Study Says Concealed Carry Permits Don't Affect Crime

[2aguy]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

Kleck and Lott are friends moron....

 

[Brain357]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And of course there is this concept...

My_Comments_on_the_Lott_Controversy.html

Time B: An economist (Ehrlich, Lott) does a study an order of magnitude more sophisticated, using both time series and longitudinal data, controlling for relevant factors insofar as data is available, using techniques such as second stage least squares to try to control for problems with unobservable variables, etc. It produces a result that the people in the field don't like.

Time C: People in the field publish furious attacks on the economist and on his study; the latter, insofar as they are legitimate, are arguments showing that there are possible explanations for his results other than the one he gave--which is almost always true, to some degree, of statistical results. These attacks apply a standard of proof enormously higher than that applied to the Time A studies--which the same people happily accepted.

This is the home page of David Friedman. Not the Hawaiian artist David Friedman, or the composer David Friedman, or the fix-what's-wrong-with- government David Friedman (050) or the fifteen year old David Friedman or the eighteen year old David Friedman or the legendary film pornographer David Friedman or even the economic journalist David Friedman but the anarchist-anachronist-economist David Friedman.

The anarchist? What a joke link.

 

[Brain357]

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

6 of 18 studies is not almost all asshole......nice try though....

Looks like more than that to me. Provide the 12 you claim exist that he isn't involved in.

I listed them asshole...look for yourself...or email him.....he is more than helpful and you can actually get the truth from the man who researched it.....

No you posted a bunch of links that say by john lott. You seem to be lying again.

 

[Brain357]

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

Kleck and Lott are friends moron....

That may be true, but kleck says lotts study is a joke.

 

[2aguy]

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

6 of 18 studies is not almost all asshole......nice try though....

Looks like more than that to me. Provide the 12 you claim exist that he isn't involved in.

I listed them asshole...look for yourself...or email him.....he is more than helpful and you can actually get the truth from the man who researched it.....

No you posted a bunch of links that say by john lott. You seem to be lying again.

Fuck you asshole....

 

[Brain357]

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

6 of 18 studies is not almost all asshole......nice try though....

Looks like more than that to me. Provide the 12 you claim exist that he isn't involved in.

I listed them asshole...look for yourself...or email him.....he is more than helpful and you can actually get the truth from the man who researched it.....

No you posted a bunch of links that say by john lott. You seem to be lying again.

Fuck you asshole....

Ah all he swearing makes you sound so smart. Guess I caught you again.

 

[Blackrook]

It does not matter what "studies" say, Americans have a Second Amendment right to own and carry weapons.

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And in response....

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

The problem is simple: in some counties not all the cities in those counties are reporting crime rate data every year. This causes some randomness in the number of crimes reported for those counties. The problem used to be particularly prevalent in low-population counties, but it has improved considerably over time.

Take Georgia, a state whose data was singled out as particularly flawed due to this problem.. From 1980 to 1993, 16 of Georgia’s least-populous counties (out of 159 total counties) received crime reports from only 65% of police departments. By contrast, the 127 most populous counties (with 97.2% of the total population) averaged an non-reporting rate of 5.6%. In his regressions, Lott weighted county data according to population. Therefore, the counties with the most significant problems had little effect on the results.

All data contain some errors. The question is whether those errors are random or whether they systematically bias the results. This data error has been accounted for in many different ways.

— In their original paper, Lott and Mustard first looked at all counties. They then narrowed their scope – first to counties with more than 50,000 people, and then to those with more than 100,000 people. The results stayed much the same, showing that the low-population counties with these errors were not creating a bias in favor of right-to-carry laws.

— The Second edition of More Guns, Less Crime studied city, county and state level data. Even if that particular error existed for county level data, it did not exist for city or state level data. And, again, the results were similar.

— A 2002 paper with John Whitley explicitly examines errors in the county level data and finds no evidence of any systematic biases. This was published in 2003 in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

All of this information was provided to Lurie.

5) “Kleck, who conducted a controversial, yet often-cited survey on defensive gun use, observes, “Do I know anybody who specifically believes with more guns there are less crimes and they’re a credible criminologist? No.”

So, does Gary Kleck not believe that James Q. Wilson was a credible criminologist? Gary Mauser just completed a survey of researchers who have published on firearms issues in refereed criminology journals between 2000 and 2014. Mauser found that 31% of these scholars thought that right-to-carry laws lowered murder rates. Fifteen percent said that these laws increased murder rates, 46% said that the laws had no effect, and 5.1% said that they didn’t know. Clearly, a very significant proportion of criminologists believe the more guns, less crime hypothesis.

6) What John Lott actually claimed about the views of economists and criminologists was that the vast majority of published peer-reviewed papers looking at the impact that right-to-carry laws had on US crime rate found that they reduced violent crime rates and the rest of the papers claimed that there was no effect for murder, rape and robbery (see also here).

7) “The organization . . . proceeds and publishes ‘academic quality’ reports that have yet to be published in peer-reviewed journals.”

To put things in perspective, John Lott has published over 100 peer-reviewed academic journal articles. The CPRC was only started in October 2013, and it takes time to produce research. It takes even more time for the peer-review process to conclude. Nevertheless, we supported research published last year in the paper “The Impact of Right-to-carry laws on Crime: an Exercise in Replication” (Review of Economics and Finance, Carlisle Moody, Thomas Marvell, Paul Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante). The CPRC co-authored a paper that was published in the peer-reviewed Public Choice. In addition, as Lurie was informed, one paper by the CPRC has been revised and resubmitted to a journal. Another paper, showing errors in a recent FBI report on active shooters, was published in Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Today.

The CPRC’s academic advisory board members are at the top of their fields and are affiliated with the University of Chicago, Harvard, and the Wharton Business School.

8) “one of the small number of very pro-gun researchers like Gary Kleck or John Lott”

This statement makes two mistakes. First, most economists who have published research on firearms in peer-reviewed journals believe that there is a net safety benefit from people carrying guns. For example, worldwide 83% of economists who have published on this topic believe that guns are more likely to be used in self-defense than to be used in crime and 74% believe that concealed handgun laws lower the murder rate. As noted earlier, those who publish in criminology journals are more divided on the issue, and they are thus do not take monolithic position that the article describes for researchers.

It is strange that Kleck is labeled “pro-gun” in the same article where he is quoted as saying: “Do I know anybody who specifically believes with more guns there are less crimes and they’re a credible criminologist? No.” Kleck believes guns have no net effect on crime rates, and thus he doesn’t thinks that it matters whether guns are banned or licensed or regulated in some other way. Gary Kleck and John Lott clearly have very different views on guns, and it is surprising that the articles lumps the two of us together.

 

[Brain357]

It does not matter what "studies" say, Americans have a Second Amendment right to own and carry weapons.

That is true, but they still shouldn't be lied to. Whether concealed carry lowers crime or not doesn't effect the right.

 

[Brain357]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And in response....

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

Again lott defending lott. Are you another alias of lott?

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And in response....

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

Again lott defending lott. Are you another alias of lott?

Yes...you can't read either.....James Q. Wilson defends Lott....as do other researchers....go find them, then you can stop lying....

 

[2aguy]

And from the above link....

This statement makes two mistakes. First, most economists who have published research on firearms in peer-reviewed journals believe that there is a net safety benefit from people carrying guns. For example, worldwide 83% of economists who have published on this topic believe that guns are more likely to be used in self-defense than to be used in crime and 74% believe that concealed handgun laws lower the murder rate. As noted earlier, those who publish in criminology journals are more divided on the issue, and they are thus do not take monolithic position that the article describes for researchers.

 

[2aguy]

Brain...you have shown yourself to be an individual of low character....and not deserving of respect. You lie, you lie by omission and all to push an anti gun agenda that would let people be victimized by violent criminals....

 

[Blackrook]

Someone should write a comprehensive history book about what happens when an armed government goes against an unarmed people.

 

[2aguy]

Someone should write a comprehensive history book about what happens when an armed government goes against an unarmed people.

They did it was called "Democide," I think...it chronicled the mass murder of people by their governments...I read it back in the 90s and it helped to shape my view of socialism and gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

Someone should write a comprehensive history book about what happens when an armed government goes against an unarmed people.

Here it is...the author is R.J. Rummel....you should read his book on the subject...

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientistR. J. Rummel(1932-2014) as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars.[1][2][3]According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.[4][5]

 

[Brain357]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And in response....

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

Again lott defending lott. Are you another alias of lott?

Yes...you can't read either.....James Q. Wilson defends Lott....as do other researchers....go find them, then you can stop lying....

The political scientist? Not exactly his field.

 

[2aguy]

Someone should write a comprehensive history book about what happens when an armed government goes against an unarmed people.

Actually, the book itseld is called..."Death by Government." By R.J. Rummel....

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTYXCU8/?tag=ff0d01-20

<p>This is R. J. Rummel&#39;s fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. He presents the primary results, in tables and figures, as well as a historical sketch of the major cases of democide, those in which one million or more people were killed by a regime. In <em>Death by Government</em>, Rummel does not aim to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and scope in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent.</p>

Every anti gun extremist should read this book.....they have no clue about the history of government murder....

 

[Blackrook]

This is the reason why the Democrats want us disarmed. They have big plans for us, which includes re-education camps, population control, and raising children in state run boarding schools, away from parental influence.

 

[Brain357]

Brain...you have shown yourself to be an individual of low character....and not deserving of respect. You lie, you lie by omission and all to push an anti gun agenda that would let people be victimized by violent criminals....

You can't provide your 12 studies. Seems you lie. I have not.