He commented that this showed the state's new liberalized concealed carry laws didn't work as advertized by "the NRA" (LOL).
I very politely made the point that I would need to see more information, since the "crime data" in the article was actually all from before the new "laws" went into effect.
But, even with up-to-date data, if it showed a current dangerous crime rate, how does it compare to before concealed carry was liberalized? The same, better, or worse? I mentioned I have never seen a case of violent crime increasing after anti-gun "laws" were softened- and I have looked for cases like that over the years.
Although the above was enough to make him immediately "unfriend" me, I have still more questions, such as: how does it break down by neighborhood? Are those who "carry" victimized successfully at the same rate as those who choose to abdicate their responsibility? Is most of the violent crime between gangs, which are empowered by Prohibition?
But I never got the chance to pose the questions.
Funny how badly statists want to be protected from questions that might show the folly of their ideology. Even to the point of "unfriending" someone who frequently took his side in debates.
-
(Patches, patches, don't forget the Time's Up patches!
).
