New Study- Concealed Carry Permits Up, Firearms Deaths Down

[woolfe9999]

What you fail to see is that this SHATTERS the myth started by the Bradys and Handgun Control and all the other gun grabbers: "CCW on demand will increase gun crime and result in wild west shootouts and running gun battles in the streets of cities where it is allowed."

In fact, it not only shatters that fear mongering myth, it results in the exact OPPOSITE: A reduction in gun related crimes.

So, in this case, the correlation IS the ENTIRE point of the argument and proves the gun grabbers 100% wrong. More freedom to keep and bear arms does NOT increase crime. In fact, it directly correlates to a reduction in gun crimes.

So it is the anti-CCW folks who must acknowledge the point that CCW on demand in NO WAY correlates to a rise in gun violence, and directly correlates to reduction in gun violence. Deal with THAT.

First off, I do not favor gun control. I'm on the "right" on this particular issue.

Second, I don't know what myth this correlational data actually "shatters." It might disprove the most hyberolic fear mongering. It doesn't disprove the thesis that CCW on demand will increase gun crime. The problem is that dozens of variables affect crime. Let's say there are 10 variables over time: 8 tend to reduce it and 2 tend to increase it. On net, crime decreases. CCW on demand could be one of the two variables which increase it, but it is outweighed by other variables which decrease it. So no, the simple correlation does not disprove that thesis. Even less so does it PROVE the opposite point as you claim. You are just ignoring the logical objection and repeating the fallacy again. Go back to critical thinking class.

Now, as has been pointed out, there is a book by John Lott, which I understand is controversial and which I have not read, which contains a complex and sophisticated analysis of this issue and which claims to prove causation, i.e. that CCW on demand reduces gun violence. Whatever the merits of that book, Mr. Lott clearly understands that a simple correlation doesn't prove jack shit, which is why he wrote an entire book on the subject, containing models which integrate dozens of variables. Had he premised his argument on the correlation alone, his reasoning would have been so faulty it is doubtful he could have gotten published. Indeed, his reasoning would have been on the level of your typical AP&N troll...

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

The Ft Hood shooter wasn't a criminal in the conventional sense, daishi5. He was deranged, so any attributes assigned to his choice of location for his acts are not apropos. His was not a calculated act in the normal sense of the term.

There's a lot of supposition and extrapolation in your remarks wrt Israel, as well. I think you believe what you want to believe.

The whole bit about "stringent" background checks is an exaggeration, as well. Here in Colorado, it just means you're not a known screw-up. It's not like there's any psychological testing involved, at all. Tim McVeigh likely would have qualified.

http://www.rmgo.org/ccwguide/#Summary

Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorists complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10731/legalizing-concealed-weapons-could-help-prevent-violence/

When three men with machine guns are stopped by one man with a pistol because they didn't know he was armed, only idiots would continue to attack them with machine guns.

The Fort Hood shooter was not a normal shooter no, but his target location was one in which he knew that his targets were going to be unarmed. Any person who is intent on committing a crime, whether for profit or terror is going to do whatever he can to maximize his chance for success. In order to maximize his chance of succeeding, he needs to minimize his victims ability to fight back. Muggers do not mug men who are bigger, or even of equal size. They prey on the weak, and the criminals will always prey on the people that they know are the weakest, because unless the criminal is clincally insane, he wants to succeed.

Furthermore, to the subject of the background check. Florida is the best state I have because it issues the most complete statistics. Since 1987 they have issued 1.7 Million permits, and revoked 167 for the criminal use of a firearm. Less than 1/10th of a percent of the people who pass that background check commit a crime with a gun. I excluded crimes not involving a gun because I don't see how the ability to carry a gun would have an impact on a crime when they didn't have a gun.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/reports.html

I do believe what I want to believe, but I have reasons for what I believe.

 

[daishi5]

First off, I do not favor gun control. I'm on the "right" on this particular issue.

Second, I don't know what myth this correlational data actually "shatters." It might disprove the most hyberolic fear mongering. It doesn't disprove the thesis that CCW on demand will increase gun crime. The problem is that dozens of variables affect crime. Let's say there are 10 variables over time: 8 tend to reduce it and 2 tend to increase it. On net, crime decreases. CCW on demand could be one of the two variables which increase it, but it is outweighed by other variables which decrease it. So no, the simple correlation does not disprove that thesis. Even less so does it PROVE the opposite point as you claim. You are just ignoring the logical objection and repeating the fallacy again. Go back to critical thinking class.

Now, as has been pointed out, there is a book by John Lott, which I understand is controversial and which I have not read, which contains a complex and sophisticated analysis of this issue and which claims to prove causation, i.e. that CCW on demand reduces gun violence. Whatever the merits of that book, Mr. Lott clearly understands that a simple correlation doesn't prove jack shit, which is why he wrote an entire book on the subject, containing models which integrate dozens of variables. Had he premised his argument on the correlation alone, his reasoning would have been so faulty it is doubtful he could have gotten published. Indeed, his reasoning would have been on the level of your typical AP&N troll...

- wolf

If you are interested in a quick overview of the information, the most non-biased source I know of would be the book "FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE" from the National Acadamies of the Sciences.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R1 (this is a free online version of the book from their website, the review is rather short, but it helps to be familiar with stats to understand the debate.)

Lott is covered in Chapter 6, appendix A, B, and D.

Brief overview of their findings, they can confirm Lott's basic findings from his data, several other studies also find similiar effects, but other studies find no effect or even an opposite effect. Furthermore, while almost every test shows a reduction in crime, the effects are almost all statistically insignificant at the 5% level. His original paper covered 1977-1992. The effects he published held true with new data from 1992-2000, but the effects were less pronounced.

However, they do not cover any of the other studies that have found a connection between concealed carry and violent crime.

 

[Amused]

The fact that to obtain a CCW permit the person applying for one has to go through stringent background checks explains why it hasn't led to more gun violence by those with the permit. I still don't see how it would lower gun violence due to the fact that only a extremely small minority of the population have one.

The fact that shall issue states have NOT seen a rise in violence, but in fact, have seen a decline in violence simply shatters the gun grabbers hysteria.

And tiny minority? Arguably, the license holders are a higher % than the % of criminals in each state... and we know what havoc a tiny minority of criminals can cause. Oh, and even a smaller % of each state are law enforcement, yet no one can say they don't have an effect on crime, now can they?

The very fact that victims may be armed are enough to deter criminals. Also, the stats make it perfectly clear that the vast majority of law abiding citizens do not abuse their rights to carry.

CCW holders % in shall issue states:

These are from 2000. In the short time I had, I couldn't find more recent stats. But I think it's safe to say the %s are MUCH higher now.

7.45% South Dakota
6.79% Indiana
6.76% Pennsylvania
5.23% Connecticut
5.12% Washington
4.34% Idaho
4.10% Utah
3.86% Oregon
3.45% Tennessee
3.15% Alabama
2.72% Florida
2.71% Kentucky
2.67% Wyoming
2.41% Maine
2.18% Arkansas
2.11% Virginia
1.94% West Virginia
1.76% Arizona
1.75% Oklahoma
1.70% Montana
1.70% Michigan
1.62% Texas
1.39% South Carolina
1.34% North Dakota
1.00% North Carolina
0.86% Mississippi
0.62% Louisiana
0.58% Nevada
0.45% Minnesota
0.36% Missouri
0.33% Ohio
0.20% Colorado
0.17% New Mexico

 

[umbrella39]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life//

But according to "progressives" we must disarm society for our own safety. I am confused.

Who are these "progressives" you have invented that want my guns? Yeah, lot's of gun grabbing talk lately...

 

[sandorski]

Talk about Fail. All sorts of Crime Rates have fallen over the same period in all sorts of Jurisdictions with wide variations of Gun Laws.

It's simple Demographics....Baby Boomers are getting Older.

 

[irishScott]

Who are these "progressives" you have invented that want my guns? Yeah, lot's of gun grabbing talk lately...

There's no significant gun grabbing talk at the moment because the economy sucks. Meaning A. People want guns and B. Firearm manufacturers/distributors provide a significant number of 100% US jobs, as well as the fact that some of the best guns are made in America. Personally I say we should take advantage of the moment and make guns as reasonably free as we can. Then when the economy picks back up and the gun grabbers don't have anything more important to whine about, we'll have the hard data necessary to prove that they're wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

The fact that shall issue states have NOT seen a rise in violence, but in fact, have seen a decline in violence simply shatters the gun grabbers hysteria.

And tiny minority? Arguably, the license holders are a higher % than the % of criminals in each state... and we know what havoc a tiny minority of criminals can cause. Oh, and even a smaller % of each state are law enforcement, yet no one can say they don't have an effect on crime, now can they?

The very fact that victims may be armed are enough to deter criminals. Also, the stats make it perfectly clear that the vast majority of law abiding citizens do not abuse their rights to carry.

CCW holders % in shall issue states:

These are from 2000. In the short time I had, I couldn't find more recent stats. But I think it's safe to say the %s are MUCH higher now.

7.45% South Dakota
6.79% Indiana
6.76% Pennsylvania
5.23% Connecticut
5.12% Washington
4.34% Idaho
4.10% Utah
3.86% Oregon
3.45% Tennessee
3.15% Alabama
2.72% Florida
2.71% Kentucky
2.67% Wyoming
2.41% Maine
2.18% Arkansas
2.11% Virginia
1.94% West Virginia
1.76% Arizona
1.75% Oklahoma
1.70% Montana
1.70% Michigan
1.62% Texas
1.39% South Carolina
1.34% North Dakota
1.00% North Carolina
0.86% Mississippi
0.62% Louisiana
0.58% Nevada
0.45% Minnesota
0.36% Missouri
0.33% Ohio
0.20% Colorado
0.17% New Mexico

Like I said a small percentage, small enough not to really make a difference. What I do believe makes a difference is that almost all states have mandatory sentences added upon the regular sentences for those who use a gun while committing a crime.

 

[irishScott]

Like I said a small percentage, small enough not to really make a difference. What I do believe makes a difference is that almost all states have mandatory sentences added upon the regular sentences for those who use a gun while committing a crime.

Those numbers are from 2000. It's been 10 years, and numbers have "skyrocketed". I'd double them at least.

 

[Red Dawn]

Those numbers are from 2000. It's been 10 years, and numbers have "skyrocketed". I'd double them at least.

That'd still make them a very small percentage in the vast majority of the country. Wouldn't you think that having added penalties for using a gun while committing a crime would have more effect?

 

[irishScott]

That'd still make them a very small percentage in the vast majority of the country. Wouldn't you think that having added penalties for using a gun while committing a crime would have more effect?

For the short term probably, but the two methods aren't really that separate. You want severe punishment for using a gun in a crime? How about being shot by someone else? (possibly the intended victim). A society where the good guys are as well as if not better armed than the bad guys is quite the peaceful one.

 

[Red Dawn]

For the short term probably, but the two methods aren't really that separate. You want severe punishment for using a gun in a crime? How about being shot by someone else? (possibly the intended victim). A society where the good guys are as well as if not better armed than the bad guys is quite the peaceful one.

That'd be the case if a significant percentage of law abiding citizens had a CCW permit. That's not the case.

 

[Vette73]

This is a common response when the facts dont back a persons beliefs.

FACT people eat more bananas today then 10 years ago
FACT there are more people in the US now then 10 years ago
FACT my wife eats bananas
FACT I got my wife pregnant

correlation, bananas make women more easy to knock up, or at least makes them more horny.


FACTS!!!!


OR...

"global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s.

FACTS!!!

 

[irishScott]

That'd be the case if a significant percentage of law abiding citizens had a CCW permit. That's not the case.

True. I'm not saying this article proves anything definitively; but at the very least it's a strong argument that even radical increases in CCW/CCP holders are at best beneficial and at (unlikely) worst negligibly negative. So why restrict?

 

[Red Dawn]

True. I'm not saying this article proves anything definitively; but at the very least it's a strong argument that even radical increases in CCW/CCP holders are at best beneficial and at (unlikely) worst negligibly negative. So why restrict?

To keep unhinged lunatics from being able to carry concealed fire arms.

 

[sandorski]

True. I'm not saying this article proves anything definitively; but at the very least it's a strong argument that even radical increases in CCW/CCP holders are at best beneficial and at (unlikely) worst negligibly negative. So why restrict?

It's not a strong argument at all. It's actually rather Lame.

 

[irishScott]

To keep unhinged lunatics from being able to carry concealed fire arms.

And said unhinged lunatics are somehow going to magically heed restrictions on concealed carry? I'm on a University campus, a weapon (not just gun, weapon) free zone. If I was one of these lunatics I could easily carry, 24/7/365, quite illegally, and no one would be the wiser until I drew. This would be true if carry was freely allowed or if so much as drawing a fake party gun earned the death penalty.

I'm all for severe punishments for using a gun in a crime, but placing severe restrictions on carrying or owning guns because of an extreme minority of lunatics is like placing mandatory breathalyzers in every car because of drunk drivers. And I should point out that cars are just as if not more dangerous than guns.

And for the record, I'm all for mandatory training to own a certain class of firearm (although IMO whatever firearm(s) you own should never be recorded), and more a few states actually do have required proficiency tests for their CCW/CCP holders. The problem there is the slippery slope argument. Cars are embedded in our society, and are thus immune to such regulations. Guns, not so much.

 

[irishScott]

It's not a strong argument at all. It's actually rather Lame.

Concealed carry and gun sales have skyrocketed. Not just gone up or fluctuated, skyrocketed. Crime rate has gone down drastically. Sure it's not enough to write an article for a scientific journal, but common sense and Occam's Razor says that at the very least an extreme increase in the amount of guns is not hurting anything. To say otherwise is to assume a more complicated solution without any evidence, hard or otherwise (that I know about anyway). With all due respect, that implies twisting waht evidence there is to suit one's world view. I've done it at times too, common defense tactic in debate where the main supports are theoretical, and the theory starts to drift towards the other side.

 

[sandorski]

Concealed carry and gun sales have skyrocketed. Not just gone up or fluctuated, skyrocketed. Crime rate has gone down drastically. Sure it's not enough to write an article for a scientific journal, but common sense and Occam's Razor says that at the very least an extreme increase in the amount of guns is not hurting anything. To say otherwise is to assume a more complicated solution without any evidence, hard or otherwise (that I know about anyway). With all due respect, that implies twisting waht evidence there is to suit one's world view. I've done it at times too, common defense tactic in debate where the main supports are theoretical, and the theory starts to drift towards the other side.

Negative. Other factors are far more involved, like the Demographic factor I posted earlier. Crime Rates are falling throughout the Western World. Subsequently, The Baby Boom Generation is aging throughout the Western World.

 

[Red Dawn]

Just for the sake of argument (I'm not advocating it), if all fire arms were banned don't you think gun violence would go down significantly?

 

[irishScott]

Negative. Other factors are far more involved, like the Demographic factor I posted earlier. Crime Rates are falling throughout the Western World. Subsequently, The Baby Boom Generation is aging throughout the Western World.

All true. But we're talking about the effects of concealed carry and firearm ownership on violent crime in the US.

There's theoretical (and arguably concrete) evidence that, in the US at least, concealed carry permit holders reduce crime. There have been multiple situations where a concealed carry permit holder could have saved lives, and multiple situations where they have. There is no known evidence, concrete or otherwise, where an increase in concealed carry permit holders lead to an increase in gun crime.

Now what can you say for the opposition? (pro gun-restriction). Are there situations, in the US, (Europe is far different culturally, demographically, and geographically in the case of Britain) where restrictions on concealed firearms or firearm ownership have definitively or even correlationally reduced violent crime? Have there been any situations where, had gun laws been stricter (note stricter does not mean more effective in many cases), the bad guy in question would have been stopped from acquiring a firearm and carrying out his deed? Have there been any recorded incidents where strict gun laws, definitively, have saved lives? (ie: has any criminal come forward and sad: "yeah I would have used a gun, but laws are so strict I couldn't get one")

 

[irishScott]

Just for the sake of argument (I'm not advocating it), if all fire arms were banned don't you think gun violence would go down significantly?

Not in the US. We're too large and not an island (pre-empting the inevitable British example) The District of Columbia is an excellent example. The black market would explode. The only thing gun prohibition would do (and does IMO) is take guns out of the hands of good people. Gun violence might very well go up. Unless you blatantly trample the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and make so much as possessing a gun exact extreme punishment, severe gun restrictions, IMO, won't do jack.

 

[daishi5]

Negative. Other factors are far more involved, like the Demographic factor I posted earlier. Crime Rates are falling throughout the Western World. Subsequently, The Baby Boom Generation is aging throughout the Western World.

So, while we have prison studies where inmates state that the possibility of victims being armed strongly influences their decisions, and statistics showing that CCW rates impact crime, you say we are wrong because you have see a correlation between crime and age?

 

[daishi5]

Just for the sake of argument (I'm not advocating it), if all fire arms were banned don't you think gun violence would go down significantly?

Yes, if we banned all guns, then gun violence would probably go down.

Here is a counter question, if we ban all guns, and gun violence goes down, but total violence goes up by a much larger amount, have we done a good or a bad thing?

 

[irishScott]

So, while we have prison studies where inmates state that the possibility of victims being armed strongly influences their decisions, and statistics showing that CCW rates impact crime, you say we are wrong because you have see a correlation between crime and age?

Well to be fair, the statistics are, at least in the OP's article, correlational. If we're going to submit those as valid, we might as well take equally correlational arguments from the other side.

Don't get me wrong if there's a valid study with hard numbers out there proving that CCW/CCP lowers crime that I don't know about I'll be the first to shout down the baby boomer argument. 😉