Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gun

We recently wrote about a 90 year old man in Dayton, OH who defended himself from a robber because he could carry a gun. The police eventually got there.

Today, we are happy to present the police chief of a major city with big crime problem who understands that his city is safer when the good people of his city can defend themselves because they can carry a gun.

If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.

Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.

14-0104 Detroit Police ChiefCraig has been chief of police in Detroit since last October. It’s a daunting job to say the least. When he took over it was common to see signs on roads coming into the city that had been posted by police that read “Enter at your own risk”. 911 response time was measured in hours if the police bothered to respond at all.

2013 was a better year in Detroit, homicides were down 14% from 2012, but Detroit had as many murders as Chicago, three times Detroit’s size and generally regarded as the murder capital of the US, and more murders than New York City, ten times Detroit’s size. As a side note, when NYC’s new Progressive mayor Bill DeBlasio gets through with the NYC police department we suspect NYC will even things out with a significantly higher murder rate.

Craig “grew up” in the LAPD and was a rabid anti-gunner when he was in California. His career eventually took him to Portland, Maine in 2009 where he ran headlong into the gun culture.

“Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

We’re seeing proof of Craig’s conclusion – which happens to be the position of the NRA that was openly scorned by people like Mike Bloomberg, his Mayors Against Guns, and virtually every elected Democrat – from academic research of all places.

A recent study from Quinnipiac University concludes that states with more restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits had higher murder rates by guns than gun-friendly states, and suggests that increasing restrictions on concealed-carry permits pushes the murder rate up, not down. It also showed that assault-weapons bans had no effect on murder rates.

Let us summarize:

  • Restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits drive murder rates up;
  • Restrictions on carry permits increase murder rates;
  • Assault weapons bans have no effect on murder rates.

We would call this proof that progressives and anti-gun advocates are out to control people not guns. Gun control is nothing more than a “feel-good remedy” for progressives who refuse to address the real issues surrounding gun violence.

When progressives are ready to address the breakdown of the family in the black community which has led to the emergence of very violent street gangs and a murder rate that is over 10 times higher than the white community, we can talk. They should be experts on the subject, after all, they’re the same people who put policies in place that engineered that breakdown.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Curmudgeon - Check Out 600w 200h

Rand Paul to Sue Obama Over NSA Spying
90 year old business owner exercises his 2nd Amendment rights
  • jim_m

    Gun control means that you are dependent upon the government. The left wants people to be dependent upon the government that way they can use government to distribute favors to the people they rule over (and they do want to rule, they have lost any sense of being a public servant).

  • http://foxmuldar-conservative-thinker.blogspot.com/ Foxmuldar

    Disarm the lawful citizens and the government can do whatever they want without fear of retalliation. History shows proof of this in Germany, Russia, China, everywhere the citizens were disarmed the governments went further then anyone would have expected. Germans disarmed then gassed their citizens, Stalin disarmed then starved millions. Do you really trust Obama to turn in your guns? Hell no!

  • LiberalNightmare

    Gun control measures serve as a barrier to gun ownership for the law-abiding, while doing nothing to impede the lawless.

  • westword6

    Chief Craig has it half right, anyway, but his reasoning is missing an important element: The values in any given community. Maine is indeed a very safe place to live, and we Mainers do keep guns in our houses, and some of us also carry. But what Chief Craig misses is that in Maine, we believe strongly in “live and let live”, and we do not, as a rule, have either the time or inclination to break the law. We’re a pretty orderly, hardworking lot, up here. So the idea that our firearms are the only reason our crime stats are low, is a flawed idea. We just don’t care to break the law or make mischief for our neighbors, and we’re too busy working to have the leisure for crime. Can the same be said for Detroit?

    • jim_m

      So you missed the point, which is that in a society where many people are armed there tends to be a certain level of social restraint which prevents people from committing criminal acts, particularly assaults on other people.

      The culture in the inner city is a function of that fact. Young criminals, free from the concern that another person might draw down on them and blow their ass away, have no concern for committing crimes, whereas in Maine people are more inclined to let others be.

      Your society has benefited from a presence of guns which tempers people’s desire to cause trouble. Detroit, Chicago, DC have not had this influence being left wing social experiments where state control of the individual is higher than anywhere else in the country. Understandably, these cities and others like them are cesspools of crime and poverty.

      • westword6

        Well, Jim M,, you missed my point, which is that guns in Maine are not, in my opinion, primarily responsible for the low level of felony crime. Yes, the fact that we are armed probably makes a difference in some cases, but what really weighs heavily, is that most of us here are law abiding to begin with. One might call us a bit of a throwback to an earlier time.
        Oh, don’t get me wrong, we have crime, and it is on the increase. The world has found us. But still, most of us do not live in fear. We leave our cars unlocked, even our houses unlocked, much of the time. At least we do up here, in the 2nd Congressional District. We’re also the only state which posted a loss of population in the last census. Life here is not easy, but it tends to weed out some of the riff raff. We do have a long tradition of gun ownership, primarily linked to hunting. I’m sure that there are places in this country where what you say is true — that gun ownership is a significant deterrent to violent crime. So, I’m not denying your point. But for Maine, I’m just not so sure. If things worsen here, and violent crime rises significantly, then yes — I’m sure the rifles in my house will serve a sad but necessary deterrent function.

        • jim_m

          The bottom line is that the Quinipiac study corrected for a lot of other issues. It found that more access to guns meant reduced crime. This is not new, it has been repeated several times now.

          Access to guns does not prevent crime it only prevents it from getting as bad as it might without them.

        • mikegiles

          Again you assume that the reason Maine has a low crime rate is that the people are “special”. How long would they remain that way if liberals showed more sympathy for the criminals, than for the victims, and the released them back into their old neighborhoods to continue to prey on the citizens?

        • mikegiles

          Again you assume that the reason Maine has a low crime rate is that the people are “special”. How long would they remain that way if liberals showed more sympathy for the criminals, than for the victims, and the released them back into their old neighborhoods to continue to prey on the citizens?

    • mikegiles

      Westworld, it’s you who have missed the point. Too many of our inner cities consist of honest citizens who are at the mercy of career thugs because they have no means to defend themselves. Contrary to what some people believe blacks do not have some race specific “crime gene”. The majority of people, even in some of the worse areas of inner cities, are honest.

    • mikegiles

      Westworld, it’s you who have missed the point. Too many of our inner cities consist of honest citizens who are at the mercy of career thugs because they have no means to defend themselves. Contrary to what some people believe blacks do not have some race specific “crime gene”. The majority of people, even in some of the worse areas of inner cities, are honest.

  • williamdiamon

    The United Nations is not made up of people from around the world. It consists of governments from around the world, the enterprises meant to control the people of the world. Gun-control is an evil and draconian way to control these people, it reduces the common man to the status of herd animals. This is why governments propagate it. Gun-control does not make you safer (unless you are a criminal), it makes governments safer. Consider the proposed “assault weapons ban”.

    America in perspective:
    Total murders- 12,664
    Handguns- 6,220
    Knives-1,694
    Hands and feet-728
    Hammers + clubs-496
    All rifles- 323 (that includes your “assault” + .50 rifles)
    Source: FBI 2011

    Why would anyone suggest banning the semi-auto rifle when more people have been murdered with “hands and feet” then all types of rifles? Because it is an effective battle weapon and the one a modern day Minute Man would carry. This is what concerns them, not your safety.

    The proper response, when someone is shooting at you is to shoot back. You will need a gun for this. It is also the only way to protect an innocent, If you care as much about people as you think you do. If you do not have a gun, call police. Why? Because they have a gun. / Reread paragraph until it sinks in.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE