good question for the group

“Donohue: Constitutional Carry Degrades Police Performance…Or Something”


Lost me at Gifford Law Center being a non-partisan group…


It’s no coincidence that in states with very permissive approaches to guns in public, you have higher rates of gun death,” said Adam Skaggs, chief counsel for the Giffords Law Center, a nonpartisan reform group.

Totally false, but let’s not let facts get in the way of good propaganda. [Edit] Giffords Law Center is nonpartisan? When did that happen?

Letting more people carry guns also impedes police work, Donohue said – partly from upticks in their caseloads of gun thefts and accidental shootings and partly because ramping up the risk of getting shot reduces police efficiency.

Proof of claim? Nah, why use facts?


These 2 people that are mentioned in the article don’t know the REAL STATS. Because if they did they would have seen that in cities and states that have the STRICTEST GUN LAWS ALSO HAVE THE HIGHEST GUN VIOLENCE. And it is because LAW ABIDING CITIZENS cannot own guns for their personal defense.


Sociological studies tend to show that increases in gun ownership generally track with increases in violence.

Lie and hedge.

And sociological studies? What better mess of smoke & mirrors to hide facts and come up with a pre-desired conclusion.


And one more point… There’s an implied cause and effect here, that increased gun ownership is responsible for increased violence.

But looking back at the last two or three years of antifa riots and the like, and the surge in first time gun buyers, it’s far more reasonable to turn that conclusion around, and say that increased violence leads to more gun ownership, just like an increase in neighborhood burglaries would lead to more homes with security systems.


There are two kinds of violence. Legal violence and illegal violence. The best way to stop illegal violence once it has started is with legal violence. Sometimes the violence is deadly. The police know they can’t protect all of us all the time; we have to protect ourselves. Violence is a negative act but if you do the math two negatives make a positive.

1 Like

And Giffords takes a negative and applies the square root, resulting in an imaginary number!

(Nerdy math pun. :nerd_face:)


Actually he more like applied the cube route which is a negative.:rofl: He is violent of the violence that stops violence.

1 Like

It’s the same old tactic. Say something enough times and loud enough often enough and eventually if someone doesn’t step up and say what is fact the public will accept the falsehood.


the LEO are not there to protect and serve like they used to have in the cars, and there are no longer beat cops walking patrol and they have said they only investigate the crime done,so what happened to protect and serve?


It’s a misnomer, always has been.


My grandfather who was a LEO and police chief for 30+ years. Is rolling in his grave now because of the way things have gone in the past 20 years.


Police and Sheriffs’ offices often object to Constitutional carry because: (1) it takes them out of the loop in deciding who can and cannot carry firearms (as if the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was ever contingent on approval by a low-level law enforcement government bureaucracy); and (2) it reduces the fees/revenues collected by law enforcement agencies for processing CCW permits (it’s all about taxation and money in the end, isn’t it?).


If someone is doing something illegal they are going to stop them if they are not putting their own life in danger. You make a good point.

1 Like