Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Another great story in the news today.

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoo...091106413.html

The woman was armed with a shotgun and a handgun and called 9/11 when two individuals armed with a knife started to break into her home. She was on the phone with 911 for 21 minutes waiting for police to arrive before the two perpetrators actually broke in at which time she shot and killed one of the individuals.

I would enjoy hearing the arguments from the anti-gun crowd that could justify taking her guns away from her as she would very probably have been raped as well as possibly murdered by these two men. How can anyone call for the disarming of individuals where it would leave them completely defenseless in such a situation? That goes against any rational thought.

But wait, the attackers were using a knife so if we also ban the ownership of knives as well perhaps they have a valid argument. But wait again, they could use a rock instead of a knife so let's ban rocks as well. But let's wait one more time, the two men were stronger and outnumbered the potential victim so let's make a law that limits how big someone can be as well as making it illegal for them to attack in pairs.

The absurdity of the "anti-gun" advocates arguments simply fall apart when actual threats to individuals are examined.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Another great story in the news today.

And you'll find countless stories of gun owners shooting people including their kids. I wouldn't bother using such stories as tabloidism has very little value.

You need to try and defend your opinion with empirical evidence. So far you've only presented useless secondary source or deeply flawed article (that, once those flaws were eliminated, actually showed crime increasing effects)

Originally Posted by Reiver

You need to try and defend your opinion with empirical evidence.

Two men breaking into a woman's home with a knife reflecting intended harm to the woman is emperical evidence that is far more compelling than statistical analysis which always has a "margin of error" associated with it. There is no "margin of error" related to an actual forced entry with a knife. The threat is very real and is the best form of emperical evidence.

So please provide any argument as to why this woman would have been better off being unarmed so that she would be a victim of probable rape and murder. Argue against this "emperical evidence" related to an actual crime that was stopped with a firearm because the police were incapable of protecting the woman.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Two men breaking into a woman's home with a knife reflecting intended harm to the woman is emperical evidence that is far more compelling than statistical analysis which always has a "margin of error" associated with it.

This is nonsense. For every pro-gun story someone can refer to an anti-gun story (both of course are biased by media reporting methods). What is important is the scientific process where we test hypothesis. I'm prepared to do that and follow best practice as I have no dogma to restrict me.

So please provide any argument as to why this woman would have been better off being unarmed so that she would be a victim of probable rape and murder.

Rapes, compared to other assaults, are more likely to involve guns. We also know that gun possessors are more likely to be victims. We also know that you cannot refer to one study that supports your opinion. If you did indeed review the evidence you'll find that there is no evidence of reductions in rape rates. We'd expect that because of the competing effects that you continue to ignore: facilitation versus deterrence

Argue against this "emperical evidence" related to an actual crime that was stopped with a firearm because the police were incapable of protecting the woman.

Given the empirical evidence supports the premise of greater victimisation, we can conclude that you do not care about the coercion created through higher gun prevalence and the higher risks from gun possession. Fair enough, each to their own. For me coercion isn't so easily ignored

Originally Posted by Reiver

Rapes, compared to other assaults, are more likely to involve guns.

An obvious fallacy.

The only source I found on a quick search related to rape reported that only 5% of rapists use firearms.

http://gunowners.org/wv26.htm

The use of firearms related to rape are not listed in the FBI statistics but the use of firearms related to other violent crimes are:

■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.)

It appears that the use of a firearm in forcible rape cases are so low that the FBI doesn't even record these statistics.

We might also note that concurrently with the increase in "right to carry" laws there is also a drop in the number of violent crimes in the United States from the same report by the FBI:

■In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.
■When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2010 estimated violent crime total was 13.2 percent below the 2006 level and 13.4 percent below the 2001 level.

This statistically contradicts the claim that violent crimes increase based upon more liberalized "right to carry" laws being passed. Violent crime is literally going down, not up, as more and more of these laws are passed.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

An obvious fallacy.

Actually a finding that has been known for some time. See Felson and Messner (1996, To Kill or Not to Kill - Lethal Outcomes in Injurious Attacks, Criminology, Vol. 34, pp. 519-546): 'The results show that guns are more likely to be used in rape and robbery than in pure assault'

This statistically contradicts the claim that violent crimes increase based upon more liberalized "right to carry" laws being passed. Violent crime is literally going down, not up, as more and more of these laws are passed.

You're again going for a spurious conclusion. You've actually gone backwards since Lott and Mustard. Referring to an empirical study that isolates the law effect was at least the correct approach. Congrats for trying to use it! You just didn't realise that it was a deeply flawed paper

Originally Posted by Reiver

Actually a finding that has been known for some time. See Felson and Messner (1996, To Kill or Not to Kill - Lethal Outcomes in Injurious Attacks, Criminology, Vol. 34, pp. 519-546): 'The results show that guns are more likely to be used in rape and robbery than in pure assault'

Please provide a source for the information provided in Felson and Messner such as a supporting FBI report like I provided or another law enforcement report that summarizes this statement. If there isn't an actual law enforcement report then the statements by Felson and Messner can be assumed to be pure fantasy as they would lack a creditable source.

Of note excluding robbery the report cited murder and aggravated assault as having very high rates of firearms being involved. If the use of firearms was statistically relevant to forcible rapes then why would the FBI intentionally exclude it from their report on crime? It would not make sense for them to include murder where firearms are used 67% of the time and ignore rape if the use of firearms in forcible was higher than 67%.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You're again going for a spurious conclusion. You've actually gone backwards since Lott and Mustard. Referring to an empirical study that isolates the law effect was at least the correct approach. Congrats for trying to use it! You just didn't realise that it was a deeply flawed paper

So the fact is that recent FBI data which shows that the violent crime is decreasing even though more liberal "right to carry laws" are being passed and more guns are being purchased than ever before "must be wrong" because so-called studies by anti-gun advocates predicted that violent crime would increase. Do we accept the actual statistics or do we accept projections from anti-gun advocate studies that have already been proven wrong?

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Please provide a source for the information provided in Felson and Messner

They utilise the data methodology devised by Kleck. To ensure a representative sample of fatal and nonfatal violent incidents they use the National Crime Victimization Survey and FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports.

...then the statements by Felson and Messner can be assumed to be pure fantasy as they would lack a creditable source.

Note the differences in our strategy. You presented an empirical paper and I successfully dismissed it with the use of valid econometric critique. In contrast, you simply assume a peer reviewed published paper is wrong because it doesn't support your 'opinion'

Do we accept the actual statistics or do we accept projections from anti-gun advocate studies that have already been proven wrong?

There are numerous variables impacting on crime data. Using raw data is then nonsensical. It ensures spurious conclusion. You've preferred that spurious conclusion because its consistent with your 'opinion'. Properly conducted study just doesn't agree with that 'opinion'

Originally Posted by Reiver

Actually a finding that has been known for some time. See Felson and Messner (1996, To Kill or Not to Kill - Lethal Outcomes in Injurious Attacks, Criminology, Vol. 34, pp. 519-546): 'The results show that guns are more likely to be used in rape and robbery than in pure assault'


You're again going for a spurious conclusion. You've actually gone backwards since Lott and Mustard. Referring to an empirical study that isolates the law effect was at least the correct approach. Congrats for trying to use it! You just didn't realise that it was a deeply flawed paper

Scholarly review has proven over and over that those are flawed analysis. Please use relavant data.

Originally Posted by Hate_bs

Scholarly review has proven over and over that those are flawed analysis. Please use relavant data.

Ayuh,... Reciever don't need relevant data,....
That would ruin her argument...

She still doesn't comprehend the words May, Might, or Suggests...

'ell, her own Studies only say her points Might, or May be applicable,...
What's been posted only says it MIGHT SUGGEST more crime from more guns...
'course in her tiny mind, that means it's an Absolute....

Btw, sweety,... Who's payin' for that "Study",..??
The Joyce foundation,..??