Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Originally Posted by Reiver

Again you make a ludicrous claim. The paper discussed certainly shows that right to carry is associated with crime increases. All of your attempts to dismiss that evidence have failed: from misinterpreting the data source to misinterpreting the results.


No, we've seen that you've subsequently gone for spurious conclusion rather than referring correctly to an empirical study capable of isolating right to carry effects. The original mistake you made was to reference Lott and Mustard without appreciating the empirical bias problems that it suffers from

I'm not in the mood to pay money to read your evidence. Even so, it does make sense.

If people see crime rates rising and feel that their area is getting dangerous, they will more than likely start applying for more concealed weapons permits.

That is the danger of trying to attach correlation with causation - often the cause relationship is the opposite of what is proposed, or there is a third factor that causes both to occur.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

No empirical evidence has been presented that establishes that right to carry laws are responsible for an increase in crime. .

Originally Posted by Reiver

Again you make a ludicrous claim. The paper discussed certainly shows that right to carry is associated with crime increases. All of your attempts to dismiss that evidence have failed: from misinterpreting the data source to misinterpreting the results.

nope. shiva is correct. no evidence has been presented in support of your argument. you referenced a paper, which nobody can access. If you wish to provide the paper, for all to see, then the debate can continue. Until you do though, you've lost by default.

fyi...........

If you do not have a Username and Password, click the "Register to Purchase" button below to purchase this article.

Price: US $ 35.95

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...44818803000279

Originally Posted by hiimjered

If people see crime rates rising and feel that their area is getting dangerous, they will more than likely start applying for more concealed weapons permits.

Good try, but completely wrong! The analysis, using panel data, analyses the effect of changes in the right to carry law. Reverse causation, covered in more general analysis into the impact of gun prevalence on crime, is not an issue here.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Good try, but completely wrong! The analysis, using panel data, analyses the effect of changes in the right to carry law. Reverse causation, covered in more general analysis into the impact of gun prevalence on crime, is not an issue here.

Considering that no one else can read your "evidence" you could claim that it proves the existence of unicorns and fairies. Don't be surprised when no one here is willing to take the word of some anonymous poster on it.

Originally Posted by hiimjered

Considering that no one else can read your "evidence" you could claim that it proves the existence of unicorns and fairies. Don't be surprised when no one here is willing to take the word of some anonymous poster on it.

I doubt you'd understand the paper, but happy to help in anyway I can. The authors, for example, of course analyse their estimates for factors that influence their sign and magnitude. Decomposing according to type of crime provides further information.

End result? Lott and Mustard is shown, without doubt, to be biased. Eliminating that bias leads to mixed results. Whilst most results suggest zero effects, negative (in terms of social costs!) crime effects are also likely. Shiva is therefore, without any doubt, wrong

Originally Posted by Reiver

I doubt you'd understand the paper. . .

So now there is an anonymous poster who is making condescending judgments about the abilities of other posers. The fact that you would make such an assumption, without any real knowledge of the person you are talking about makes your judgement of the merits of the paper even more unreliable.

Originally Posted by hiimjered

So now there is an anonymous poster who is making condescending judgments about the abilities of other posers. The fact that you would make such an assumption, without any real knowledge of the person you are talking about makes your judgement of the merits of the paper even more unreliable.

It was a safe bet as you made a claim inconsistent with the methodology detailed in the introduction. That suggests no formal training in econometrics.

Originally Posted by Reiver

It was a safe bet as you made a claim inconsistent with the methodology detailed in the introduction. That suggests no formal training in econometrics.

If you tried to do in scholarly institution, what you do here , first your department would laugh at you, then they would throw you to the ethics committee of the university.

Seriously who hides behind and presents evidence that only you have access to?

Originally Posted by hiimjered

If you have a history of mental illness, you are prohibited from purchasing firearms. A few people may slip through the cracks, but there is already a law against it.

The majority of mentall illness is undiagnosed and untreated. My point stands.

There is also nothing to stop a psychopath from obtaining a CCW. Psychopathy is rarely diagnosed as psychopaths do not seek treatment.