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

[2aguy]

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.

Bull.

You don't follow crime statistics obviously.

Obviously you don't since the statistics prove that crime went down not up and that concealed carry States are safer then non concealed carry states.

Link?

Milwaukee and chicago got carry, how is that working?

Milwaukee and Chicago have crippled their police.....that is why their gun murder rates are up.....it isn't law abiding gun owners shooting each other on the South and West sides of chicago...those shooters cannot legally own or carry a gun....and when captured they are back on the streets in less than 3 years....

You know this....and that you pretend you don't know it shows you are a creep.

 

[baileyn45]

According to a "novel algorithm" -- hmmmmmmmmmm.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[2aguy]

Bull.

You don't follow crime statistics obviously.

Obviously you don't since the statistics prove that crime went down not up and that concealed carry States are safer then non concealed carry states.

Link?

Milwaukee and chicago got carry, how is that working?

You're a liar.

"
Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge
City sees fewer homicides, robberies, burglaries, car thefts as Illinois residents take arms"

Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge

"Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center."

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

More than 750 people have been murdered in Chicago in 2016, the police said, a 58 percent increase over last year and the highest total since 1997. There have been more than 3,500 shootings in the city this year.

As Chicago Murder Rate Spikes, Many Fear Violence Has Become Normalized

Yes...and you know why and it has nothing to do with normal, law abiding people carrying guns...to protect themselves from those same criminals.

Chicago is down 2,000 police officers. The ACLU has created a paperwork nightmare for Chicago police, they have to fill out a legal sized paper, both sides, for every time they interact with a citizen...taking them off the streets while they do. The attacks on them by politicians, in support of the racist group black lives matter have decreased cop stops by 80%.....gangs also run many of the ward aldermen....getting them to vote against increased police resources in the worst shooting galleries in the city...

And those areas of the city with the shootings...are tiny......and concealed carry is now allowed in the entire city...

Doofus...

 

[2aguy]

More than 750 people have been murdered in Chicago in 2016, the police said, a 58 percent increase over last year and the highest total since 1997. There have been more than 3,500 shootings in the city this year.

As Chicago Murder Rate Spikes, Many Fear Violence Has Become Normalized

So a 20 year high one year, a 56 year low another, all under the concealed carry law.

Shows me there is zero correlation there at best. Thanks for the proof bud.

So with that knowledge and the knowledge that some of the highest states in gun ownership have some of the lowest murder rates and vice versa...

How about we stop throwing money at this and instead focus on what other socio-economic issues may be causing violence. You know, things that actually trend WITH violence rather than things that are completely unrelated.

Thank you.

 

[2aguy]

This is the problem with Donohue...he is an anti gun extremist and uses his research to lie about gun issues......and too often his research is shoddy...as here....

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC

Abstract


In an article titled “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy” published in the American Law and Economics Review in 2011, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang report on their inability to replicate regression estimates appearing in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.

They suggest that there are flaws in the data that John Lott had supplied to the NRC. This suggestion could sow seeds of doubt with respect to the many studies that have used that data.

The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications. However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.

 

[2aguy]

And to the stupid argument about criminals stealing guns...therefore we need to ban guns for law abiding people...

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

II. “individuals who carry guns around are a constant source of arming criminals”

Besides a few anecdotal stories, the paper points to the 600,000 cars that were stolen in 2013 out of about 250 million cars that were on the road (about 0.2%). The simplest solution to this problem is to eliminate gun-free zones that limit places where people can carry their guns. In addition, people with valuable items in their cars might be more likely to park their cars in secure areas so that the share of car thefts that occur with valuable items such as guns will undoubtedly be lower than the 0.2% rate for all cars.

But there is a more important problem with this argument. It is the belief that there aren’t many close substitute ways for criminals to obtain guns. For example, even if you could cause all guns to disappear from the US, how long do you think that it would take drug gangs to bring them into the country along with the drugs that they smuggle in? Probably almost immediately. Just as drug gangs can bring in drugs they can bring in the guns that they need to protect that very valuable property. One needs only to look Mexico where there are no legally owned guns by civilians for drug gangs to steal. Mexican drug gangs aren’t using 22 caliber handguns to commit their crimes.

 

[miketx]

 

[2aguy]

And more problems with donohue .....

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

VI. Murder rate results are completely misleading.

Throughout their paper, Donohue, Aneja, and Weber use murder data in which well over 70 percent of the county-level sample has zero murders. Including these zero values without using the appropriate statistical tests creates widely understood biasing effect, which in this instance has the effect of giving the appearance that right-to-carry laws increase crime. While they do use negative binomial regressions in some of their estimates, they never discuss this problem, many others have discussed it at length. Of the 22 estimates that they provide using negative binomials, there are three statistically significant results out of 22 estimates. Two of the three significant results are just from where they look at data over only the 2000 to 2014 period. The problem here is that they don’t seem to understand that their results here are proving the opposite of what they claim for the simple reason that the states that adopted right-to-carry laws over the 2000 to 2014 period had much more restrictive permitting rules and issued permits during those years at a slower rate than states that adopted concealed handgun laws before 2000.

Since the authors never discuss the problem of zero values and the implications that it has for many of their results, here are a few quotes from past work. From More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition in 2000 and 3rd edition 2010):

p. 285: The “truncation problem,” which occurs in county-level data sets because in some years many counties do not experience certain types of crimes at all—80 percent have no murders, for instance. If the murder rate in a county is zero before the law goes into effect, simple randomness means that sometimes the crime rate will go up, but the reverse cannot happen— crime rates cannot fall below zero. This could bias results for these regressions toward finding an increase in crime from the law. To avoid that, they exclude counties where there were no crimes committed.

p. 288: . . . [Duggan] ignoring the “truncation problem,” noted above by Plassmann and Tideman, and thus treating counties with no reported murders the same as the others. For example, when most counties have zero murders in any given year, no matter how good the law is, murder rates can’t fall any further. But simple randomness can mean that sometimes you will see the crime rate rise from zero even though it had no connection with the right-to-carry laws. In his last set of estimates, his analysis of the different violent crime categories included counties with zero crimes. There are a number of ways to statistically adjust for this problem (Tobit, negative binomials, etc.), but Duggan didn’t bother to use these techniques—thus biasing his results against finding a drop in crime.

Chapter 2 of MGLC shows that statistics for all violent crime rate categories suffer from this problem to some extent, though it is primarily seen for murder and to a lesser extent for rape and robbery. Plassmann and Tideman suggest a way of solving this problem in the 2001 Journal of Law and Economics (p. 772):

These analyses ignore the fact that crime rates cannot fall below zero. We argue below that this practice makes their results unreliable for crimes with low crime rates, and we suggest that a count analysis is more appropriate. While the standard approach to estimating such count-data models is to undertake a maximum likelihood analysis using the Poisson or the negative binomial distribution, we find that a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of a Poisson-lognormal model is easier to implement and yields more precise estimates for the crime data.

 

[miketx]

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?

Who do you think steals the guns?

Minorities, low income, and people that no matter what law you put in place aren't going to follow them.

I had one stolen from my LOCKED vehicle while it was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. What law that the thief will follow in order for that not to happen again.

Well then we just need to make it again't the law to steal things. Problem solved.

 

[2aguy]

As to donohues actual research methods...

IX. Synthetic approach

In the synthetic approach, that Donohue, Aneja, and Weber use they use from 2 to 4 states to predict changes in crime rates for right-to-carry states. But to say that it is arbitrary what states that they end up using for comparisons is an understatement.

For example, if you wanted to predict how Georgia’s violent crime rate would change over time, would your first choice be California and New York?

If you wanted to predict the changing violent crime rates in states as diverse as Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Utah, would you primarily or almost exclusively rely on Hawaii? Similarly, Louisiana and Tennessee might be surprised that these authors think that you should rely on Chicago (where half of Illinois’ violent crimes occur and the vast majority of changes in Illinois’ violent crime rate arise).

To put it mildly, their results are crucially dependent on what states that they pick to compare, and they have a lot of control over which states that they pick. The issue isn’t really whether they use rules that result in Hawaii or some other state to make the comparison, but the fact that how they pick the states and the number of states that they use to compare is arbitrary.

 

[Missourian]

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

There is that shady guy(lott). What points does he make you think are valid. Hope all is well sir!

All is well here. Have some new hobbies that have interfered with USMB of late... but I still drop in periodically. How are things with you?

I think 2aguy covered the salient points. My biggest beef is with the initial assumptions & methodology.

As usual I'll fall back on my home state to make my point.

Missouri has two major metropolitans..Kansas City & St Louis...KC being the larger.

They both operate under the exact same set of state laws...yet the violent crime rate, homicide rate and shooting injury rate in StL is DOUBLE that of KC in the first two catagories and QUADRUPLE in the third...despite StL sharing a border with Illinois (gun hostile) and KC sharing a border with gun friendly Kansas.

Chicago Isn’t Close to Being the Gun Violence Capital of the United States


If there is no consistency in a state under the same laws...how can any valid comparisons be drawn between different states? Throw in the uncertainty of basicly attempting to prove a negative (what would have happened) and you have a recipe for junk science.

 

[westwall]

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.

One vs a shitload of others that say different. That's the problem with stupid/dishonest people. They think one study is valid and takes precedence over all others. The reality is you look at a whole bunch of studies and you check their methodology and after that you look at which are the most valid.

The "study" you point to is loaded with problems. Thus it is invalid.

 

[blackhawk]

I have seen threads on here citing studies that show the exact opposite of this one. Much like people can find a poll to support any position they want if they look hard enough they can find a study that will to.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Who do you think steals the guns?

Minorities, low income, and people that no matter what law you put in place aren't going to follow them.

I had one stolen from my LOCKED vehicle while it was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. What law that the thief will follow in order for that not to happen again.

I guess it's not responsible to leave a gun in a car.

Perhaps you missed the words LOCKED and PRIVATE.

Interesting you say nothing about the thief that went somewhere he didn't belong and took something that didn't belong to him. Maybe you think that's OK.

I followed the law. He didn't. Somehow I'm wrong and he's perfectly OK.

Like I said before, if you don't think people should carry guns, I challenge you to personally do something about taking mine. Are you man enough?

Cute.

Cowardly

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Synthetic analysis

says it all

 

[Skull Pilot]

The person who did this study shows bias by saying

"the way I try to frame it..."

looks like he intended to prove his point from the very beginning

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Who do you think steals the guns?

Minorities, low income, and people that no matter what law you put in place aren't going to follow them.

I had one stolen from my LOCKED vehicle while it was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. What law that the thief will follow in order for that not to happen again.

Well then we just need to make it again't the law to steal things. Problem solved.

It already is.

 

[miketx]

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?

Who do you think steals the guns?

Minorities, low income, and people that no matter what law you put in place aren't going to follow them.

I had one stolen from my LOCKED vehicle while it was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. What law that the thief will follow in order for that not to happen again.

Well then we just need to make it again't the law to steal things. Problem solved.

It already is.

Well then like the gun banners do, we need another law!

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Who do you think steals the guns?

Minorities, low income, and people that no matter what law you put in place aren't going to follow them.

I had one stolen from my LOCKED vehicle while it was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. What law that the thief will follow in order for that not to happen again.

Well then we just need to make it again't the law to steal things. Problem solved.

It already is.

Well then like the gun banners do, we need another law!

The gun banners don't realize that no matter how many laws are in place, the CRIMINALS don't care. There's only one that needs to be in place for me and it's been there since 1791.

 

[miketx]

Who do you think steals the guns?

Minorities, low income, and people that no matter what law you put in place aren't going to follow them.

I had one stolen from my LOCKED vehicle while it was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. What law that the thief will follow in order for that not to happen again.

Well then we just need to make it again't the law to steal things. Problem solved.

It already is.

Well then like the gun banners do, we need another law!

The gun banners don't realize that no matter how many laws are in place, the CRIMINALS don't care. There's only one that needs to be in place for me and it's been there since 1791.

They realize it, they don't care. Liberals are all out going for the destruction of this country.