Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Originally Posted by Reiver

The paper is here.

The paper uses Lott and Mustard's data, so you couldn't be more wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Here is what the extract states:

Our results show that the expected effect of the law on crime varies across the counties and states and depends on county-specific characteristics in a meaningful way. Such effects appear to be much smaller and more mixed than Lott and Mustard suggest, and are not crime-reducing in most cases.

Yes, each county should address it's specific characteristics in addressing concealed weapons permits. Lott and Mustard's paper did not state anything that would be contrary to this and I would also agree with it.

It also states in the extract that "such effects appear to be much smaller and more mixed than Lott and Mustard suggest" but does not deny the fact that concealed weapon's can reduce crime in many situation. It goes on to state that it "appears... that they are not crime-reducing in most cases" which, by default admits they do reduce crime in some cases.

The results of this paper are debateable as it does not established that the results of Lott and Mustard's paper was false but merely that it "appears" to be the case in some cases in the opinion of Paul H Rubin and Hashem Dezhbakhsh that are gun control advocates.

Paul H Rubin and Hashem Dezhbakhsh in their study openly admit that concealed weapons can reduce violent crime in certain situations as well as establishing that individual counties should make their own decisions based upon the specific characteristics of their county. I would support both contentions made by Paul H Rubin and Hashem Dezhbakhsh.

What they didn't even address is the fact that concealed weapons do not increase crime which would argue that it is better for a county to have "right-to-carry" laws as there is no negatives related to these laws while, in some cases, they admittedly reduce violent crimes against persons in some counties. No negatives but variable positives is all that their paper presents.

So thanks again for the link to the study. Clearly we have nothing to lose by having "right-to-carry" laws as they do reduce crime, albeit not in all situations, and cannot be cited as being responsible for any increase in violent crime.

I'll take even a 10% reduction in violent crime if we can get it without any negative impact by ensuring that law abiding citizens have a right-to-carry concealed weapons. It is a net-win situation.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You misunderstand. The dummy variable approach, by definition, claims that.


The paper is here.


The paper uses Lott and Mustard's data, so you couldn't be more wrong.


We have something simple here. We have a well known problem with dummy variables. We have a peer reviewed paper that finds that, once this methodological flaw is eliminated, the results are significantly affected. You may not like those results, as they attack your original claim, but there's not much we can do about that.

Everyone knows as results of your psi function exponentially climb you have to renormalize to real world results. That's your problem.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Yes, each county should address it's specific characteristics in addressing concealed weapons permits. Lott and Mustard's paper did not state anything that would be contrary to this and I would also agree with it.

Again, you misunderstand. The paper essentially tests the impact of using the dummy variable approach. Acknowledging that its likely to lead to empirical bias, it allows for the regression parameters to change with the law. This allows for hetergeneous crime effects across countries. And the result of having an empirical approach based on sound theoretical footing? Lott and Mustard's results fall apart.

It also states in the extract that "such effects appear to be much smaller and more mixed than Lott and Mustard suggest" but does not deny the fact that concealed weapon's can reduce crime in many situation.

It concludes that in most cases there isn't a crime reduction effect. That is against your original argument! Its actually worse than that of course. Whilst there are some cases of crime reduction, there are also cases of increase in crime.

The results of this paper are debateable as it does not established that the results of Lott and Mustard's paper was false but merely that it "appears" to be the case in some cases in the opinion of Paul H Rubin and Hashem Dezhbakhsh that are gun control advocates.

The results of the paper couldn't be more clear-cut: as the dummy variable error is corrected, Lott and Mustard's results are no longer supported. Indeed, negative effects for crime are predicted for some states.

What they didn't even address is the fact that concealed weapons do not increase crime...

Again you couldn't be more wrong. They find adverse effects in numerous cases e.g. "The effect on robbery would have been an increase in crime for many states. For counties in 13 states, there would have been an unambiguous increase in robbery; there would have been mixed effects (increase in some counties and decrease in some) in counties in only three states...For aggravated assault 11 states would have been unaffected, 7 states adversely affected, and 4 states would have observed a drop in crime.

Originally Posted by Reiver

It concludes that in most cases there isn't a crime reduction effect. That is against your original argument! Its actually worse than that of course. Whilst there are some cases of crime reduction, there are also cases of increase in crime.

Individuals with concealed weapons permits have the lowest statistics of committing violent crime in the United States. This contradicts any evidence that "right-to-carry" laws increase violent crime.

Most violent crimes using a firearm are committed by individuals with a criminal background and they would not be issued a permit for a concealed weapon. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens stop crimes. That's an indisputable fact.

In fact, firearms are the most effective way to protect your home from criminals. According to firearms expert J. Neil Schulman, every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses his or her firearm in self-defense.

1,145 times a day handguns are used against robbers. 416 times each day women use their handguns to protect themselves from rapists. Overall, a gun in the home is 216 times more likely to be used in self defense than to cause the death of an innocent victim. And even if you don't own a gun, preserving the right of your neighbors to own them is one of the best ways to keep criminals out of your neighborhood.

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Individuals with concealed weapons permits have the lowest statistics of committing violent crime in the United States. This contradicts any evidence that "right-to-carry" laws increase violent crime.

You're going for the spurious conclusion error. We have Lott and Mustard's data. We have a properly conducted empirical study that eliminates a well-known empirical bias. And we have a simple conclusion: whilst some crime reduction effects are predicted, most effects are statistically significant and there are also crime increasing effects. This destroys your original argument; there's no point in suggesting otherwise

Originally Posted by Reiver

You're going for the spurious conclusion error. We have Lott and Mustard's data. We have a properly conducted empirical study that eliminates a well-known empirical bias. And we have a simple conclusion: whilst some crime reduction effects are predicted, most effects are statistically significant and there are also crime increasing effects. This destroys your original argument; there's no point in suggesting otherwise

The evidence has shown you the study did not properly renormalize the psi function. Everyone knows that radial basis is the same but you have to adjust for the other two basis going from cylindrical to spherical. Everyone knows this.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You're going for the spurious conclusion error. We have Lott and Mustard's data. We have a properly conducted empirical study that eliminates a well-known empirical bias. And we have a simple conclusion: whilst some crime reduction effects are predicted, most effects are statistically significant and there are also crime increasing effects. This destroys your original argument; there's no point in suggesting otherwise

There is absolutely no evidence that individuals that are issued a concealed weapon permit increases the cases of violent crime. These individuals have the lowest rate of violent crimes using guns in the United States.

Should we really allow that little 100 lb woman to be raped by a 200 lb man by denying her the Right to protect herself? Should we allow the store owner to be robbed and possibly even murdered by an armed robber or allow them to own a gun to protect themself and their property?

All individuals have an inalienable Right of Self-defense. No government can protect the People.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

There is absolutely no evidence that individuals that are issued a concealed weapon permit increases the cases of violent crime.

What on earth are you going on about? We've just described empirical evidence that links right to carry with higher crime rates. You can't ignore the evidence, just because its inconvenient!

Originally Posted by Reiver

What on earth are you going on about? We've just described empirical evidence that links right to carry with higher crime rates. You can't ignore the evidence, just because its inconvenient!

Studies show very little correlation of CCW with crime.

Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8, pp 1418 )

You can't ignore the evidence because it is inconvenient.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

There is absolutely no evidence that individuals that are issued a concealed weapon permit increases the cases of violent crime. These individuals have the lowest rate of violent crimes using guns in the United States.

Should we really allow that little 100 lb woman to be raped by a 200 lb man by denying her the Right to protect herself? Should we allow the store owner to be robbed and possibly even murdered by an armed robber or allow them to own a gun to protect themself and their property?

All individuals have an inalienable Right of Self-defense. No government can protect the People.

To get a CCW you can't be a felon, can't have a criminal history, or have a historyof violence. Yet there are people who want you to believe that they cause crimes higher than the general population which includes rapist, murderers, and wife beaters.