A citizen with a gun took out the Texas killer as he fled.

[2aguy]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

Nonsense.

No one is advocating prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed firearms; and any measure seeking to do so would be invalidated, as the courts have held such measures to be un-Constitutional.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant, wrong, and a liar.

You mean except for California...right? Or the defacto ban in New York.....where they refuse to issue permits.....and where D.C. is slow walking their permits.....you mean except for those...right?

 

[idb]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

Or made the hoops for getting a gun enough to discourage the killer from getting one, and 26 people would still be alive today.

Possibly but do we even know how he got his gun yet? I assume it was legal as it was on his Facebook page before they took down his profile.

I don’t know. If he really wanted one, he could get one easily anyways since we’ve been so completely lax on gun laws for so many decades.

Yes indeed, filthy democrats are easy on crime because it pushes their bs gun ban agenda.

Why are you politicising this when the bodies are still warm?

 

[2aguy]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

What call for gun control has suggested that a sane, law abiding homeowner cannot keep a shotgun in his home?

Idiot.

He left his home to engage the shooter....according to you he should now be arrested, tried and turned into a felon....right?

 

[rightwinger]

It's Texas

They massacre people when they get bored

 

[2aguy]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

Or made the hoops for getting a gun enough to discourage the killer from getting one, and 26 people would still be alive today.

Possibly but do we even know how he got his gun yet? I assume it was legal as it was on his Facebook page before they took down his profile.

I don’t know. If he really wanted one, he could get one easily anyways since we’ve been so completely lax on gun laws for so many decades.

Yes indeed, filthy democrats are easy on crime because it pushes their bs gun ban agenda.

Why are you politicising this when the bodies are still warm?

Yeah...because diane feinstein, sharon watts and any number of gun grabbers already did....

 

[miketx]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

Or made the hoops for getting a gun enough to discourage the killer from getting one, and 26 people would still be alive today.

Possibly but do we even know how he got his gun yet? I assume it was legal as it was on his Facebook page before they took down his profile.

I don’t know. If he really wanted one, he could get one easily anyways since we’ve been so completely lax on gun laws for so many decades.

Yes indeed, filthy democrats are easy on crime because it pushes their bs gun ban agenda.

Why are you politicising this when the bodies are still warm?

I've decided to become a filthy liberal.

 

[TheOldSchool]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

Or made the hoops for getting a gun enough to discourage the killer from getting one, and 26 people would still be alive today.

Possibly but do we even know how he got his gun yet? I assume it was legal as it was on his Facebook page before they took down his profile.

I don’t know. If he really wanted one, he could get one easily anyways since we’ve been so completely lax on gun laws for so many decades.

We aren't lax on gun laws...we have about 20,000 of them...we are lax in locking up repeat, violent gun offenders.....

Kelley was a repeat gun offender?

 

[2aguy]

Link?

I read a reference to his being pursuded by a neighbor of the church.

Yet you and the nitwit OP can’t provide a link.

Not saying it isn’t true, it’s just that most conservatives are liars and can’t be believed.

Nonetheless the thread premise fails.

There is no evidence supporting the notion that private citizens with firearms act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime.

Citizens have the right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

There is no evidence supporting the notion that private citizens with firearms act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime.

You mean except for all of the actual research that shows concealed carry helps lower the crime rates...except for that...right?



http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

 

[depotoo]

In other words, don’t mention the facts a legally armed citizen stopped him from harming more, even though it is a relevant part of this tragedy. Your statement alone shows where you are going. Doesn’t fit your narrative, does it. You probably hate even worse the murderer was carrying illegally.

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

Or made the hoops for getting a gun enough to discourage the killer from getting one, and 26 people would still be alive today.

Possibly but do we even know how he got his gun yet? I assume it was legal as it was on his Facebook page before they took down his profile.

I don’t know. If he really wanted one, he could get one easily anyways since we’ve been so completely lax on gun laws for so many decades.

Yes indeed, filthy democrats are easy on crime because it pushes their bs gun ban agenda.

Why are you politicising this when the bodies are still warm?

 

[SmokeALib]

Link?

I read a reference to his being pursuded by a neighbor of the church.

Yet you and the nitwit OP can’t provide a link.

Not saying it isn’t true, it’s just that most conservatives are liars and can’t be believed.

Nonetheless the thread premise fails.

There is no evidence supporting the notion that private citizens with firearms act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime.

Citizens have the right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

So, if a crazed lunatic had a shotgun aimed at your wife's head, and me, as your concerned neighbor, took him out, you would be against that? Or would you rather wait for the police to arrive?

 

[Natural Citizen]

May have very well saved dozens of more lives had he had plans to go on a further shooting spree.

Credit for recognizing the gentleman as a citizen rather than a civilian.

 

[depotoo]

You know, that statement is so full of bullshit, I can smell it from here. Texans overall are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

It's Texas

They massacre people when they get bored

 

[TheOldSchool]

Here is an account of the armed civilian who allegedly shot the shooter ending the killing.........

Witness describes seeing church shooter flee

Dupe thread

 

[depotoo]

May have very well saved dozens of more lives had he had plans to go on a further shooting spree.

Credit for recognizing the gentleman as a citizen rather than a civilian.

Your point being?

 

[LoneLaugher]

And yes this is political as the demands for gun control if implemented could have allowed this killer to get away.

What call for gun control has suggested that a sane, law abiding homeowner cannot keep a shotgun in his home?

Idiot.

He left his home to engage the shooter....according to you he should now be arrested, tried and turned into a felon....right?

Nope. Dickhead.

 

[MarcATL]

Link?

It was just reported on the news. I can not find a link yet. Will this do?

View attachment 158825

What network were you watching?

 

[westwall]

Great.

Here's the difference between the UK and US.

In the UK the shooter didn't have a gun so didn't shoot anyone. Therefore the armed civilian didn't have a gun and couldn't stop the shooter not shooting anyone.

In the US the shooter had a gun and killed at least 26 people but the armed civilian had a gun and could come along and stop it.

The right wing in the US will therefore see this as guns being positive because guns stopped the whole thing, whereas without guns the armed civilian couldn't stop the shooter from killing people, even though he wasn't killing anyone because he didn't have a gun.

What a twisted place America is.

Maybe in your fantasy land. However in the real world this is happening.

Gun crime in London increases by 42%


The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.

Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017.

The Met said although crime rates were rising they remained at a much lower level than five years ago.

Scotland Yard registered annual rises across a number of serious offence categories in the past 12 months, following several years of falls.

The total number of offences during the 2016 to 2017 financial year was 774,737, an increase of 4% from the previous year when total offences stood at 740,933.

Knife crime offences that resulted in an injury also increased, by 21% to 4,415 from 2016 to 2017, compared to 3,663 offences the year before.

The force said robbery offences, which increased 12% year-on-year, were at about half the level of 2006-2007 and there were 58 fewer homicides this year compared to 10 years ago.


Gun crime in London rises by 42%

 

[Lakhota]

Taken out with a shotgun

Has that been confirmed? Not taken out with an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine?

 

[rightwinger]

These things are a small price to pay for our second amendment rights

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Link?

It was just reported on the news. I can not find a link yet. Will this do?

View attachment 158825

What network were you watching?

It was local news on a football commercial. Channel 5 I think?