States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Ayuh,... I don't disagree with ya, nor does it appear yer disagreein' with myself,...

The quote I was replyin' to is the implication by the Brady bunch, that More guns, equals More crime...
Which of course, has been proven otherwise....

I think Shiva_TD nails it,... Poverty, 'n Prohibition drive the crime rates...
'course there are also other factors, but his assumptions are pretty much dead on...

 

I'm well aware of that. I'm just wondering why the governmental bureaucracy that issued me my CCW license made no mention of this.

Could it be that they - like the vast majority of firearm owners - really just don't care?

 

Criminology informs us that multiple factors impact on crime rates. However, even if poverty dominates (and actually the evidence is mixed, e.g. strain theory would focus on the impact of income inequality but rational choice theory would focus more on unemployment and therefore the business cycle), that provides no reason to ignore the significance of gun effects

 

Following individual preferences is quite rational, but it doesn't provide an understanding of appropriate policy choice

 

Reiver posts a valid point, but it is so blatantly obvious, that I wonder why he even bothers.

Of course "more guns = more crime" - just like more automobiles on the highway equals more accidents, more air miles flown equals more airplane fatalities, more skydivers equals more parachute mishaps.

More methamphetamine introduced illegally into a society will cause more meth-related crime. But, that does not mean that all amphetamines are bad - they can and do serve a useful purpose if used correctly.

But, like most everything in life, it's the people who abuse something that cause the problems for the people who obey the regulations.

 

Why do we need to?

I want a pistol, therefore I buy one. The state says I can carry it concealed if I obtain a permit, so I do.

Now the state says that if I take an eight-hour training course, I can carry it in otherwise exempt places - a college, a bar, and a courtroom.

The "policy choice" was made by the legislature - I'm just benefiting from it.

 

The issue is whether appropriate policy-making has occurred. We all know that government can be hijacked by pressure groups (with the costs for the populace summed up by the term influence costs)

 

Then the question in this instance becomes whether or not the government was hijacked by pressure groups.

If it wasn't, then your comments are without merit and invalid in this instance.

 

Given an evidence-based approach isn't being followed, I can't see how we can suggest otherwise. I suppose we could rely on politician stupidity or adapt the median voter model, but I wouldn't like to model that!

 

I have ranked the 50 states according to he Brady Campaigns score card points. Higher the points, the more gun control that particular state has. There no correlation between gun control and guns.

Plot out the same graph but include poverty, and all of a sudden you have quite a few correlations.

 

On a side note, I would love to see CCW requirements tightened a bit. Here is Colorado live fire is not even a requirement. There was a live fire session at my NRA course, however no accuracy requirements. Had a guy pepper his target while my group was maybe 6".... and he still received his certificate.

Meh.

 

You'd merely be referring to spurious relationship. For a properly conducted empirical study see Kwon and Baack (2005, The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 64 Issue 2, pp 533-547) which confirms significant effects on gun-related deaths

 

I have little interest in "gun related deaths". If an area has 10 guns related deaths and 10 non gun related deaths before control, and it changes to 5 guns related deaths to 15 non gun related deaths, then there is not a positive result. Great example, DC had a relatively low "gun crime" rate, yet, still the murder capital with a high murder per capita. The lack of firearms did not make it safer. People still found other ways (guns were present anyway).

Is there any way I can view the article without paying for it?

 

The evidence shows that guns do not have perfect substitutes (see, for example, Duggan or the multiple papers by Card and Ludwig). We therefore, to show that gun control policies have been successful, only have to refer to gun-related incidents.

Don't think so. However, I haven't checked to see if there is a working paper version or whether the authors have made an off-print available

 

Any way you can copy and paste? I definitely want to read it, but its not worht paying for imo.

 

I use my company's system. Afraid breaking copyright isn't worth the risk. If you can't find it elsewhere I'm happy to answer any questions (e.g. methodology employed, use of control variables etc)

 

Hmmmmm..... does the copy right prevent distribution without profit?

 

Its a commercial system and they don't take too kindly with folk abusing it. Ask your questions!

 

Meh.

I suppose the first question in my mind, what types of gun control did they consider? What sates? Time frames?

 

Gun control? For the creation of its measure it uses the following categories: registration of firearms, safety training, regulation of firearm sales, safe storage and accessibility, owner licensing, litigation and pre-emption.

States? It takes them all, but to increase the power of the test, it compares the upper and lower quartiles in terms of strength of gun control.

Time frame? Its a cross-sectional analysis and looks at 2000 data

 

In what areas were firearms registered? I know of just a few locals in the US that require the firearms to be registered. There is no Federal registration on firearms except for "special" items (Class III items), and I am not even sure if there are any states that require registration.

Where at? I am unaware of any locals in the US that require safety training in the US (I don't have an issue with safety training, I am just curious).

Does this extend beyond background checks?

What types of litigation?

I do not mean to ask too many questions, however I find the notion of your claim to be very interesting. I am curious to see if they are referring to what I consider to be "reasonable" gun control, or things beyond that threshold of mine.

 

It includes the laws on the following: "registration of assault weapons; permit required to purchase assault weapons from a dealer or in private transactions; registration of long guns (rifles and shotguns); permit required to purchase long guns from a dealer or in private transactions; registration of handguns; and permit required to purchase handguns from a dealer or in private transactions"

States did a positive score if they require safety training prior to buying.

It refers to a number of laws: "assault weapon bans, junk gun or Saturday night special bans, background checks required in dealer sales/private sales of long guns/handguns, a waiting period for long guns/handguns, minimum age for private purchase of long guns/handguns, and a one-gun-a-month law for handguns"

The score is lower if there is, for example, there is "a ban on litigation against the gun industry or state preemption of municipal gun laws is instituted in law"

There isn't a value judgement made. Its all about creating a measure that allows distinction between relatively lax and relatively tough states

 

(I grouped these together.)
Did they break down the gun laws though? I can see background checks being effective, but then "assault weapons bans" as being ineffective. I am curious to see if they lumped it all into one, or if they were able to specifically pinpoint the effects of gun control law X.

Mmmmm..... I do have some issues with this. A ban litigation against the gun industry is a non-issue. It is absolutely silly to allow people to file frivolous lawsuits against any industry. Suing because a product was misused is simply ridiculous, the laws do not prevent litigation for faulty products.

 

Yep. We have scores allocated between 0 and 7; e.g. "Handgun waiting periods are scored as no points for no waiting period and six points for waiting periods of more than three days

If that's the case then of course the likelihood of finding significant findings will fall.

 

To obtain a concealed weapon permit an individual has to voluntarily submit to a law enforcement background check. Individuals with a history of crime and/or mental illness are excluded from obtaining concealed weapons permits.

Studies have also shown that those States that have right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime statistics than those that don't.

http://hematite.com/dragon/Lott_ORDu.html

The fact is that liberal right-to-carry laws reduce crime by allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves which discourages attacks against them.