thank (someone) for MD CCW laws!

based on UCR https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Document Downloads/Crime in Maryland 2016 Uniform Crime Report.pdf

I have not been able to find 2017 UCR, I dont think its out. It takes a full 2 years to spin the numbers, or something.

Same old story:

* 55% of robberies were on the street. Robberies are on the rise.
* The clearance rate is 30%.
* You are 5x more likely to be robbed on the street than in your home.
* About 5x more likely to be robbed on the street than being robbed in a place of business.

In other words, you are far more likely to be robbed on the street than in your home and its highly unlikely they will catch the suspect. Of course, in your home or business you may be armed, whereas on the street, not so much. Report does not detail how many robberies on the street involve guns, but guns were used in 66% of carjackings.

Maryland allows carry... where you are least likely to need it. Of course, perhaps criminals pick location precisely because they know people will be unarmed.

* 2.1% of all arrests are for weapons possession. There are 5x as many people arrested for drunk driving. lol. But carrying firearms is the real danger, right?

I know this will surprise some people: dont want to be robbed? stay out of Baltimore. City or County.

danb said:

Maryland allows carry... where you are least likely to need it. Of course, perhaps criminals pick location precisely because they know people will be unarmed.

Click to expand...

Novel concept.

Thank you for sharing.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...law-with-reduction-in-chicago-property-crimes

Recently, two researchers disproved at least some of Emanuel’s prognostications and added to the growing body of evidence that allowing citizens the right to defend themselves with guns outside their homes can lead to a decrease in crime. Publishing in Applied Economics Letters, Srikant Devaraj and Pankaj Patel (from Ball State University and Villanova University, respectively) used neighborhood-level crime reports from Chicago and Philadelphia during the period January 2006 to December 2015. Their goal was to ascertain the effect of the Illinois concealed carry law on property crimes in Chicago, with the Philadelphia data serving as a “control” comparison over the same term. (Philly was selected because of its similar population density, demographic characteristics, and property crime levels, and because Pennsylvania also is a shall-issue state.)

There are some links in the original NRAILA article about this that have more information about this study.

Gun Free Zone = Criminal Empowerment Zone. ( Terrorists also for that matter .)

Thanks for sharing. Based on what I read, I'd add PG county to areas to avoid.

danb said:

. . . dont want to be robbed? ...

Click to expand...

Or, gitchew elected and git summa dis!

MD State Police Executive Protection Section
The Executive Protection Section provides security for executive branch leaders in the State of Maryland, such as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and Treasurer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_Police

WHY WOULD anyone who GETS free (& top-notch) personal protection for themselves and their family, worry about mere peons? (At least in MD, DC, NJ, NY, MA, CA & HI)

Biggfoot44 said:

Gun Free Zone = Criminal Empowerment Zone. ( Terrorists also for that matter .)

Click to expand...

Need to add this to the Hogan welcome to MD signs. Open for criminal business.

If I understand the report correctly, there may be under-reporting of criminal incidents.

Page 4: "A first step in the control of crime is to ascertain the true dimensions of the problem; however, present statistics, as gathered by the UCR Program, measures neither the real incidence of crime nor the full amount of economic loss to victims. The Maryland UCR Program collects crime under a summary based reporting system, therefore, not all crimes occurring in one incident are captured. Information regarding number of offenses, clearances, value and type of property stolen and recovered property are collected only for the eight Part I offenses. For Part II offenses, the only information submitted is the number of arrests for these crimes. Consequently, there is no record of the actual number of Part II offenses occurring, nor is there a calculation made for property loss.

If my understanding is correct, there could be a lot more criminal acts occurring than are being reported in this document.

By the way, since Wrenn (maike dc shall issue), DC robbery and assault with a deadly weapon are down 8 to 10% in 2018.

Now I'm not claiming shall issue caused the decline in crime. But certainly the predictions of the gun prohibitionists have not come true. DC and Maryland Should be so lucky to have Virginia's crime rate. In Virginia anyone with $100 (less for residents) and a clean record can carry.

Judges and justices who are faithful to the Constitution would point out the state has not met their burden of proof for the restriction on a constitutional right.

But dont expect facts and logic to sway MD. Its all about the lobbying $$$$$.

Some Guy said:

If I understand the report correctly, there may be under-reporting of criminal incidents.

Page 4: "A first step in the control of crime is to ascertain the true dimensions of the problem; however, present statistics, as gathered by the UCR Program, measures neither the real incidence of crime nor the full amount of economic loss to victims. The Maryland UCR Program collects crime under a summary based reporting system, therefore, not all crimes occurring in one incident are captured. Information regarding number of offenses, clearances, value and type of property stolen and recovered property are collected only for the eight Part I offenses. For Part II offenses, the only information submitted is the number of arrests for these crimes. Consequently, there is no record of the actual number of Part II offenses occurring, nor is there a calculation made for property loss.

If my understanding is correct, there could be a lot more criminal acts occurring than are being reported in this document.

Click to expand...

Likely much underreporting. If I am illegally carrying drugs or other things, i am not reporting anything that happens.

Interesting language on page 6:

"Crime, as an outgrowth of society, remains a social problem of grave concern. The police are limited in their role to its suppression and detection."

This language appears to be a public statement that the police have limited ability to suppress crime. Therefore, if the police have publicly acknowledged they are limited in suppressing criminal acts (such as murders, assaults and other acts of violence) does this not create a good and substantial need for one to protect oneself or others from becoming a victim of crime?

The report goes on, quoting and relying upon a commission report from the LBJ administration:

“But the fact that the police deal daily with crime does not mean that they have unlimited power to prevent it, or reduce it, or deter it. The police did not create and cannot resolve the social conditions that stimulate crime.They did not start and cannot stop the convulsive social changes that are taking place in America. They do not enact the laws that they are required to enforce, nor do they dispose of the criminals they arrest. The police are only one part of the criminal justice system; the criminal justice system is only one part of the government; and the government is only one part of society. In so far as crime is a social phenomenon, crime prevention is the responsibility of every part of society. The criminal process is limited to case by case operations, one criminal or one crime at a time.”

Again, the author of this report is clearly saying that the police cannot deter or prevent crime. It is the responsibility of EVERY PART OF SOCIETY to prevent crime. The Maryland State Police are communicating that the criminal process needs to be managed INDIVIDUALLY on a crime by crime basis. Every crime has at least an individual victim, so in management of criminal behaviors, in this context individuals are the core, constituent part of society. According to the Maryland State Police leadership, we (as individuals) are RESPONSIBLE for preventing crime as much as the police are. Does this logic and language not provide a good and substantial reason for individuals to be better resourced and capable of preventing criminal acts of violent crime against themselves or those around them?

In this publicly funded, official document the MSP leadership are saying that the police are not accountable for the prevention or suppression of crime. The MSP is using language that clearly demonstrates that each of us has a responsibility (duty even) to prevent crime. To me that indicates a good and substantial reason for anyone to be better resourced and capable of preventing violent criminal acts against the individual and those around her/him.

Amiright?

The police have to duty to protect you. Been stated multiple times over the years by the Supreme Court.

The police may or may not even show up within 15 minutes (the average for a priority 1 - homicide, shooting, robbery, accident, etc, see here: https://www.baltimorepolice.org/sit...DFs/BPD Staffing Study Report for Website.pdf).

"Sure I'll give you my wallet, mind waiting 15 minutes" is not a valid response while being robbed.

danb said:

The police have to duty to protect you. Been stated multiple times over the years by the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

And reiterated recently in Florida: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html

Correct. The SCOTUS has said in multiple cases that the police do not have a duty to protect individuals. And now in the Maryland crime report the Maryland police are agreeing with that, and also saying that individuals have a responsibility to prevent/suppress crime.

If the police are saying it's an individual's responsibility to prevent/suppress crime, and they are also saying the police cannot prevent or suppress crime, then it would seem that in combination these represent good and substantial reasons to have the resources and capability to prevent violent criminal acts against oneself and those around us.

danb said:

The police have to duty to protect you. Been stated multiple times over the years by the Supreme Court.

The police may or may not even show up within 15 minutes (the average for a priority 1 - homicide, shooting, robbery, accident, etc, see here: https://www.baltimorepolice.org/sit...DFs/BPD Staffing Study Report for Website.pdf).

"Sure I'll give you my wallet, mind waiting 15 minutes" is not a valid response while being robbed.

Click to expand...

Then with crime and robbery UP, How can the AG and government attorneys say "The government has interest in public safety". The police have a duty to protect but cannot be everywhere all the time nor keep us safe in Baltimore city or AA county.

There are a few reasons why I am a fan of guns. The story below is one of them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia


In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to perform oral sex on him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren called 9-1-1 and told the dispatcher that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Warren, Taliaferro, and Douglas brought the following claims of negligence against the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department: (1) the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a. m. call with the proper degree of urgency; (2) the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and (3) the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.

It is so very frustrating to read of cases like Warren. The fact that these issues even need to be debated is ridiculous. How transparently obvious must it be before it's realized that people are rightly entitled and required to be able to defend themselves and others against violent crime, and that current firearms regulations violate the entitled right and subvert the requirement to do so?

A few words you won't find in the State of Maryland 2016 UNIFORM CRIME REPORT: Recidivism, recidivist and repeat offender. Sometimes it's things that aren't said that most matter.

Some Guy said:

It is so very frustrating to read of cases like Warren. The fact that these issues even need to be debated is ridiculous. How transparently obvious must it be before it's realized that people are rightly entitled and required to be able to defend themselves and others against violent crime, and that current firearms regulations violate the entitled right and subvert the requirement to do so?

Click to expand...

How few Americans are aware of the governments position on Self defense when it comes down to it?

If the gun grabbing women actually sat and read through what I just posted and/or did their own research on the topic, would they have the same want to take your guns from you?

How would gun grabbers feel if it were their mothers, daughters and wives in that house?

Would they want their family member to be armed or unarmed?

I look at it like this

armed is the ability to increase your odds of maintaining your liberty, safety, interject any word you want
unarmed is your choice to be at the mercy of an abuser (hopefully, they don't want more than you are willing to give)

Other highlights from the 2016 Uniform Crime Report:

Rifles & murder = no story. If any legislators advocate that more regulations on long guns is a priority this session, they should be informed that this is a misguided approach and that such legislation is a wasteful use of valuable legislative time and resources, and that it will be ineffective if implemented. In 2016 rifles were used in .3% of murders in Maryland (three total.)

RIFLE RATE ACTUAL PERCENT
2015 0.08 5 0.9%
2016 0.02 3 0.3%

Regarding murders, assaults and carjacking involving pistols in Maryland, we should note that the pistol-related murder rate has gone up since 2013 (i.e. after the enactment of Maryland's ineffective laws restricting/infringing upon pistol ownership.)

If our legislators want to actually do something about murders and violent crime in Maryland, they should probably start by improving the criminal justice system to ensure those arrested and convicted for violent felonies are kept away from the population.