provided us was a monumental slap to the face and crumbling of the morale of the Gun Control groups. Let us not forget McAuliffe was Bloomberg’s golden boy,  heavily baptized with his cash that put him in the governorship. He has been the shinning example of Governor that has been paraded by Moms Demand, Everytown, Brady and CSGV. The Chose/Bought One was brought down by Gun Owners and good political moves, something that was not supposed to happen, yet it did. It is a colossal PR win for our side. Why screw with it when there is practically no downside?

GOA confuses strategy with compromise. Unfortunately sometimes it is GOA and groups like them that really compromise what could be fixing a problem and piss enough people to kill the beginning of a solution.

This post in Facebook attracted my attention because I know it was going to be full of all kinds of idiocies and it is, but I selected these four because they represent such a concentration of mental, legal and personal failure in a small sample for all to see.  There were tons of responses from the Penile Brigade (You know, those who go out there measuring the size of gun owner’s penis’ and compare them to their guns….sexual assault is called), the “NRA is a terrorist organization” clan, Blood for Money, etc. I chose to give them a rest this time around.

So we have people who never have experienced what intimidation is, are most comfortable assuring everybody OC is intimidation and feel personally insulted if minorities get their rights over the wishes of the majority (I am sure Black, Hispanics and others feel quite safe) and if they see you legally Openly Carrying a weapon, they feel that they must call police, waste taxes and see if a confrontation happens where somebody may get killed because they are such sensitive souls and looking for peace.

It is not scientifically that they feel concealed carry is less aggressive ( actually they are by a factor of six) but some study tells them that they MUST be more dangerous because guns and that gun will be used for bad when intentions are good…HUH?

And since they work for Webster, terrorism is now defined by the carrying of a weapon and not suicide bombing a restaurant of beheading Christians or burning pilots alive inside a cage. Nope, Gun Owners are much worse than that.

It makes total sense….In their little slice of Insanity Land.