Does Right to Carry Laws Make Communities Safer?

[Paratus]

A new study says no.
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

Examining decades of crime data, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law...

RTC laws increase violent crime
Donohue applied the synthetic control approach using four previously published statistical data models that had generated conflicting panel data estimates of the impact of RTC laws on violent crime. In all four cases, the synthetic control estimates showed increases in overall violent crime of 13-15 percent.

“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper.

To put the significance of a 15-percent increase in violent crime in perspective, the paper notes that “the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.”

Donohue’s team engaged in an array of different tests to ensure that the findings were sound. For example, Donohue noticed that Hawaii was included as part of a synthetic control more than any other single state. So, he re-ran the entire synthetic controls analysis while excluding Hawaii to see if there were any major changes; there weren’t. He then did the same for every other state that contributed to the synthetic controls for any of the 33 adopting states, and the resulting estimates showed very little variation: in all cases RTC laws were linked with higher violent crime rates.

“That was a comfort,” he said.

Another comfort was the increased rates of incarceration and hiring of law enforcement personnel Donohue noticed among RTC states.

“This suggested that RTC states were not simply experiencing higher crime because they decided to lock up fewer criminals and hire fewer police,” Donohue said. “The relatively greater increases in incarceration and police in RTC states implies that, if anything, our synthetic controls estimates may be understating the increase in violent crime, which was pretty persuasive to me.”

I believe in a free society that an individual should be allowed to protect oneself. However I personally don't carry because of reasons like this. It makes me, my family, and my community less safe.

Now I know for some of you this researchers synthetic models and decade+ data isn't as persuasive as your gut but still, shouldn't you as a mature and responsible gun owner be aware of the effects your preferred policies have?

 

[UNCjigga]

That study is inherently biased... It was funded by a liberal institution and received zero funding from the NRA.

 

[FIVR]

Fake news. Guns save lives, it's only the bullets that do any damage. Most people can handle at least a bullet or two before they croak anyway so it's like... why all the fuss?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I put as much credence in his synthetic models as i do the often refuted and usually wrong climate models. If you torture the data it will eventually confess to anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

People who have experienced traumatic states as children and have repressed those memories live in a constant state of inner agitation or paranoia that they are surrounded by danger and their fear that something terrible is waiting for them around the next corner. Such people are prone to fantasy imaginings of some kind of safety, mighty Trump, the strong father figure, who may have actually been the source of the trauma, hero daydreaming, or a love of weaponry etc. And of course, whenever two of those people are in close proximity, the danger becomes real. The world is up side down, backwards, and inside out, but nobody sees it because they are blinded by just such fear. If you try to forcibly take people's safety fantasy's, they may actually try to kill you. Evil is that which threatens the ego.

 

[Moonbeam]

I put as much credence in his synthetic models as i do the often refuted and usually wrong climate models. If you torture the data it will eventually confess to anything.

Which is exactly what you do.

 

[zzyzxroad]

People who have experienced traumatic states as children and have repressed those memories live in a constant state of inner agitation or paranoia that they are surrounded by danger and their fear that something terrible is waiting for them around the next corner. Such people are prone to fantasy imaginings of some kind of safety, mighty Trump, the strong father figure, who may have actually been the source of the trauma, hero daydreaming, or a love of weaponry etc. And of course, whenever two of those people are in close proximity, the danger becomes real. The world is up side down, backwards, and inside out, but nobody sees it because they are blinded by just such fear. If you try to forcibly take people's safety fantasy's, they may actually try to kill you. Evil is that which threatens the ego.

And if you get a few thousand of them together you have a trump rally.

 

[Paratus]

I put as much credence in his synthetic models as i do the often refuted and usually wrong climate models. If you torture the data it will eventually confess to anything.

Well you have certainly...met my expectations....

 

[Jhhnn]

It just feels safer to people who live in fear.

 

[Paratus]

It just feels safer to people who live in fear.

And that would be fine if it did no harm. But instead it makes the situation it's trying to control worse.

It would be like taking the small risk of a severe allergic reaction to take a vaccine but instead of reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease it infected 10-15% more with disease.

 

[1sikbITCH]

And that would be fine if it did no harm. But instead it makes the situation it's trying to control worse.

It would be like taking the small risk of a severe allergic reaction to take a vaccine but instead of reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease it infected 10-15% more with disease.

In the Honor Guard they all carry wooden guns. They look happy enough.

 

[Jhhnn]

And that would be fine if it did no harm. But instead it makes the situation it's trying to control worse.

It would be like taking the small risk of a severe allergic reaction to take a vaccine but instead of reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease it infected 10-15% more with disease.

No arguments from me. All too many firearms enthusiasts went post-truth about gun violence a long time ago. Just say Thanks, NRA!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I put as much credence in his synthetic models as i do the often refuted and usually wrong climate models. If you torture the data it will eventually confess to anything.

yo, tajjy, you ever going answer how you are more American that Barack Obama?

 

[glenn1]

A new study says no.
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/


I believe in a free society that an individual should be allowed to protect oneself. However I personally don't carry because of reasons like this. It makes me, my family, and my community less safe.

I respect your decision not to carry (nor do I) but your logic is faulty. Any correlation is at the aggregate level not individual. Whether you carry or not should have no causal relationship to safety as you control your own actions as an individual, it's not like the firearm has mind control powers forcing you to commit a crime. This is demonstrated by the readily available evidence that those who carry firearms routinely (police officers, military, CCW permit holders) have extremely low crime rates.

Perhaps you could say you were slightly less safe if you carry because of the risk of unintentional discharge, etc. but that's like saying carrying around a penknife or fire extinguisher with you everywhere you go makes you less safe because you could drop it on your toe.

I'd daresay if there is a potential causal relationship to 'right to carry = less safety' it's because while the rate of those who would commit criminal acts with a firearm likely follows a normal distribution, the typical demand curve for carrying firearms is probably far from a normal distribution. Criminals are much more likely to have the motivation to carry (and in turn use firearms for criminal purposes). "Right to carry" is another example like whether to mandate helmets for motorcycle riders where people can come to equally valid but contrary conclusions about whether its a good idea (because it increases individual freedom and rewards those with good behavior) or bad idea (because of the aggregate health and safety impacts due to accidents and 'bad' behavior).

 

[Moonbeam]

I respect your decision not to carry (nor do I) but your logic is faulty. Any correlation is at the aggregate level not individual. Whether you carry or not should have no causal relationship to safety as you control your own actions as an individual, it's not like the firearm has mind control powers forcing you to commit a crime. This is demonstrated by the readily available evidence that those who carry firearms routinely (police officers, military, CCW permit holders) have extremely low crime rates.

Perhaps you could say you were slightly less safe if you carry because of the risk of unintentional discharge, etc. but that's like saying carrying around a penknife or fire extinguisher with you everywhere you go makes you less safe because you could drop it on your toe.

I'd daresay if there is a potential causal relationship to 'right to carry = less safety' it's because while the rate of those who would commit criminal acts with a firearm likely follows a normal distribution, the typical demand curve for carrying firearms is probably far from a normal distribution. Criminals are much more likely to have the motivation to carry (and in turn use firearms for criminal purposes). "Right to carry" is another example like whether to mandate helmets for motorcycle riders where people can come to equally valid but contrary conclusions about whether its a good idea (because it increases individual freedom and rewards those with good behavior) or bad idea (because of the aggregate health and safety impacts due to accidents and 'bad' behavior).

This all makes perfect sense and yet I do not think it matters. I can run probably 90 percent of the stop signs I come to, but if I do so and get caught I will get a ticket and the reason for that is that in the small percentage of times that I would actually have to stop not to kill somebody has been deemed by society to warrant that I stop every time regardless of how much good sense that I have. There is no way in a society to separate out who has good judgment and who does not and to attempt to do so would lead to charges of inequality and subjective judgment. That is why, if a society is scientifically statistically safer with no carry laws, they should be passed. Laws are always a burden to people who innately respect people's rights. Your view I think, is basically elitist on the selfish side.

 

[cytg111]

That is not a straight forward yes or no question though.
For certain values of community, yes, right to carry makes them safer.
For other values of community, no, right to carry does not make them safer.
The question you really want to ask your self is what kind of community do you want and how do you work towards that goal? Removing the right to carry may decrease safety interim but increase safety beyond.

 

[Paladin3]

I conceal carry most days, but understand that greater access to firearms by the average American is not a good thing. Too many folks can't be trusted with a vote, alcohol, drugs, car, firearm, knife or even a pointed stick. There are far more folks in this country who abuse their freedoms than there are folks who act responsibly with them. Those irresponsible idiots ruin it for the rest of us, and it's unfortunate that so many of them demand the right to carry a gun.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I conceal carry most days, but understand that greater access to firearms by the average American is not a good thing. Too many folks can't be trusted with a vote, alcohol, drugs, car, firearm, knife or even a pointed stick. There are far more folks in this country who abuse their freedoms than there are folks who act responsibly with them. Those irresponsible idiots ruin it for the rest of us, and it's unfortunate that so many of them demand the right to carry a gun.

I could never be accused of being pro-gun, but your statement is spot on. :cheers:

 

[shortylickens]

Story time:

I live in a section of the country where a significant portion of adult males are licenced to carry a concealed weapon. In addition to which, there are many people from all walks of life who carry weapons without a permit.

It is not a deterrent.

There still TONS of morons running around attacking people and threatening people as if their lives could not be ended in a split second by either their victim, or some random bystander.

I know this for a fact because on New Years Eve some fool threatened to kill me for talking to his girlfriends at Hooters.
I keep telling dudes when you are talking to someone in Virginia you should behave as if they were carrying a gun, because there's a pretty good chance they are. Mind your manners. Dont fucking threaten them. Dont attack them. Even if its a child and you assume they are not armed, just dont. A wandering grown up might have a weapon and see what you are doing.

Of course, cellular cameras also have not had any effect on people doing stupid shit all over the country. Most Americans still behave as if there were no cameras ever pointed at them at any time. And frankly that kind of stupidity really scares the shit out of me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course, cellular cameras also have not had any effect on people doing stupid shit all over the country. Most Americans still behave as if there were no cameras ever pointed at them at any time. And frankly that kind of stupidity really scares the shit out of me.

Seems like a good thing to me. If somebody kills you there's a good chance we'll catch them.

 

[ivwshane]

Seems like a good thing to me. If somebody kills you there's a good chance we'll catch them.

I'm sure dead shortylickens will rest much easier knowing that his killer will be brought to justice.

You do know there is no after life, right?

 

[cytg111]

I'm sure dead shortylickens will rest much easier knowing that his killer will be brought to justice.

You do know there is no after life, right?

I dont think his point was on guns but on cameras and overwatch in general. That doesnt make it more agreeable of course, the invasion of our privacy on this subject is reaching ridiculus levels.

 

[ivwshane]

I dont think his point was on guns but on cameras and overwatch in general. That doesnt make it more agreeable of course, the invasion of our privacy on this subject is reaching ridiculus levels.

Shortys point was that cameras haven't had a positive affect on peoples behaviors. Moonbeams point was irrelevant to shortys point.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure dead shortylickens will rest much easier knowing that his killer will be brought to justice.

Exactly my point but with a what the f in there so it's more like a realization.

But I would bet that the thought of cameras has to make a difference at least on some occasions.

 

[fskimospy]

I respect your decision not to carry (nor do I) but your logic is faulty. Any correlation is at the aggregate level not individual. Whether you carry or not should have no causal relationship to safety as you control your own actions as an individual, it's not like the firearm has mind control powers forcing you to commit a crime. This is demonstrated by the readily available evidence that those who carry firearms routinely (police officers, military, CCW permit holders) have extremely low crime rates.

Perhaps you could say you were slightly less safe if you carry because of the risk of unintentional discharge, etc. but that's like saying carrying around a penknife or fire extinguisher with you everywhere you go makes you less safe because you could drop it on your toe.

I'd daresay if there is a potential causal relationship to 'right to carry = less safety' it's because while the rate of those who would commit criminal acts with a firearm likely follows a normal distribution, the typical demand curve for carrying firearms is probably far from a normal distribution. Criminals are much more likely to have the motivation to carry (and in turn use firearms for criminal purposes). "Right to carry" is another example like whether to mandate helmets for motorcycle riders where people can come to equally valid but contrary conclusions about whether its a good idea (because it increases individual freedom and rewards those with good behavior) or bad idea (because of the aggregate health and safety impacts due to accidents and 'bad' behavior).

This is also faulty logic as he was talking about aggregate communities, not individuals.

Something important to remember is that when studies have been done about defensive gun use, a large proportion of 'defensive gun use' turned out to be crimes in and of itself.