Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws increase violent crime

[Brain357]

Kleck:
Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

Kleck is a criminologist, Lott is an economist...Kleck does not believe in market forces....considering the all of the studies that show Kleck is off on this, he has no leg to stand on when it comes to crime reduction.....that isn't his area....he just found that Americans use guns close to 2-2.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....it was Lott's research on concealed carry laws and numerous others that found it helps reduce crime rates...

But keep trying to lie....

Yes I know you only choose to believe Kleck when you agree with him. Economists don't study crime....

Yes..economists do..........they study it all the time...

Please explain. What does concealed carry have to do with the economy?

 

[Brain357]

Gun laws work adversely. The areas with the most strict gun laws have the most gun crime.

Are those the most densely populated areas?

Why is it Europe with strict gun laws has so much lower crime?

 

[Brain357]

Kleck:
Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

So you just contradicted your first post.

So if they have no net effect on crime why do you oppose carry laws?

I oppose carry laws because too many guns are killing our law enforcement. A cop gets shot and killed every week. Too many guns.

NOT BY LEGAL CARRY people dumb fuck.

Law Enforcement Officers Killed By Concealed Carry Killers

Oh...you saw the actual research that debunked that research.....so you found this to hide the truth...

I haven't seen actual research that debunked anything....

 

[Brain357]

Interesting study:

The way I try to frame it is, right-to-carry laws can increase crime, violent crime, by maybe 13 or 15% over a 10-year period. Some factors decrease crime, some factors increase crime. Increasing incarceration tends to push down crime, increasing police tends to push down crime, and allowing citizens to carry handguns tends to push up crime.

Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws increase violent crime

That is PURE LIBERAL dreamed up BS it does not create more crime. Stop watching MSM CLINTON news nut network.

And if you were awake you would realize how google purposely puts ALL the articles that will say " it increases crime" .............why so sheep keep thinking just what your post says it does and it's bs

View attachment 143676

Studies show right-to-carry laws reduce crime

That is john lott. His whole existence is dependent on making people think that.

 

[JoeMoma]

A million crimes per year are prevented by good men and women carrying guns.

How many arrests does that lead to?

None if the crimes are prevented.

So do you think the criminal gives up a life of crime or just moves on to still commit a crime?

If there is evidence that a person has committed a crime,thus the person is a criminal and should be arrested. If the person has not committed a crime, perhaps because he is afraid of being shot by someone legally packing heat, then he should not be arrested because he is not yet a criminal and hopefully will choose not to become one in the future.

 

[Brain357]

A million crimes per year are prevented by good men and women carrying guns.

How many arrests does that lead to?

None if the crimes are prevented.

So do you think the criminal gives up a life of crime or just moves on to still commit a crime?

If there is evidence that a person has committed a crime,thus the person is a criminal and should be arrested. If the person has not committed a crime, perhaps because he is afraid of being shot by someone legally packing heat, then he should not be arrested because he is not yet a criminal and hopefully will choose not to become one in the future.

You already said they don't get arrested. So don't you think it is most likely they just moved on to another crime. Hence not lowering crime rates at all since nobody is arrested?

 

[JoeMoma]

A million crimes per year are prevented by good men and women carrying guns.

How many arrests does that lead to?

None if the crimes are prevented.

So do you think the criminal gives up a life of crime or just moves on to still commit a crime?

If there is evidence that a person has committed a crime,thus the person is a criminal and should be arrested. If the person has not committed a crime, perhaps because he is afraid of being shot by someone legally packing heat, then he should not be arrested because he is not yet a criminal and hopefully will choose not to become one in the future.

You already said they don't get arrested. So don't you think it is most likely they just moved on to another crime. Hence not lowering crime rates at all since nobody is arrested?

No one was arrested because the crime was prevented, which means there was one less crime. That is the way "prevention" works. That being said, the "gun nuts" as perhaps you would call then have posted videos on other threads in which a CWP citizen holds a criminal at gunpoint until cops arrive to arrest him. So sometimes the criminal does get arrested because his crime was interrupted (no prevented) by a CWP holder. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[Brain357]

How many arrests does that lead to?

None if the crimes are prevented.

So do you think the criminal gives up a life of crime or just moves on to still commit a crime?

If there is evidence that a person has committed a crime,thus the person is a criminal and should be arrested. If the person has not committed a crime, perhaps because he is afraid of being shot by someone legally packing heat, then he should not be arrested because he is not yet a criminal and hopefully will choose not to become one in the future.

You already said they don't get arrested. So don't you think it is most likely they just moved on to another crime. Hence not lowering crime rates at all since nobody is arrested?

No one was arrested because the crime was prevented, which means there was one less crime. That is the way "prevention" works. That being said, the "gun nuts" as perhaps you would call then have posted videos on other threads in which a CWP citizen holds a criminal at gunpoint until cops arrive to arrest him. So sometimes the criminal does get arrested because his crime was interrupted (no prevented) by a CWP holder. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Yes but when the criminal walks away he just goes to commit a crime somewhere else. So the crime is still committed, just somewhere else. There are very few who ever get arrested.

 

[JoeMoma]

None if the crimes are prevented.

So do you think the criminal gives up a life of crime or just moves on to still commit a crime?

If there is evidence that a person has committed a crime,thus the person is a criminal and should be arrested. If the person has not committed a crime, perhaps because he is afraid of being shot by someone legally packing heat, then he should not be arrested because he is not yet a criminal and hopefully will choose not to become one in the future.

You already said they don't get arrested. So don't you think it is most likely they just moved on to another crime. Hence not lowering crime rates at all since nobody is arrested?

No one was arrested because the crime was prevented, which means there was one less crime. That is the way "prevention" works. That being said, the "gun nuts" as perhaps you would call then have posted videos on other threads in which a CWP citizen holds a criminal at gunpoint until cops arrive to arrest him. So sometimes the criminal does get arrested because his crime was interrupted (no prevented) by a CWP holder. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Yes but when the criminal walks away he just goes to commit a crime somewhere else. So the crime is still committed, just somewhere else. There are very few who ever get arrested.

If the crime is committed, it is at a later time or date which means the crime rate is going down. I grow weary explaining the obvious. Later dude.

 

[Brain357]

So do you think the criminal gives up a life of crime or just moves on to still commit a crime?

If there is evidence that a person has committed a crime,thus the person is a criminal and should be arrested. If the person has not committed a crime, perhaps because he is afraid of being shot by someone legally packing heat, then he should not be arrested because he is not yet a criminal and hopefully will choose not to become one in the future.

You already said they don't get arrested. So don't you think it is most likely they just moved on to another crime. Hence not lowering crime rates at all since nobody is arrested?

No one was arrested because the crime was prevented, which means there was one less crime. That is the way "prevention" works. That being said, the "gun nuts" as perhaps you would call then have posted videos on other threads in which a CWP citizen holds a criminal at gunpoint until cops arrive to arrest him. So sometimes the criminal does get arrested because his crime was interrupted (no prevented) by a CWP holder. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Yes but when the criminal walks away he just goes to commit a crime somewhere else. So the crime is still committed, just somewhere else. There are very few who ever get arrested.

If the crime is committed, it is at a later time or date which means the crime rate is going down. I grow weary explaining the obvious. Later dude.

it is more than likely that same day, the criminal just moved onto the next victim. Crime rate stays the same.

 

[2aguy]

Kleck:
Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

Kleck is a criminologist, Lott is an economist...Kleck does not believe in market forces....considering the all of the studies that show Kleck is off on this, he has no leg to stand on when it comes to crime reduction.....that isn't his area....he just found that Americans use guns close to 2-2.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....it was Lott's research on concealed carry laws and numerous others that found it helps reduce crime rates...

But keep trying to lie....

Yes I know you only choose to believe Kleck when you agree with him. Economists don't study crime....

Yes..economists do..........they study it all the time...

Please explain. What does concealed carry have to do with the economy?

They study everything moron......crime impacts economies.....

 

[2aguy]

Gun laws work adversely. The areas with the most strict gun laws have the most gun crime.

Are those the most densely populated areas?

Why is it Europe with strict gun laws has so much lower crime?

Their crime rates are going up...their social welfare states are creating more and more sociopaths....Britain especially is more violent than the United States...as more Americans carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, they banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate and violent crime rate is going up...

Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns. Knife crime has also jumped by 20% to 34,703 incidents – the highest level for seven years. The largest increase in knife crime came in London, which accounted for 40% of the rise.


Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
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.
============

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

 

[2aguy]

So you just contradicted your first post.

So if they have no net effect on crime why do you oppose carry laws?

I oppose carry laws because too many guns are killing our law enforcement. A cop gets shot and killed every week. Too many guns.

NOT BY LEGAL CARRY people dumb fuck.

Law Enforcement Officers Killed By Concealed Carry Killers

Oh...you saw the actual research that debunked that research.....so you found this to hide the truth...

I haven't seen actual research that debunked anything....

Yeah...you have....


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

 

[Brain357]

Kleck:
Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

Kleck is a criminologist, Lott is an economist...Kleck does not believe in market forces....considering the all of the studies that show Kleck is off on this, he has no leg to stand on when it comes to crime reduction.....that isn't his area....he just found that Americans use guns close to 2-2.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....it was Lott's research on concealed carry laws and numerous others that found it helps reduce crime rates...

But keep trying to lie....

Yes I know you only choose to believe Kleck when you agree with him. Economists don't study crime....

Yes..economists do..........they study it all the time...

Please explain. What does concealed carry have to do with the economy?

They study everything moron......crime impacts economies.....

But concealed carry doesn't impact crime obviously.

 

[2aguy]

Kleck is a criminologist, Lott is an economist...Kleck does not believe in market forces....considering the all of the studies that show Kleck is off on this, he has no leg to stand on when it comes to crime reduction.....that isn't his area....he just found that Americans use guns close to 2-2.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....it was Lott's research on concealed carry laws and numerous others that found it helps reduce crime rates...

But keep trying to lie....

Yes I know you only choose to believe Kleck when you agree with him. Economists don't study crime....

Yes..economists do..........they study it all the time...

Please explain. What does concealed carry have to do with the economy?

They study everything moron......crime impacts economies.....

But concealed carry doesn't impact crime obviously.

Yep.....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack, and among those are people carrying guns ...... troll.

 

[Brain357]

Gun laws work adversely. The areas with the most strict gun laws have the most gun crime.

Are those the most densely populated areas?

Why is it Europe with strict gun laws has so much lower crime?

Their crime rates are going up...their social welfare states are creating more and more sociopaths....Britain especially is more violent than the United States...as more Americans carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, they banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate and violent crime rate is going up...

Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns. Knife crime has also jumped by 20% to 34,703 incidents – the highest level for seven years. The largest increase in knife crime came in London, which accounted for 40% of the rise.


Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
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.
============

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

And they still have much lower crime rates. Chicago experienced a surge in homicides after getting concealed carry. Surges happen, but overall they are still much safer countries. How about Japan?

 

[007]

I call bs on that LA Times article. I know for a fact my brother would be dead if he never carried. He LEGALLY carried (s) a concealed weapon. Stopped at a gas station/store combo......guy walks up to my brother pointing a gun on him telling him to give his money, or he was going to shoot him.
My brother reached inside his vehicle and got his gun, and my brother shot the guy.


Turned out the guy was a known drug dealer. Police knew him the second they saw him. YES it was a horrible situation, and one my brother has had to live with and come to terms with for several years now. I doubt he has or ever will, but it was either my brother or the drug dealer. And yes, the dealer is dead. He was not carrying legally. He was a drug dealing thug. If my brother didn't have protection, he would be the dead one.

People easily can get illegal guns.

If someone tried to rob me at gun point, and I was able to draw my own weapon and shoot them dead, I'd sleep like a baby at night knowing that filth was gone.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I know you only choose to believe Kleck when you agree with him. Economists don't study crime....

Yes..economists do..........they study it all the time...

Please explain. What does concealed carry have to do with the economy?

They study everything moron......crime impacts economies.....

But concealed carry doesn't impact crime obviously.

Yep.....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack, and among those are people carrying guns ...... troll.

So if you believe that you must think Kleck does great work. Here again is his thoughts on concealed carry:

Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

OF COURSE right to carry laws increase crime. Only a moron would think otherwise.

You are saying law abiding citizens are commiting crimes?

Only a moron...

 

[Brain357]

If concealed carry lowers crime, why with the most guns in the world do we still have much higher crime rates than countries with strict gun laws? That alone should make anyone question the claim it lowers crime.

Why is it our police are being shot and killed about once a week? This doesn't happen in any other civilized country.

And why do our police shoot so many people? Is it perhaps because they are so scared of being shot themselves because guns are everywhere?

Both these things take cops off the street by being either dead or investigated.

The main research claiming carry decreases crime has been debunked many times over:

The National Research Council Verdict
In response to the growing controversy over gun violence and particularly Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws, the National Research Council (NRC) convened a panel of 16 experts to examine the existing literature. In 2004, they released their findings. Most of their report was typical academic fare and caused little stir. Not so for their findings on RTC laws.

The NRC panel closely followed Lott’s previous work, using his data, specifications, and method of computing standard errors. Even using this approach, the panel found inconclusive results. Further, as the panel stressed, the results were extremely sensitive to minute changes in the models and control variables. These findings mirrored the existing literature on the subject, which was heavily divided. One member of the panel went so far as to suggest that finding the true effect of RTC laws simply wasn’t possible with econometric analysis. In the end though, 15 of the 16 panel members concluded that the existing evidence could not support claims that RTC laws had a beneficial (or detrimental) impact on crime rates.

Most of the other studies are based on Lott's study. Meanwhile there are many studies stating no effect on crime and at least a couple saying increases crime.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

It is no coincidence the studies that claim carry lowers crime were done after the Bill Clinton crime bill when crime went down EVERYWHERE. The much more recent and hence more accurate studies show no effect on crime or increasing crime rates.