New Study- Concealed Carry Permits Up, Firearms Deaths Down

[irishScott]

So if you could murder and get away with it you would? Getting caught it your only deterrent?

Re-read what he posted. He said he had "numerous" deterrents.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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?

Not that I disagree with your point, but let's really see the numbers.

If we call it roughly 5% overall (some double that, some less), it works out to be about 10 million people carrying a concealed weapon at any given time (accounting for age, prohibited persons, etc). While 10 million is a fairly small percentage of the total nation, it's a LOT of armed citizens.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

The only reason overall crime rates are reducing is because America, which has long been a high crime nation, is experiencing significant crime rate drops. Other areas, like the UK, are experiencing radically increasing crime rates.

Just pointing out broad numbers sometimes tell us less than narrow numbers.

 

[daishi5]

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

First, snopes states that the number of people killed and robbed with firearms has been going down, but notes that the crime rates themselves did not go down.

And, from http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx it appears that my information is old. So, I was wrong about the crime rate going up. The crime rate rose after the gun ban in 1997, and then went back down after 2003. I got caught by a short term variance from the actual trend. The murder rate is following a trend that existed for almost 10 years before the ban, so the ban did not lower murders. It did, however, lower firearm murders, so I may have to revise my original question.

If we lower firearm deaths, but for every person not shot to death, someone is stabbed or beaten to death, have we gained anything?

 

[Amused]

Not that I disagree with your point, but let's really see the numbers.

If we call it roughly 5% overall (some double that, some less), it works out to be about 10 million people carrying a concealed weapon at any given time (accounting for age, prohibited persons, etc). While 10 million is a fairly small percentage of the total nation, it's a LOT of armed citizens.

5% is higher than the % of cops in the country. Firemen too.

And for social ideas: Only 2% are Jewish, and 5-10% are gay.

Yet those "tiny minorities" of cops, firemen, Jewish and gay cultures have a very dramatic impact on society. Without the tiny minority of cops and firemen we would have complete chaos. Without Jewish and gay culture we would be a very different (and boring) society.

Never underestimate the power and impact of a "tiny minority."

 

[PrinceofWands]

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?

If you outright ban guns it would result in world war.

The ban would immediately cause a total revolution in the United States. Millions would die, the infrastructure would be destroyed, the markets would collapse, etc. This would spill over into the global market.

I think what you wanted to say is: if you waved a magic wand and made all firearms disappear instantly, and no new ones could be made, the number of firearm crimes/injuries/death would certainly go down.

But other types of crimes/injuries/deaths would increase to largely to fill the void, so nothing much is gained. Moreover, you'd lose the hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses every year...meaning those persons who relied upon the gun as a force equalizer would suddenly be victimized rather than stopping it. In other words, you might actually see an overall increase of those negative numbers.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Read it again. He said murder RATE.

It's true his numbers wouldn't be a direct multiple, but they would increase significantly since for the most part more people means more crime. So not only total numbers, but the rate itself will increase as the population goes up.

Then look at homogeneity, racism, social programs, drug abuse, etc. If there are fewer people by a factor of 10, less opposed demographic groups, less '-isms', less drug abuse, more available social programs, etc...then you've probably accounted for most of the crime/violence rates without even looking at weapons.

 

[spidey07]

That'd make sense if there were a significant percentage of people with CCW permits but there's not

You're a criminal. Now stick your hand in this box. It may or may not contain the most poisonous snake on the planet. Your choice - do stick your hand in or not?

 

[sandorski]

The only reason overall crime rates are reducing is because America, which has long been a high crime nation, is experiencing significant crime rate drops. Other areas, like the UK, are experiencing radically increasing crime rates.

Just pointing out broad numbers sometimes tell us less than narrow numbers.

You sure about that?

 

[sandorski]

It's true his numbers wouldn't be a direct multiple, but they would increase significantly since for the most part more people means more crime. So not only total numbers, but the rate itself will increase as the population goes up.

Then look at homogeneity, racism, social programs, drug abuse, etc. If there are fewer people by a factor of 10, less opposed demographic groups, less '-isms', less drug abuse, more available social programs, etc...then you've probably accounted for most of the crime/violence rates without even looking at weapons.

With all these various factors that *might* be part of things, how can one attribute 1 factor(CC in this thread) as to being the reason?

 

[irishScott]

With all these various factors that *might* be part of things, how can one attribute 1 factor(CC in this thread) as to being the reason?

One can't. But at the same time you can't even pseudo conclusively that it has a negative influence. We at least have actual studies in our favor. The conclusiveness is arguable, but they're there. Interesting that I've only heard of one study in passing (via this thread) that's shown the opposite. Looking it up is on my to do list. 🙂

 

[daishi5]

One can't. But at the same time you can't even pseudo conclusively that it has a negative influence. We at least have actual studies in our favor. The conclusiveness is arguable, but they're there. Interesting that I've only heard of one study in passing (via this thread) that's shown the opposite. Looking it up is on my to do list. 🙂

Your best bet is to look at the Brady center for handgun violence website. If there is a study that shows CCW is bad, they will have a link.

 

[sandorski]

One can't. But at the same time you can't even pseudo conclusively that it has a negative influence. We at least have actual studies in our favor. The conclusiveness is arguable, but they're there. Interesting that I've only heard of one study in passing (via this thread) that's shown the opposite. Looking it up is on my to do list. 🙂

..and that "Study" is very weak.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You sure about that?

Pretty much. Page 14.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Since 1960 a 550% increase in crime. Yes, the last few years have shown some areas reduced, but others rose or stayed high. Also note there are periodic changes in what's included in each crime category, how the numbers are reported, etc.

Just look at some of the other info on the numbers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/Graph03.JPG

A one year (or even two in some categories) drop won't even touch the levels of victimization in the UK.

 

[sandorski]

Pretty much. Page 14.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Since 1960 a 550% increase in crime. Yes, the last few years have shown some areas reduced, but others rose or stayed high. Also note there are periodic changes in what's included in each crime category, how the numbers are reported, etc.

Just look at some of the other info on the numbers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/Graph03.JPG

A one year (or even two in some categories) drop won't even touch the levels of victimization in the UK.

"
But last October it emerged that levels of violent crime in England and Wales had been underestimated for more than a decade because of a blunder in recording methods.
Ministers admitted that some police forces had not been recording offences of grievous bodily harm with intent as serious violent crime. When the offences were included violent crime figures immediately increased by a fifth."


There's your "Dramatic" increase right there. Partially anyway. They seem to attribute a decline in Social Programs for much of it. In short, Gun Control has little to nothing to do with it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

With all these various factors that *might* be part of things, how can one attribute 1 factor(CC in this thread) as to being the reason?

I don't believe I ever did.

However, we can look at comparisons over time for one country, rather than the more difficult attempt to compare two different countries.

What has changed in the US in the last 30 years? Drugs still out of control, social programs still lacking, violence in all media forms increasing, church affiliation stagnant or decreasing in most areas, more hatred among demographic groups, higher population, more diversity, higher unemployment, less benefits, higher costs of living...and yet even with ALL of that crime is dropping despite widespread increases in firearm ownership and concealed carry prevalence.

Did CC CAUSE the crime reduction? Maybe, or maybe not...but we can be basically 100% assured that it in no way inhibited it...hence there is no appreciable danger/down side of properly implemented private firearm ownership/use.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Your best bet is to look at the Brady center for handgun violence website. If there is a study that shows CCW is bad, they will have a link.

No, your best bet is the National Academy of Sciences. Here's why:

Brady has one goal, and one goal only, with basically no oversight or peer-review.

The NAS, while largely liberal, is forced to adhere to academic standards in research and is tasked with serving national interest broadly, and not a specific policy goal (except maybe increasing funding to the sciences). The study they performed was by far the largest ever undertaken. It reviewed every available source at the time, and despite being funded by EXTREME anti-gun forces with that outcome in mind, they were unable to find a single positive impact from any form of gun control. That pretty much says it all right there.

 

[sandorski]

I don't believe I ever did.

However, we can look at comparisons over time for one country, rather than the more difficult attempt to compare two different countries.

What has changed in the US in the last 30 years? Drugs still out of control, social programs still lacking, violence in all media forms increasing, church affiliation stagnant or decreasing in most areas, more hatred among demographic groups, higher population, more diversity, higher unemployment, less benefits, higher costs of living...and yet even with ALL of that crime is dropping despite widespread increases in firearm ownership and concealed carry prevalence.

Did CC CAUSE the crime reduction? Maybe, or maybe not...but we can be basically 100% assured that it in no way inhibited it...hence there is no appreciable danger/down side of properly implemented private firearm ownership/use.

Not exactly. If you meant a CC Program, then sure, but nothing in that really addresses Gun Ownership and its' affects on Society/Crime.

 

[PrinceofWands]

"
But last October it emerged that levels of violent crime in England and Wales had been underestimated for more than a decade because of a blunder in recording methods.
Ministers admitted that some police forces had not been recording offences of grievous bodily harm with intent as serious violent crime. When the offences were included violent crime figures immediately increased by a fifth."


There's your "Dramatic" increase right there. Partially anyway. They seem to attribute a decline in Social Programs for much of it. In short, Gun Control has little to nothing to do with it.

From a causal standpoint perhaps not. But again: country with harsh controls shows exploding crime, country with exploding gun rights shows declining crime. Conclusion: gun control doesn't help, even if gun ownership doesn't either.

 

[sandorski]

From a causal standpoint perhaps not. But again: country with harsh controls shows exploding crime, country with exploding gun rights shows declining crime. Conclusion: gun control doesn't help, even if gun ownership doesn't either.

Incorrect Conclusion. Could be Coffee or Tea consumption, or who has the oddest Accent, etc.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Not exactly. If you meant a CC Program, then sure, but nothing in that really addresses Gun Ownership and its' affects on Society/Crime.

It pretty much defeats any attempts to link increasing gun ownership, more powerful weapons, concealed carry, empowered self-defense standards, or any related arguments to any form of crime/violence/harms.

The beauty of a free society is that we don't need to provide reasons to have a liberty (in theory). The other side has to show support for taking them away or not granting them. This shows there are absolutely none.

So turn all of their focus to addressing the possible correlates to their purpose (which, I can tell you for nothing are going to be ses issues and social programs).

 

[Perknose]

libs can't stand the fact that they are proven wrong once again. Self reliance simply goes against their philosophy of benevolent government dependence, so it needs to be stamped out in all it's forms.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE before spewing your lazy-assed, red-faced bullshit.

FROM THE OP'S ARTICLE:

But even with the push to expand concealed-carry rights now in its third decade, no scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movement’s effect on crime or personal safety.

Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.

You didn't even bother to read the article that is the topic of this thread.

You should be embarrassed.

Are you?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Incorrect Conclusion. Could be Coffee or Tea consumption, or who has the oddest Accent, etc.

The only way the conclusion can be shown to be incorrect is if you can demonstrate that the crime/violence increases would have been worse without gun control, but we can see from international comparisons at least that no such support exists.

Again, the entire academy of science (any one of whom is smarter and more knowledgeable than every person on this forum combined) was unable to find a single positive impact from gun control. It's a done deal.

 

[sandorski]

It pretty much defeats any attempts to link increasing gun ownership, more powerful weapons, concealed carry, empowered self-defense standards, or any related arguments to any form of crime/violence/harms.

The beauty of a free society is that we don't need to provide reasons to have a liberty (in theory). The other side has to show support for taking them away or not granting them. This shows there are absolutely none.

So turn all of their focus to addressing the possible correlates to their purpose (which, I can tell you for nothing are going to be ses issues and social programs).

This is still incorrect. It shows that CC has not made things worse, but it does not show that Strict Gun Control would not be significantly better.

 

[daishi5]

No, your best bet is the National Academy of Sciences. Here's why:

Brady has one goal, and one goal only, with basically no oversight or peer-review.

The NAS, while largely liberal, is forced to adhere to academic standards in research and is tasked with serving national interest broadly, and not a specific policy goal (except maybe increasing funding to the sciences). The study they performed was by far the largest ever undertaken. It reviewed every available source at the time, and despite being funded by EXTREME anti-gun forces with that outcome in mind, they were unable to find a single positive impact from any form of gun control. That pretty much says it all right there.

I already linked to that study earlier in the thread. IrishScott said he was interested in the study that indicated CCW was bad, the only one I know of was funded by the Brady group, so if he wants to find that study, I think they will have it.

I am not claiming the study is good, merely suggesting the easiest way to find it so he can judge it on its own merits.