I have been asked to help write an amicus brief challenging a state discretionary permit issuance. In state after state, as shall-issue laws have worked their way through the legislative process, opponents of shall-issue have repeatedly stated that "blood with run in the streets" "It will be like the Wild West" and similar claims.
When the first states adopted shall-issue, you could make the case that this was at least a plausible possibility. But even when Wisconsin was debating shall-issue, the opponents were still making these claims, pretending not to know that the experiment had been tried--and the results have been astonishingly humdrum.
I need every example that you can find where opponents of shall-issue laws claimed that there would be murder, mayhem, increases in road rage arguments escalating to gunplay, and so on, that you can find. If it is in a published source that is online, all the better. If it is something that you find on Nexis, send me the citation, and I will dig it out.
UPDATE: Thank you all. I have enough. Now: can you provide me with lists of opponents who changed sides after the law worked? At least one of the items already posted was Tom Skoch's editorial here, and it is gratifying to see someone prepared to admit that they were wrong, and why. There are also quotes from Harris County D.A. John B. Holmes and Dallas police union president Glenn White, admitting that they were wrong about this, and it worked out just fine. Can anyone else find some examples of people who claimed that this was going to be a disaster, and then admit that they were wrong?