Thanks for the link.
Originally Posted by Reiver
Here is what the extract states:
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.
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.
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.
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall