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

[Conservative65]

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.

Brain357 indicated that I should't have been irresponsible enough to leave a gun in my car. Interesting how to him I, someone that followed the law, was wrong while the person breaking it by going into the car and taking something that wasn't his isn't a concern.

I offered Brain the challenge of if he didn't think people should own guns that he should try to take them away. As suspected, he failed to be a man and back up his words.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Brain357 indicated that I should't have been irresponsible enough to leave a gun in my car. Interesting how to him I, someone that followed the law, was wrong while the person breaking it by going into the car and taking something that wasn't his isn't a concern.

I offered Brain the challenge of if he didn't think people should own guns that he should try to take them away. As suspected, he failed to be a man and back up his words.

That law abiding citizens are responsible for the acts of criminals is the default position for people like Brain Dead 357

 

[miketx]

 

[PredFan]

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.

Not at all.

Then prove me wrong.

The same guy did two separate studies, one for the CDC, and another for the FBI? You are a retard.

 

[PredFan]

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

Brain doing the LIE thing again.

"... states with open carry laws did have a 23 percent lower violent crime rate that year."

Is violent crime lower in states with open carry?


"The number of concealed carry handgun permits has skyrocketed since President Obama was first elected, while murder rates have fallen, according to a new report released Wednesday.

"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.

"And the number of permits issued is increasing faster every year. Over 1.7 million new permits were issued last year — a 15.4 percent increase over 2013, the largest such single-year jump ever, according to the report from the center led by President John R. Lott and research director John E. Whitley."
Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

From your link:

Our ruling

Gaetz said, "In the states that allow open carry, violent crime was 23 percent lower."

This is a fact that experts say is largely meaningless and shouldn’t weigh into any serious policy discussion.

There may be less crime in those states, but there’s no way the single data point Gaetz gave can provide clues as to the effects of open carry laws.

Gaetz’s statement is a one-year snapshot that is misleading. We rate it Half True.

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.

Not at all.

Then prove me wrong.

It has already been done. There are FBI studies, there are CDC studies and there are studies done by independent entities.

Please share.

No, if you want to stay stupid, be my guest. Fortunately no one outside of you left wing nut gun grabbers believes your lies. You and your kind don't matter.

 

[PredFan]

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

Aaaaaaannnnddd that's the end of this idiotic thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

One study with flawed methodology is all you have on your side we have dozens of accepted scientific studies as well as the FBI crime statistics from each year.

 

[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.

One study with flawed methodology is all you have on your side we have dozens of accepted scientific studies as well as the FBI crime statistics from each year.

I don't have side just pointing out a simple truth in this day and age anyone can find a poll or study to support their point of view. Personally I don't think right to carry laws increase violent crime but I also don't put much stock in these studies anymore either.

 

[theHawk]

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.

What bullshit. Texas crime rates went up because of illegals from Mexico and its growing urban black population.

 

[bripat9643]

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

STUDY: More Concealed & Constitutional Carry, Less Crime - Bearing Arms - Concealed Carry, Constitutional Carry, Crime Prevention Research Center

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims

https://drgo.us/?p=1693

Study: Economists' Consensus Is Concealed Carry Lowers Crime - Breitbart

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

 

[Zander]

Fake news

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Rights or laws do not increase crime. People's choices are the root of crime. Period

 

[Godboy]

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.

What a really stupid thing to say.

The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.1 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.

Expanded Homicide Data

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Brain357 indicated that I should't have been irresponsible enough to leave a gun in my car. Interesting how to him I, someone that followed the law, was wrong while the person breaking it by going into the car and taking something that wasn't his isn't a concern.

I offered Brain the challenge of if he didn't think people should own guns that he should try to take them away. As suspected, he failed to be a man and back up his words.

That law abiding citizens are responsible for the acts of criminals is the default position for people like Brain Dead 357

More like get blamed for following the laws when criminals break them.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Brain357 indicated that I should't have been irresponsible enough to leave a gun in my car. Interesting how to him I, someone that followed the law, was wrong while the person breaking it by going into the car and taking something that wasn't his isn't a concern.

I offered Brain the challenge of if he didn't think people should own guns that he should try to take them away. As suspected, he failed to be a man and back up his words.

Keyboard courage is funny, so is gun courage. You are adorable. Please tell me you were drunk too.

 

[Brain357]

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.

What a really stupid thing to say.

The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.1 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.

Expanded Homicide Data

How many of those 44.1 were involved in criminal activity?

 

[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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

 

[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....

 

[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.

Here...other research that backs up Lott.....

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