NEW GUN REPORT: "SHALL ISSUE" LAWS REDUCE CRIME RATES !!

A new study in the journal Applied Economics Letters finds that permissive concealed carry laws (generally, “shall issue”) result in a lower rate of homicide involving firearms. Conversely, state-level assault weapons bans have no statistically significant effect on the homicide rate involving guns. This is the 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).

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...51.2013.854294

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ers-murder.php

The authors also stated:

There may, however, be other explanations for these
results. Laws may be ineffective due to loopholes and
exemptions. The most violent states may also have the
toughest gun control measures. Further research is war-
ranted in this area.

I would agree that assault weapon bans have little positive affect. Most homicides are one-on-one in which an assault weapon would not be used.

Of course the author calls for additional studies; he firmly believes that honest research will confirm his results, just as his study confirmed prior conclusions by Lott and Mustard !

The fact that the author wants more studies speaks to the strength of his own conclusions, not weaknesses.


If you have a recent similar study that shows different conclusions; please post for us to comment. Otherwise your bloviating without back up doesn't work !

Thanks.

Of course the author calls for additional studies; he firmly believes that honest research will confirm his results, just as his study confirmed prior conclusions by Lott and Mustard !

The fact that the author wants more studies speaks to the strength of his own conclusions, not weaknesses.


If you have a recent similar study that shows different conclusions; please post for us to comment. Otherwise your bloviating without back up doesn't work !

Thanks. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The number of factors that could have an effect on a lower crime rate are practically infinite. Tying it to CHL carriers is an incredibly strong "maybe, but I seriously fucking doubt it."

The idea that criminals ponder issues like "Gee, I wonder if that person I am thinking about mugging and murdering has a CHL and is carrying a weapon" is ludicrous. You use the same logic that death-penalty supporters utilize; the death penalty is a deterrent. Also complete horseshit. Criminals don't think about consequences.....that's one of the reasons they are criminals.

By the way, is that your little sissy SIG P938 in the photo? In .380? Wouldn't stop a charging housecat. Get a real fighting handgun if you want to stop crime Whirlytard....something in a caliber that starts with a 4.

By the way, is that your little sissy SIG P938 in the photo? In .380? Wouldn't stop a charging housecat. Get a real fighting handgun if you want to stop crime Whirlytard....something in a caliber that starts with a 4. Originally Posted by timpage

Actually, that little P938 is 9mm. I thought it was .380 also till a guy I know at the range showed up with one. It shoots nicely and feels like a miniature 1911 in your hand. With a good self defense load and proper shot placement you wouldn't want to be down range. That said I shoot and carry .45 .
Sorry to highjack the thread.
Continue with the normal insults.

Why doesn't the Government simply let those law abiding citizens that wish to be armed be armed, and those that would rather not be armed remain gun free?

The 2d Amendment does not say that citizens have to be armed, it says that the Government shall not infringe upon the rights of those that do wish to keep and bear arms.

Criminals don't think about consequences.....that's one of the reasons they are criminals.
4. Originally Posted by timpage

That is a VERY good argument for upholding a law abiding citizens right to "keep and bear arms"

When the last thing a thug hears is that "click" of a safety coming off, he might have wished he chose another occupation.

Or, another victim.

It was Lott and Mustard in the kitchen with a gun.

If you have a recent similar study that shows different conclusions; please post for us to comment. Otherwise your bloviating without back up doesn't work !

Thanks. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

How about this from June, 2012:

"I don't know if you can contribute it all to conceal carry," Hilton said, but he insisted some part of that drop in crime is due to more responsible, armed citizens. More than 275,000 North Carolina residents hold active concealed weapons permits, a little less than three percent of the population.



"The tools that we have show a long-term, steady decline in violent crime and property crime both nationally," said James Brunet, an associate professor and crime expert at N.C. State's Department of Public Administration. "We really don't exactly know why. We've had so many different crime policies over the past 20 years which may have contributed to the drop, but we can't disentangle them."


Brunet said it's unlikely that any one policy is the "magic bullet" that has lowered crime.



"There's no firm, solid evidence that the growth in concealed weapons permits has contributed to a drop in crime rates," said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.


Among the reasons most criminologists think crime is dropping, he said, are better policing strategies, an end to the crack cocaine epidemic and high rates of incarceration. Even the fact that more Americans have cameras in their phones, and are able to capture crime as it happens, may have contributed.
Fox notes that crime rates have dropped even in states like Massachusetts, which have very restrictive gun laws.

Source: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccap...tory/11204311/

Do you really think that when 3% of people over 21 are legally carrying concealed handguns in a state that would-be criminals are going to change their modus operandi?

As I've mentioned before, New York City's very strict CHL laws combined with their policing strategies have combined to give the city a record low homicide rate in 2013. Even in Chicago, which has VERY strict gun control laws, the homicide rate dropped 18% in 2013.

BTW, I am not saying anything like all states should have very strict CHL laws. Not at all. I am saying that each state should have the RIGHT to enact whatever CHL laws they deem necessary. If Wyoming wants no CHL requirements, fine. If New York wants very strict CHL requirements, fine.

Why doesn't the Government simply let those law abiding citizens that wish to be armed be armed, and those that would rather not be armed remain gun free?
Originally Posted by Jackie S

As stated before, most gun homicides are committed by people who prior to pulling the trigger were "law abiding citizens". And if you are a homicide victim, it is more likely that you were shot by someone you know than a stranger.

As stated before, most gun homicides are committed by people who prior to pulling the trigger were "law abiding citizens". And if you are a homicide victim, it is more likely that you were shot by someone you know than a stranger. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It seems you pulled that little factoid out of your ass, Speedy, since "relationship" cannot be determined in most murders.

http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all

It seems you pulled that little factoid out of your ass, Speedy, since "relationship" cannot be determined in most murders.

http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IDIOT. YOUR numbers:

27,966 acquaintances
25,790 strangers

27,966 if GREATER THAN 25,790. IDIOT.

You can also add the 8,590 for "Other - Known to victim" to the 27,966 IMHO. The "Unknown" are discarded since no one knows into which category they fit. LEARN TO UNDERSTAND STATISTICS. IDIOT.

From : http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off.../homicide.html

In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2009.

And according to a Justice Department study:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&pg=5650,10456

IDIOT. YOUR numbers:

27,966 acquaintances
25,790 strangers

27,966 if GREATER THAN 25,790. IDIOT.

You can also add the 8,590 for "Other - Known to victim" to the 27,966 IMHO. The "Unknown" are discarded since no one knows into which category they fit. LEARN TO UNDERSTAND STATISTICS. IDIOT.

From : http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off.../homicide.html

In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2009.

And according to a Justice Department study:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&pg=5650,10456 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

70,896 'UNKNOWN' is the number you idiotically ignored, Speedy.

Plus, Speedy, no where in your current citation, wherein the victim knew their killer, does it conclude that the majority of those murders were accomplished with a gun. You're still pulling imaginary factoids out of your ass, Speedy.

IDIOT. YOUR numbers:

27,966 acquaintances
25,790 strangers

27,966 if GREATER THAN 25,790. IDIOT.

You can also add the 8,590 for "Other - Known to victim" to the 27,966 IMHO. The "Unknown" are discarded since no one knows into which category they fit. LEARN TO UNDERSTAND STATISTICS. IDIOT.

From : http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off.../homicide.html

In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2009.

And according to a Justice Department study:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&pg=5650,10456 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

same math class as Lexus Lover 50 - 9 = 40

70,896 'UNKNOWN' is the number you idiotically ignored, Speedy.

Plus, Speedy, no where in your current citation, wherein the victim knew their killer, does it conclude that the majority of those murders were accomplished with a gun. You're still pulling imaginary factoids out of your ass, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Take a course in Market Research 101 then get back to me. IDIOT.

I'm through discussing gun issues with you because you are a certifiable 100% IDIOT.