South Carolina legislature considering guns on campus

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'll take that as a "No, even though I support this legislation, I have no f'ing idea if it'll work or not."

Why not try a little common sense. If the mere presence of firearms makes people violent, then gun shows, gun clubs, and shooting ranges should be the most violent places in the country. When is the last time you heard about someone going in shooting rampage in one of those locations? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't happen. Mass shootings these days happen at schools. Places where shooters know that everyone will be unarmed.

Hey, mass shootings don't happen in countries where gun ownership is nil or none either. Japan? England? Where's your "common sense" now?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JD50
I wasn't talking about you personally, it was more directed towards all of the people that say the same damn thing everytime these threads come up and don't even bother looking at the facts, my mistake. Why don't you clarify your stance on this issue then?

Also, I'm not assuming that more CCWs are going to make us safer, the studies that I have seen show that CCWs do help reduce the crime rate. But it does look to me like you are ASSUMING that they won't make us any safer.

Well, when you say "you" it sure sounds like you're talking about me. That seems a given, no?

Anyway, you'd be wrong to assume that as well! I never said anything of the like, but then I haven't seen any studies that weren't funded by the NRA (or similar groups) that support CCWs and determine that they do reduce crime rates.

In case you can't tell, my beef with this whole discussion is that gun-rights advocates like yourself and Boberfett, immediately jump to support this sort of legislation, when you really have no idea if it will help ... or even worse, if it'll make things worse.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'll take that as a "No, even though I support this legislation, I have no f'ing idea if it'll work or not."

Why not try a little common sense. If the mere presence of firearms makes people violent, then gun shows, gun clubs, and shooting ranges should be the most violent places in the country. When is the last time you heard about someone going in shooting rampage in one of those locations? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't happen. Mass shootings these days happen at schools. Places where shooters know that everyone will be unarmed.

Hey, mass shootings don't happen in countries where gun ownership is nil or none either. Japan? England? Where's your "common sense" now?

Yep, but here in the US we have a little thing known as the 2nd Amendment, so guns aren't going away. Concealed carry just insures that the law abiding citizens are able to able to defend themselves.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'll take that as a "No, even though I support this legislation, I have no f'ing idea if it'll work or not."

Why not try a little common sense. If the mere presence of firearms makes people violent, then gun shows, gun clubs, and shooting ranges should be the most violent places in the country. When is the last time you heard about someone going in shooting rampage in one of those locations? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't happen. Mass shootings these days happen at schools. Places where shooters know that everyone will be unarmed.

Hey, mass shootings don't happen in countries where gun ownership is nil or none either. Japan? England? Where's your "common sense" now?

Yep, but here in the US we have a little thing known as the 2nd Amendment, so guns aren't going away. Concealed carry just insures that the law abiding citizens are able to able to defend themselves.

Sure thing, why don't you get back to me when you have some evidence that supports Concealed Carry Laws will magically make everyone safer? Otherwise, I haven't seen a whole lot of "common sense" that dictates we should allow gun owners to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[DealMonkey]

And for the record, I strongly support gun ownership, so you both can knock off the idiotic straw man thing now.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Stupid. We should have let the South secede. Moron legislature.

Want to try again? 🙂😉

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Exodor
Good idea. After all, highly armed societies are always stable and violence-free.

Like Iraq. Or Somalia.

You have a point, though wouldn't those with itchy trigger fingers be culled out rather quickly?

 

[techs]

Here's one thing I am absolutely sure of. The odds of you getting killed if you have a handgun in your home your home is many, many, many times greater than the odds of you being killed by an intruder because you didn't have a handgun in your home.
I don't have a link, but you can look it up.

And as to the idiotic idea that when people have ccw they will of course go home and leave it there before they decide to have a drink on or or off campus, is about as looney as the idea that people actually drive better drunk

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: techs
Here's one thing I am absolutely sure of. The odds of you getting killed if you have a handgun in your home your home is many, many, many times greater than the odds of you being killed by an intruder because you didn't have a handgun in your home.
I don't have a link, but you can look it up.

And as to the idiotic idea that when people have ccw they will of course go home and leave it there before they decide to have a drink on or or off campus, is about as looney as the idea that people actually drive better drunk

Are you dumb? Yes, people that have CCW are generally responsible people that do not take their firearm to a bar, its illegal and just not a wise thing to do. Stop making idiotic assumptions of something you know absolutely nothing about. But what point are you trying to make, that someone with a CCW is going to carry their weapon on campus whether it is illegal or not, so it really doesn't matter? Are you also arguing against owning a handgun at all? You are all over the place here.

BTW, I think you'll find that a lot of people that have a CCW permit do not carry their weapon everywhere that they go. I didn't when I was a cop....

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Tell me this - is there a study, some research or any evidence whatsoever that supports the notion that CCW make our society any safer? Or stop actual crimes in a substantial way? Links please.

Linky

Gary Kleck, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), a book widely cited in the national gun-control debate. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Kleck revealed some preliminary results of the National Self- Defense Survey which he and his colleague Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993. Though he stresses that the results of the survey are preliminary and subject to future revision, Kleck is satisfied that the survey's results confirm his analysis of previous surveys which show that American civilians commonly use their privately-owned firearms to defend themselves against criminal attacks, and that such defensive uses significantly outnumber the criminal uses of firearms in America. The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year

Linky

OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP -- A Kalamazoo man was able to turn an attempted attack around because of his concealed weapons permit.

The Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department says 32-year-old Brian Smith was approached by two men as he was entering his apartment on Mt. Royal Drive just before 2 a.m. Friday.

One of the suspects asked Smith for directions to Kalamazoo Valley Community College and then pulled out a revolver. Smith pulled out his revolver to defend himself and fired two shots, hitting the suspect in his left hand.

Both of the suspects fled the scene on foot. The wounded suspect was arrested a short time later while trying to get medical attention

Linky
More studies on gunes etc referenced

 

[DealMonkey]

Here's some info too:

Executive Summary

For years, the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups have devoted enormous resources to convincing state legislatures that loosening the restrictions on the concealed carrying of weapons (CCW) would make their states and their citizens safer. Next legislative session, it is anticipated that several states will consider National Rifle Association backed legislation that would allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state.

The gun lobby has contended for years that more guns make for less crime. That slogan is actually the paraphrased title of a book by Dr. John Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago, which claims that greatly easing restrictions on concealed-carry handguns led to large decreases in crime. Although flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature ? and his findings dismissed by a growing list of prominent researchers ? the gun lobby successfully used it to persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions in the mid-90's.

This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as follows:

* For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen ? but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities.

* Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

* Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much ? by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.

* Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%.

Link

So now who are we supposed to believe?

 

[NoShangriLa]

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

Why would you be afraid of your teacher because they had a concealed weapon? If they were truly a dangerous person, do you really think that not having a license to carry would prevent them from doing so?

You gun fearing cowards are so illogical.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Link

So now who are we supposed to believe?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648703/posts">The Effects of Concealed Carry, and the Research of
John Lott and Others -- A Look At Both Sides</a>

...

The very few who claimed they did find a detrimental effect either found effects so small they weren't sure they existed, or potential benefits as well, or their studies don't stand up to anywhere near the level of scrutiny leveled at the research by Lott and Mustard.

After weeks of searching, I was only able to find one academic paper that uses sophisticated statistical analysis and makes a clear claim that concealed carry laws actually increase crime. 13 studies found a reduction. I did also find 2 or 3 studies where the researchers thought concealed carry might increase some crimes. The 1995 Wiersema Loftin McDowall study was one; however, this study also notes a slight benefit for homicides.

On the negative side also is an apparently non-academic-level paper from Handgun Control / Brady Campaign. While I've referenced this paper below, it does not appear to meet even the most elementary standards for a serious academic study, let alone approach the sophistication of the study by John Lott and David Mustard. This "study" is the only one published semi-anonymously -- that is, without the actual name or names of any specific researchers. It was not peer-reviewed; there is no appearance that any statistical analysis was done at all, and there is no hint that they controlled for any other possible factors (although Lott and others who find benefits are apparently required to control for every other possible factor that might explain their results.) In addition, there is some question (from Lott) about whether the Brady people even had the dates correct on the data they used.

To make matters worse, the publishing organization has a direct financial interest in the "results," since they are by definition a gun control advocacy organization, and they raise all of their funding on that basis.

To look a bit further, the Brady Campaign paper makes absolutely no mention of homicides. Why not? My own simple analysis of States that passed concealed carry legislation (probably much like theirs, but using the Centers for Disease Control data) showed virtually no noticeable effect on overall homicides after passage of a right-to-carry law. Statistically, what I saw (a 0.4% "increase" in homicides) would have been absolutely insignificant, especially given the huge number of other factors that weren't controlled for.3 It appears that being open and forthcoming about homicides does not support the agenda of the paper's publishers.

I have therefore not counted this paper among the academic-quality papers.

It is not true, however, that the several hours I spent crunching numbers really demonstrates anything one way or the other. What is actually needed to get at the truth is a large, careful study, using advanced statistical techniques with a massive data set, controlling for the many factors that I made no effort to control for. This, in fact, is just what Lott and Mustard did.

Finally, (returning to the Brady Campaign paper), it's rather hard to take seriously a "study" by any organization that continues to make the claim that "9 children a day are killed by firearms," when 48% of these "children" are old enough to vote, live independently, sign legal contracts, and serve in the armed forces -- and fewer than 8% of their "children" are actually aged 12 and below.4 (Furthermore, a significant number of these -- perhaps close to a third -- are murdered by adult relatives. It's rather difficult to see how "child access prevention" laws are going to help these.)

In the wake of years of criticism for this practice, Brady Campaign / Million Mom March does seem to be changing their presentation at least partly to refer to "children and youth" instead, but in order to actually drop the obvious use of misleading statements, they would need to change every representation of these statistics to "teens and children" -- because that's what they're talking about: teenagers up to age 20, plus a few children.

The only academic study that claimed to directly demonstrate any definite adverse effects for concealed carry was the paper by researchers Hashem Dezhbaksh & Paul Rubin.

They claimed detrimental effects from concealed carry not in homicides, nor in rapes, but only in the number of robberies. My initial view, after doing some research on what we know about concealed-carry permit holders, was that this was a highly suspect result. William Sturdevant found, for example, in a 53-page study of Texas Concealed Handgun License holders, that:

"... the average Texan is 1.3 times (rate of 5.2 v. 4.0) more likely to be arrested for murder; 42 times... more likely to be arrested for rape; 48 times... more likely to be arrested for robbery; 2.2 times... more likely to be arrested for aggravated assault; and 7.6 times... more likely to be arrested for other assaults than the average CHL holder." (emphasis mine)5
The explanation for the obviously enormous gulf between robbery and rape against murder and assault is quite simple: when somebody uses a gun in Texas, lawfully or not, they get arrested. If a permit holder kills or wounds an attacker, he or she gets arrested. Therefore the assault and murder arrest rates would appear to include quite a high percentage of incidents of permit holders using their weapons lawfully in self-defense. It would be far more accurate to base a study on conviction rates, but there is not yet enough of this information for it to be statistically significant. However, even with the odds stacked against them statistically, permit holders still come out a lot better than the general public.5 The assertion that permit holders, overall, are "quite a law-abiding bunch" is obviously true.

In reality, though, Dezhbaksh and Rubin aren't arguing that permit holders commit a lot of robberies ? only, if I understand them correctly, that license-to-carry laws also give robbers a bit more opportunity to carry weapons. However, Dezhbaksh and Rubin also find a small decrease in murders.

They further attempt to predict effects of concealed carry legislation for specific states. For Missouri, they would predict no effect on homicides, small to moderate decreases in the most violent kinds of other crimes (rape and serious assaults), and small to smallish increases in robbery, burglary, and auto theft. This, incidentally, is not very much different from what Lott finds; only Dezhbaksh & Rubin maintain that the effects are much smaller.

I personally find the decreases in murder, rape and serious assault (crimes in which victims always get hurt) to be more important than increases in robbery, burglary & auto theft. But to be conservative, one might put Dezhbaksh & Rubin in the "little or no effect" category. This is apparently where Rubin puts himself. And in spite of these findings, Dezhbaksh seems to still feel that "concealed carry is detrimental" -- so I have put him in that category.

Conclusion: The entire weight of scholarly consensus is that right-to-carry laws, on balance, do no harm -- and such laws may save lives and reduce violent crime.

...

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

Why would you be afraid of your teacher because they had a concealed weapon? If they were truly a dangerous person, do you really think that not having a license to carry would prevent them from doing so?

You gun fearing cowards are so illogical.

Do you really think that educator with guns make school ground safer?

It is like saying that cop with guns make America a safer country.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

Why would you be afraid of your teacher because they had a concealed weapon? If they were truly a dangerous person, do you really think that not having a license to carry would prevent them from doing so?

You gun fearing cowards are so illogical.

Do you really think that educator with guns make school ground safer?

It is like saying that cop with guns make America a safer country.

😕

Are you saying the police shouldn't carry guns?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

I personally think both teachers and students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, but I think a good compromise would be adding some type of restriction on exactly who can carry. Especially for teachers since there are so few of them which means much higher chances of one carrying a weapon as opposed to a random student. I think in order to carry concealed weapons on school campuses one must be put through tough physical tests (last thing we want is a teacher who is easily overpowered by their student) and psychological tests (well ok actually the real last thing we want is an emotionally unstable teacher with a gun, heh).

Not sure how well current CCW permit tests cover this (I have no idea), but I think this would be the best type of compromise for this issue.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

Why would you be afraid of your teacher because they had a concealed weapon? If they were truly a dangerous person, do you really think that not having a license to carry would prevent them from doing so?

You gun fearing cowards are so illogical.

Do you really think that educator with guns make school ground safer?

It is like saying that cop with guns make America a safer country.

😕

Are you saying the police shouldn't carry guns?

Yes!

I'm saying that the gun slinging culture of America do not make its country safer than the rest of the world with out gun.

In many country the cops do not carry gun, however crimes with gun will be met with much greater force by the police (with much more guns) than crimes with out guns.

School is a place for knowledge and exchange of innovated ideas, and teacher with guns make it seemingly a correction/holding institution for youth.

 

[BoberFett]

Wow, another freak. What is it about gun laws that turns people into nuts? You gun grabbers remind me of religious whackjobs speaking in tongues. There's a constant stream of sounds coming from your mouths, but none of it makes any sense.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

Why would you be afraid of your teacher because they had a concealed weapon? If they were truly a dangerous person, do you really think that not having a license to carry would prevent them from doing so?

You gun fearing cowards are so illogical.

Do you really think that educator with guns make school ground safer?

It is like saying that cop with guns make America a safer country.

😕

Are you saying the police shouldn't carry guns?

Yes!

I'm saying that the gun slinging culture of America do not make its country safer than the rest of the world with out gun.

In many country the cops do not carry gun, however crimes with gun will be met with much greater force by the police (with much more guns) than crimes with out guns.

School is a place for knowledge and exchange of innovated ideas, and teacher with guns make it seemingly a correction/holding institution for youth.

You want to disarm me? You actually want to disarm the police in this society? You really want to see open season on cops, don't you?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648703/posts">The Effects of Concealed Carry, and the Research of
John Lott and Others -- A Look At Both Sides</a>

Well, there is plenty of criticism of Lott's research, some of it from Lott himself:

Q: What are the indications that Lott's study of changes in concealed carry laws is flawed?

A: Apart from the obvious mistakes (e.g., Lott's inability to accurately identify when states changed their carry laws), several researchers have shown that small changes in the statistical models Lott uses to reach his conclusions result in large changes in his findings - an important indication that his research is fundamentally flawed. Researchers who have reanalyzed Lott's data, for example, found no beneficial impact from changes in carry laws when Florida was not included in the study, or when they restricted their analysis to counties that had populations greater than 100,000 people.

Q: Doesn't Lott implicitly acknowledge that his work is fundamentally flawed because he does not account for other factors which could affect both the crime rate and the decision by state legislators to change carry laws?

A: Yes. On page 153 of More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "The more serious possibility is that some other factor may have caused both the reduction in crime rates and the passage of the law to occur at the same time." And he goes on to write that "For a critic to attack the paper, the correct approach would have been to state what variables were not included in the analysis." Well, this has been done.

Critics of Lott's study have identified a number of factors that affect crime rates, but which Lott failed to address in his research. Examples include changes in how the police go about their business (e.g., implementation of community policing, and crime-mapping techniques used by some police departments), changes in poverty levels, gang activity, maturation of the drug market, and other changes in gun laws.

Most important, in a paper published in the Journal of Legal Studies (January 1998), Dan Black and Daniel Nagin used a well known, formal statistical test that proved that Lott failed to include a number of important variables in his study. On the basis of this and other findings, Drs. Black and Nagin, along with Professor Jens Ludwig, concluded that "there is absolutely no credible evidence to support the idea that permissive concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime," and that "it would be a mistake to formulate policy based on the findings from Dr. Lott's study."

To this day, John Lott has failed to provide any statistical evidence of his own that counters Black and Nagin's finding that Lott's conclusions are inappropriately attributed to changes in concealed carry laws. Until Lott can do this, it is inappropriate for him to continue to claim that allowing more people to carry concealed handguns causes a drop in violent crime.

Q: Is it true that John Lott's findings have been dismissed by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who is cited as an authority on gun violence research by Lott and whose work is routinely praised by the NRA?

A: Yes. Kleck has accepted the Black and Nagin critique, writing in his new book that Lott's thesis "could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. [More] likely, the declines in crime, coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott and Mustard analysis" (Targeting Guns; p. 372).

Q: John Lott claims that changing the law to allow more people to carry concealed handguns causes a fall in violent crime, yet he finds virtually no beneficial effect from changes in handgun carry laws on robbery - the crime most likely to occur between strangers, and in public spaces. Is this finding consistent with his theory - does it make sense?

A: No, it does not make sense. In fact, the finding that changes in concealed carry laws result in a large drop in rape - a crime most often committed within homes by someone who is known to the victim - while showing virtually no beneficial impact on robbery is another indication that Lott's study is fundamentally flawed.

In scientific terminology, the basic criticism made of Lott's research is that the statistical model he used to reach his conclusions is "misspecified." This means, in part, that he did not adequately account for other factors which have an impact on crime rates - and which provide an alternate explanations for his findings. When a statistical model is misspecified, it cannot be used as the basis from which to draw conclusions about the impact of policy decisions. One clue that a model is misspecified is if it produces implausible findings.

Q: Are there other implausible findings in Lott's research?

A: Yes there are. For example, Lott claims that when states ease restrictions on concealed carry laws, criminals do not stop committing crimes - instead, they switch to crimes that decrease the likelihood that they will come in contact with an armed victim. Specifically, he finds that criminals stop committing rape, murder and aggravated assault, and start stealing cars and committing larceny. That is - they substitute auto theft and knocking off coin-operated machines for rape and murder.

Does anyone really believe that auto theft is a substitute for rape or for murder? Lott's research also suggests that the presence of elderly black women in the population is associated with higher rates of murder and auto theft despite the fact that these women are neither perpetrators nor victims of these types of crime.

Q: I'm confused-isn't it true that there is very little, if any, evidence that changes in carry laws have an impact on actual gun carrying?

A: True. One of the biggest mysteries is how changes in carry laws effects changes the risk that a criminal predator will confront an armed victim. Survey research suggests that the percentage of people who report carrying a gun, at least some of the time, exceeds the percentage of people who have a license to carry a gun. And even if the odds did change, why wouldn't criminals respond by becoming more likely to carry a gun themselves, more likely to shoot their victims, and more likely to attack from behind. Certainly, this is more likely to happen than a rapist becoming an auto thief.

Q: John Lott's claim is "more guns, less crime," but a substantial portion of that claim is based on his use of two voter exit polls. Can he use these polls to make this claim? And, does the evidence support the claim?

A: No. Lott inappropriately uses two voter exit polls to make assertions about changes in the level of gun ownership by adults in 14 states, and then compounds his mistake by using this data to make the assertion that "states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes."

First, according to the Voter News Service (the organization responsible for the 1996 poll) their data is designed to be nationally representative, but does not provide representative data about individual states. Second, according to the Voter News Service it is not possible to compare the 1988 and 1996 exit poll numbers on gun ownership because of differences in how the questions were asked. The fact that making the comparison produces results about changes in the level of gun ownership in America that are wildly out of whack with other survey data support this conclusion.

By comparing the two exit polls, and applying a formula that he devised, Lott concludes that the percentage of adults who own a firearm increased by 50% from 1988 to 1996, and the gun ownership among women increased at the fastest pace - yet, the best available evidence on gun ownership (from the General Social Survey) indicates that gun ownership has remained essentially unchanged for men and women since at least 1980. (Changes in Firearm Ownership Among Women, 1980-1994; Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995) Because Lott has inappropriately misused the exit polls in conducting his study, and so radically miscalculated changes in gun ownership, it is simply impossible for him to make any assertions about the relationship between changes in gun ownership and the crime rate.

Q: Is it true that law enforcement has consistently been opposed to weakening carry concealed weapons laws?

A: Yes, and for good reason. Law enforcement does not favor allowing more citizens to carry guns as a solution to crime problems. Police feel that an armed citizenry jeopardizes their safety, and public safety in general. When more citizens are armed, police officers have to approach every vehicle stop, every contact with a citizen, as a potential contact with an armed individual. Furthermore, law enforcement has been instrumental in defeating efforts to ease CCW restrictions all across the country, because they know the responsibility involved with carrying a concealed weapon.

Proponents of this legislation contend that citizens will be adequately trained to handle firearms responsibly, but this is rarely true. Police departments require officers to go through a great deal of safety and proficiency training before being issued a gun - followed by regular refresher courses and qualifications throughout the officer's career. Citizens armed under the provisions of non-discretionary carry laws are not so highly trained, and frequently not trained at all, thereby further increasing the risk of injury and death with a firearm.

Q: Wouldn't allowing more people to carry concealed handguns increase incidents of citizens attacking each other?

A: Yes. Contrary to John Lott's assertion that "such fears are unfounded," it appears to be increasingly evident that permit holders commit very serious offenses which, unfortunately, are not isolated events. The Texas Department of Public Safety found that felony and misdemeanor cases involving license holders rose from 431 in 1996 to 666 as of mid-December in 1997, a 54.5 percent increase. What makes this particularly disturbing is that Texas has the strictest licensing law of the "shall issue" or non-discretionary states. Texas also has one of the most stringent reporting requirements for CCW infractions. This type of information is either not available from other states or the standard is much more lax for reporting CCW-related events. The information from Texas certainly undermines claims by the gun lobby that only law-abiding citizens will carry.

Q: Do gun traffickers benefit when states ease access to concealed-carry permits?

A: Yes. The Philadelphia Inquirer (Sunday, January 11, 1998) highlighted the problem in that city of CCW license holders involved in gun trafficking. According to the Inquirer, Pennsylvania CCW licensees, who can avoid background checks and waiting periods, are serving as straw purchasers getting handguns into the illegal markets. In fact, the article concluded CCW licensees are a major source of gun trafficking: according to Stephen T. Haskins, a senior ATF special agent, "We are experiencing more straw purchasing in Philadelphia because they changed the requirement for the permit to carry."

The following are just some of the studies critical of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime (where available, a link to the study or abstract is included):

* Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, "Concealed Handgun Permits: The Case of the Counterfeit Deterrent," The Responsive Community, Vol. 2, Issue 7 (Spring 1997).
* Dan Webster, Jon S. Vernick, Jens Ludwig and K.J. Lester, "Flawed gun policy research could endanger public safety," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 918-921 (June1997) http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/918
* Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 209-213 (January 1998).
* Jens Ludwig, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data," International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 239 - 254 (September 1998). http://www.elsevier.nl/cgi-bin/cas/tree...i?year=1998&volume=18&issue=3&aid=5072
* Daniel Webster and Jens Ludwig, "Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws," prepared for the "Strengthening the Public Health Debate on Handguns, Crime, and Safety" meeting, October 1999. http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/u/c/myths.pdf
* Mark Duggan, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245849 and Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, No. 5. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/jo...09n5/019506/brief/019506.abstract.html
* Michael D. Maltz and Joseph Targonski, "A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, September 2002. http://tigger.uic.edu/~mikem/Cnty_UCR.PDF
* Conservative scientist Robert Ehrlich was critical of Lott's theory in his book, Nine Crazy Ideas in Science. Reason magazine featured a critique by Ehrlich in its August-September 2001 issue. http://reason.com/0108/fe.re.the.shtml

So, now who do I believe?

 

[dmcowen674]

The Wuss Force is strong in this thread.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Only in America where knives & gang insignias are ban from school, but guns are allow.

Fear the words of your teacher because he/she might have a gun.

Why would you be afraid of your teacher because they had a concealed weapon? If they were truly a dangerous person, do you really think that not having a license to carry would prevent them from doing so?

You gun fearing cowards are so illogical.

Do you really think that educator with guns make school ground safer?

It is like saying that cop with guns make America a safer country.

😕

Are you saying the police shouldn't carry guns?

Yes!

I'm saying that the gun slinging culture of America do not make its country safer than the rest of the world with out gun.

In many country the cops do not carry gun, however crimes with gun will be met with much greater force by the police (with much more guns) than crimes with out guns.

School is a place for knowledge and exchange of innovated ideas, and teacher with guns make it seemingly a correction/holding institution for youth.

You want to disarm me? You actually want to disarm the police in this society? You really want to see open season on cops, don't you?

The police wouldn?t need to carry guns if civilians aren?t allow to own guns and that including hunting rifles.

However, it will be impossible to take gun off the street in the US because the populists have had guns since pre Independence Day.

What I?m trying to imply is that authorities with firearm doesn?t make the street safer than authorities with out firearm. Student with guns will escalate on school ground to offset the school authority with firearms. The teacher with guns move will likely to have an affect on lesser crimes on school ground at first, but in time crimes will increase to the normal rate. Certainly it will make the students feels they are being keep in a correctional institution instead of an educational institution.

The US is among the highest incarceration rate in the world with the highest non conscript civilian firearm possession per capita in the world, and crime is far from the lowest in the world.

IMHO, it will be more effective in lower crimes if society, teachers, parents, local authorities, medical services, work place, and government pay more attention to America future generation instead of the current emphasis on corporate culture & lock them up mentality.

More guns doesn?t mean that people will stop killing each others, learn to be humble and tolerable might make a different.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Q: Is it true that law enforcement has consistently been opposed to weakening carry concealed weapons laws?

A: Yes, and for good reason. Law enforcement does not favor allowing more citizens to carry guns as a solution to crime problems. Police feel that an armed citizenry jeopardizes their safety, and public safety in general. When more citizens are armed, police officers have to approach every vehicle stop, every contact with a citizen, as a potential contact with an armed individual. Furthermore, law enforcement has been instrumental in defeating efforts to ease CCW restrictions all across the country, because they know the responsibility involved with carrying a concealed weapon.

Proponents of this legislation contend that citizens will be adequately trained to handle firearms responsibly, but this is rarely true. Police departments require officers to go through a great deal of safety and proficiency training before being issued a gun - followed by regular refresher courses and qualifications throughout the officer's career. Citizens armed under the provisions of non-discretionary carry laws are not so highly trained, and frequently not trained at all, thereby further increasing the risk of injury and death with a firearm.

So, now who do I believe?[/quote]

Wrong. The international chiefs of police support weakining the CCW laws, NOT law enforcement as a whole. Various polls have been conducted and for the most part, law enforcement officers support CCW and gun rights across the US. I would even go so far and say that cops are one of the biggest gun rights supporters.

 

[BoberFett]

Our high incarceration rate is due to the War on Drugs and has little to do with firearms. End the ridiculous War on Drugs, and not only would our prisons empty out, but murder will go down as well. When there's no more profit in drugs for gangs, and drug use is seen as a bad habit that can fixed with assistance instead of prison time, the violent crime rate in this country will plummet.