States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Naw,.... YOU came to that conclusion,...

Nobody else sees it that way....

Ya mean like yer doing here,..??





Shiva_TD,..
Tit fer tat, eh,..??

 

Its a matter of fact. The evidence, an improvement on the original Lott and Mustard paper referenced, finds that right to carry does lead to higher crime rates.

 

But you own reference says there is no causal relationship. It is fact.

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

 

No empirical evidence has been presented that establishes that right to carry laws are responsible for an increase in crime. We've actually seen instances where the strictest gun control laws also have the highest violent crime statistics such as was the case with Washington DC for years. As I recall it was safer to walk the streets of Baghdad in 2007 than to walk the streets of DC.

 

But you can be mentally ill, you can have schitzophrenia and get a CCW.

 

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.

 

This is basically false as any record of mental illness would prohibit a person from obtaining a CCW permit.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/conc...-mental-illness-prohibitions-ccw-permits.html

While an undiagnosed mental illness might slip under the investigative process if it were ever to be established in the future that CCW permit would be revoked. CCW permits are not issued to individuals with a known mental illness nor can they retain that CCW permit if they are diagnosed with mental illness in the future.

 

Ayuh,.... "Appears", 'n "Suggests" are not at all "Facts"....

 

I watched the sun "appear" to rise in the East this morning and it will "appear" to set in the West this evening which "suggests" the sun rotates around the Earth but we know that is not a fact.

No "cause and effect" relationships have ever been established between the issuance of CCW permits and an increase in crime. Zero, zip, nadda, none, and any "suggestion" there is such a relationship has never been established by any facts.

 

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.

 

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...........

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818803000279

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.