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

[DigitalDrifter]

I could care less about stats.
I will be one who decides if I carry or not.

 

[Brain357]

I could care less about stats.
I will be one who decides if I carry or not.

And you should probably consider stats in that decision.

 

[Slash]

Sorry, don't follow homosexual crime.

Again nothing to do with that. Just making sure you don't believe in the logic you are posting. You obviously don't. You can't even explain simple disparities that show carry laws have nothing to do with violence. You are just anti-gun. That's ok.

I'd suggest next time you bring a logical argument though. One you can get behind.

 

[Slash]

Which numbers in the study are all over the place?

After gun carry passes, 56 year low on crime and 20 year high on crime under THE SAME LAW. No correlation whatsoever to the law. Baltimore having record crime at the same time as Chicago despite the two cities being complete opposites with their gun carry laws.

These are simple things. I'm not making this rocket science for you. They are easy logical statements using small words and very easily researchable information. But you seem completely lost on the absolute basics of this topic again and again whenever confronted with something that doesn't fit nicely in your little box how you want it to.

I'm not going to keep holding your hand. If you can't make a legitimate argument just say "I don't like guns, and wish they'd be banned or restricted". But if you just go off and ignore the facts you are presented or pretend you are lost, that ends your case.

 

[Slash]

See, you need two things to make a decent argument here.

Cause and effect and then a logical solution. You've been unable to get either.


You disagree with your own logic of your solution of restriction. You've shown that now. You don't believe taking away someone's rights is ok even if it makes people safer. You feel that should only happen on rights YOU feel should be infringed on which isn't logical. Other people will see other rights as more important or less important.


You can't even get correlation currently which is a precursor to cause and effect. Correlation is two things work together. AKA I take a pill at night and sleep 8 hours well. Cause and effect makes sure that is why they correlate. AKA I noticed the nights I took a pill I was more confident I'd sleep well so I put in some sugar pills, and didn't sleep well the night I took those even though I was confident those nights too, therefore it wasn't a placebo effect. Your study doesn't go near into enough detail. It talks about Texas as the baseline. I saw zero talk about the drug cartel explosion in Mexico which has blown up in that same time span which could easily show why Texas has that increase over baseline. These are very simple basic things here you aren't thinking of.

Chicago is up and down with carry laws. Baltimore is up and down the same way without them. Australia and New Zealand went opposite ways with their gun laws to the same effect in murder rates. You haven't even gotten to the very first initial step of validating your claim here. So you are really here with nothing at page 11 or 12 now. A study that you yourself have debunked with Chicago as an example, I have with gun ownership rates by state, and others have with other studies. It's not poking holes. It's that if your argument held water, those realities just can't exist.

 

[koshergrl]

Build a wall around Chicago. Build them a tunnel that will take them to NYC and LA, and let them kill each other.

Nobody is going to miss them.

 

[2aguy]

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

Yeah....this was already debunked....this guy couldn't do an actual research study if his life depended on it....

Here....this takes it apart....

The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

The bottom line is pretty clear: Since permit holders commit virtually no crimes, right-to-carry laws can’t increase violent crime rates. You can’t get the 1.5 to 20 percent increases in violent crime rates that a few of their estimates claim with only thousandths of one percent of permit holders committing violent crimes. To put it differently, states would have to be miss reporting 99%+ of crimes committed by permit holders for their results to be possible.

The synthetic control tests where they use anything from two to four states to predict the changes in another state’s violent crime rates are extremely arbitrary. For example, would you look almost exclusively to Hawaii to predict violent crime rate changes in Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah? Would you look almost exclusively at Illinois to predict changing violent crime rates in South Carolina? Remember that half of Illinois’ violent crime occurs in Chicago and an even larger majority of the changes in Illinois’ changing violent crime rate is due to Chicago. Would you look at California and New York to predict changing violent crime rates in Georgia?

There is a reason that the vast majority of published peer-reviewed studies that use US data as this new study does find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime rates.

I. Substance

This new study looks at only murder and violent crime rates, and its most notable claim is that there is some evidence that violent crime rates rose after right-to-carry laws were adopted. But with over 60% of violent crimes involving aggravated assault, any changes in violent crime rates are be driven by changes in aggravated assaults.

Other papers in this areas have looked at all the different types of violent crime (such as murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assaults), so it is quite unusual to only examine them as a group and it hides how other crime rates are changing.

Donohue’s papers are the only ones to claim that there have been increases in aggravated assaults after right-to-carry laws were enacted.

We will discuss the problems with this claim below. But more pertinently, permit holders commit virtually no aggravated assaults, especially not aggravated assaults with a weapon.

The authors’ purported increase in violent crime is driven by aggravated assaults. No explanation is offered for why having more permits would cause more assaults.

No one would suggest that permit holders are more vulnerable to assault, so the claim would have to be that permit holders are doing the assaults themselves. But this is implausible, since permit holders are virtually never convicted of aggravated assaults, let alone aggravated assaults with firearms. Concealed handgun permit holders committing crime can simply not increase either aggravated assaults or violent crime.

Permit holders commit aggravated assaults and violent felonies at rates of thousandths of one percentage point, accounting for hundredths of a percent of the violent crimes or aggravated assaults committed in a state.

On page 45, the authors claim that “official withdrawals clearly underestimate criminality by permit holders,” but they offer no evidence for this claim. The provide one case in 2013 from the Huffington Post involving two permit holders who reportedly fatally shot each other. Another case from 2000 is provided, but that permit holder was prosecuted so it isn’t clear what this reference demonstrates. The point is clear: Even if convictions of permit holders are somehow being missed by reporting agencies, the error rate would have to be truly massive to explain Donohue, Aneja, and Weber’s results.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

--LOL

what a bunch of bs

 

[2aguy]

Am I right that the right-to-carry laws started getting put into place as crime rates were already declining across the country?

Yes; essentially one thinks the Clinton administration as being the period of tremendous decline, and that was hurting gun sales dramatically. So the NRA was looking around for other ways to stimulate gun sales and managed to get a fair number of these right-to-carry laws passed during the Clinton years and successive years.

Permit holders do an amazing effectively job of arming criminals with their lost and stolen guns.

Except.....the actual research shows that as more Americans carried guns...the categories of violent crime went down, not up...which shows his research is crap....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hand

and from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in the 1990s to over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


Concealed carry permit number....
New Study: Over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in number of permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

actual study...

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2017 by John R. Lott :: SSRN

 

[2aguy]

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

Yeah...except the facts, the truth and reality, as well as 21 years of actually statistics show you are wrong....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


Concealed carry permit number....
New Study: Over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in number of permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

actual study...

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2017 by John R. Lott :: SSRN

 

[2aguy]

According to a "novel algorithm" -- hmmmmmmmmmm.

We take that composite of other states and see what happened in that composite of other states after 1996. Then we’re comparing Texas against this composite of other states, because that composite was such a good match for identifying the impact, the pattern of crime prior to 1996.

Let’s compare it with what actually did happen in Texas after 1996, and the difference between those two numbers becomes your prediction of what the impact of Texas passing the right-to-carry law in 1996 was on violent crime.

What we found [was] that there tended to be a fairly substantial difference between those two numbers, such that it looked as though you saw about 10% to 15% higher levels of violent crime than you would have seen had you not adopted right to carry.

For some states, and Texas happened to be one of them, crime was trending down, and it just didn’t trend down nearly as much in this comparison group of states that had mimicked the pattern of Texas prior to 1996.

Donohue is a hack......

The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

Texas: Convictions for aggravated assault with any type of weapon

2016: 8. Percent of permit holders who are convicted of an aggravated assault: 0.00067%

2015: 10. Percent of permit holders who are convicted of an aggravated assault: 0.0011%

There were 67,727 aggravated assault in Texas in 2015. Even though felonies involve more violent crimes, the 31 felonies that permit holders were convicted of equal only 0.077% of violent crimes.

The authors claim that the violent crime rate in Texas rose by 16.6% after the law was their right-to-carry law was adopted. For their results to hold here, police departments would have to be missing 99.54% of cases where permit holders have committed a violent crime.

 

[2aguy]

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

I have seen study after study that shows that crime goes down abruptly when concealed carry is instituted. So I wondered where the fuck you would find this bull shit and I only had to click on the link and there was the answer: a fake news site, the LA Times.

You will find all the studies claiming it goes down are done by the same person. And he's very questionable.

Yeah...not so much....

Notice...different people, actual research...and these aren't even all of the papers on this topic...

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

 

[2aguy]

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

There are dozens of studies, all of which you have been shown, that refute this clearly biased "study".

Those are studies all done by one shady character. Why is this clearly biased?

Because Donohue is an anti gun extremist.....and his research has been shown to be crap over and over....

 

[2aguy]

Are you really making the point that criminals doing criminal acts isn't the cause, but law abiding people being victims of criminals rather is?

Stop the criminal. Michael Jordan and Nike didn't cause kids to get robbed and shot. Criminals wanting his shoes did.

From the link:
The image that comes to mind is guys who might in one instance have solved their disagreement with fists now have guns. Is that a fair image or is it exaggerating?

Well, I think that there are many ways in which right-to-carry laws cause problems. One is as you said, and there are some obvious examples just in the last couple of weeks. In one case, a guy in Pennsylvania was merging in traffic and an 18-year-old girl cut in front of him and enraged him, and he just took out his gun, which he had a concealed-carry permit for, and shot her in the head and just drove off – killed her.

Then a couple of days later, in Seattle, a guy was riding home in an Uber from a wedding, and he had had too much to drink, and he and his wife got into a heated argument and he just took out a gun and shot her in the head. I suspect both of these cases would not have happened had the guy not had a concealed carry permit. There wouldn’t have been a gun around, and you know if you get really angry carrying a gun, it’s more likely something bad will happen.

But there are also so many other ways in which carrying concealed handguns creates problems. One huge way is that guns are much more likely to be stolen when you’re taking them around town and walking around. We see this quite a bit in California over the last couple of years. A number of incidents in San Francisco got a lot of headlines when somebody left their gun in their car – a permit holder – and somebody breaks into the car and steals the gun and within a day or so, or even a number of hours, murders someone on the street.

So the one thing we know is that permit holders do an amazing effectively job of arming criminals with their lost and stolen guns.

That obviously causes a lot of problems. And then, you also cause a lot of problems for police, and anything that causes problems for police tends to make all crime go up, because the police are such an important force in restraining crime.

We’ve seen this with the Philando Castile case in Minneapolis. The guy was a permit-holder and as soon as the cop heard he was carrying a gun, you could see that he became much more nervous and ended up shooting Castile, because he thought he was reaching for the gun when he was in fact reaching for his driver’s license.

So I don’t think it’s any surprise that police in the United States kill a lot more people than police in other industrialized nations -- not that they have fewer criminals than we have; there are just many fewer people walking around with guns, and police feel a lot more nervous when they’re meeting angry people with guns than they would in England or France or Germany or Japan, where they’re meeting angry people, but the worst that’s going to happen is they’re carrying a knife.

Donohue doesn't know what he is saying......actual criminology research shows that 90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence, they are not law abiding citizens who kill simply because they have a gun on their hip....that is one of the classic lies of anti gunners.......

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).

 

[2aguy]

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

I have seen study after study that shows that crime goes down abruptly when concealed carry is instituted. So I wondered where the fuck you would find this bull shit and I only had to click on the link and there was the answer: a fake news site, the LA Times.

You will find all the studies claiming it goes down are done by the same person. And he's very questionable.

Such a lie!

And your "study" is complete and total bullshit as well.

If you have studies not tied to the same guy please post them.

I have, you have seen them...you then dismiss them because they show you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

So, the majority of gun owners are: White. Married. Have Kids. Rural. Middle class
But the majority of violent crimes are: Minority. Single. No kids. Urban. Low income.

Remind me again how that works?

Apart from gangs I think its just the opposite.

No...the majority of gun crime is committed by convicted felons with ties to gangs....

 

[2aguy]

The image that comes to mind is guys who might in one instance have solved their disagreement with fists now have guns. Is that a fair image or is it exaggerating?

Not really. Australia got a lot of props for reductions in violent crime when it put in it's draconian anti gun laws. Of course New Zealand in a very similar socioeconomic situation had the same exact violent crime reduction without any gun law changes.

Instead of punishing law abiding citizens for what criminals do, why not punish criminals harder, or work for social change that would reduce that threat.

I get your point. If we made it illegal in the USA to be gay or transexual, we would greatly reduce the criminal threats and acts against that group. They maybe suffer a little bit, but with thousands of attacks, I think it's for the better good right?

There sure are lots of examples of guns being used to settle disputes. We have a very high gun crime rate.

And yet a higher rate of Americans using guns to stop violent criminals.....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminals..according to bill clinton and barak obama.....

 

[2aguy]

The image that comes to mind is guys who might in one instance have solved their disagreement with fists now have guns. Is that a fair image or is it exaggerating?

Not really. Australia got a lot of props for reductions in violent crime when it put in it's draconian anti gun laws. Of course New Zealand in a very similar socioeconomic situation had the same exact violent crime reduction without any gun law changes.

Instead of punishing law abiding citizens for what criminals do, why not punish criminals harder, or work for social change that would reduce that threat.

I get your point. If we made it illegal in the USA to be gay or transexual, we would greatly reduce the criminal threats and acts against that group. They maybe suffer a little bit, but with thousands of attacks, I think it's for the better good right?

There sure are lots of examples of guns being used to settle disputes. We have a very high gun crime rate.

Yes. And it is mainly gangbanger on gangbanger. Toss them in prison forever and the problem is vastly reduced.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

And we have the shortest sentences for violent crime in the world......which is why our criminals get out and then murder each other...

 

[2aguy]

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 they 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.

Few people are killed by complete strangers. It was a robbery attempt, not a homicide.

No it was a robbery attempt that actually DID turn into a homicide. And how many are ''few''??

Well I should specify. Most victims know their killer or are themselves criminals. Very, very few law abiding citizens are killed by a stranger.

Criminals cannot get a carry permit.

Lots of permits can lead to more stolen guns and more armed criminals.

Sorry....taking guns away from people who need them on the off chance they will be stolen is insane....that is the same reason we should end freedom of speech...it just leads to political violence.

 

[miketx]

You pea brain can't grasp that crime is always higher in large cities.

Exactly. Regardless of gun law, concealed carry law. Like you say, it's OBVIOUS socio-economic issues are at the heart of this not gun proliferation. Glad for making that point so loudly here.

The study is saying it makes it worse however.

Can you not stop your trolling? All you are doing is trying to piss people off with your bullshit.

So, the majority of gun owners are: White. Married. Have Kids. Rural. Middle class
But the majority of violent crimes are: Minority. Single. No kids. Urban. Low income.

Remind me again how that works?

Apart from gangs I think its just the opposite.

No...the majority of gun crime is committed by convicted felons with ties to gangs....

Don't forget democrats taking an sks the the ballpark.