States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

The total number of guns in society has absolutely nothing to do with a CCW permit.

CCW permits are only issued to law abiding individuals with no record of a criminal past or mental illness which is determined by a background check by law enforcement agencies. Those holding these permits have the lowest rate of violent crime of all gun owners. It is my understanding that the highest rate of violent crimes commited with firearms is held by individuals that can't even own a gun legally much less obtain a CCW permit.

Right to carry laws do not increase violent crime and no evidence has been presented that they do. They do allow an individual to protect themself from violent crime and that is beyond any dispute. To argue against CCW permits is to argue against the Right of Self-Defense for law abiding individuals.

 

I didn't say it did. I said that the attempt at criticism (the standard reverse causation argument) is used within the 'more guns=more' crime hypothesis testing. It has no bearing on the paper referenced; a paper that demolished your point of view as inconsistent with the available evidence.

You're merely repeating your original fallacy. The paper referenced, used because of your original unfortunate use of the biased Lott and Mustard paper, certainly shows that right to carry laws are associated with subsequent increases in crime. You're now merely trying to backtrack as you surely have realised that the evidence isn't consistent with your opinion.

 

Paul H Rubin and Hashem Dezhbakhsh actually stated that the reduction in crime related to CCW permits was less than what Lott and Mustard stated but did not deny that a reduction in crime was achieved and certainly didn't establish that there would be any increase in crime caused by Right to Carry laws.

Paul H Rubin and Hashem Dezhbakhsh also failed to address the ability of an individual to prevent a crime against them by possessing a firearm. Literally thousands of individuals prevent themselves from becoming victims of crime annually because they have a firearm to protect themself. How many more women would be raped if they didn't have a firearm to prevent it? The problem isn't that there are too many CCW's being issued to women but instead that not enough women have concealed weapons. Rape would virtually disappear if ever rapist knew that their intended victim probably had a gun.

 

Interesting, but I wasn't referring to your "unicorns and fairies" paper, since only you have access to it.

I was simply speaking generally. You were the one who tried to refute it by claiming it was connected to your "paper."

 

Again, this is completely wrong. By eliminating the empirical flaw created by use of the dummy variable they show that Lott and Mustard results are no longer supported. As I've already mentioned, they find zero effects to be the most likely. However, they also show that increases in crime rates occur. This makes a mockery of your previous claims.

Wrong again! They test the effects of right to carry laws. Any hypothetical deterrence effects are therefore- by definition- included.

You're again making unsupported claim. Perhaps you'd like to refer to a piece of evidence that shows right to carry reduces rape rates? Please do not make the 'spurious conclusion' error again!

 

'the most effective means of self defense is a lawful citizen with a gun'

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

Read your paper more carefully.

 

I agree. Reading is fundamental.

 

Why do you think that, even when presented with evidence to suggest otherwise, the pro-gun position will ignore it and carry on with spurious conclusion?

 

Your looking very foolish when even your own studies you reference says otherwise. Look it up yourself.

 

Only I have access? Golly, I didn't realise that scholarly research was just my domain.

What we have is evidence that shows Lott and Mustard's analysis is wrong. We have an obvious explanation: empirical bias created through the inappropriate use of dummy variable. We have an updated paper that shows effects are mixed. Whilst zero effects (in terms of statistical significance) are standard, we do have evidence of right to carry increasing crime rates. A rather disagreeable result if you support these laws!

There you go, you're up-to-date now. God bless

 

Ayuh,... Nice selective readin',....

Yer paper also SUGGESTS that Your assumption is WRONG...

 

Nothing selective about it. The claim was made that right to carry reduces crime rates. We've shown that assumption is incorrect. Crime rates can also increase.

 

No one is going to pay attention to you. Even if you say something truthful, no one is going to listen. That is what happens when you loose honor and respect. Take your snow job somewhere else.

 

There is some minor logic to this position because just because a person can defend themself does not stop a crime from being committed. Instead of robbery the crime would be attempted robbery. Instead of rape the crime would be attempted rape. The overall crime statistics do not go down but the number of victims of crimes does.

I will cite a previous quotation because it has relevance:

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

If we extrapolate the number of times handguns are used against robbers and rapists alone it equates to over 1/2 million cases annually where a potential victim was able to defend themself against an attacker with a firearm. It did not reduce the number of attempted robberies or rapes but it did significantly reduce the numbers of victims of robbery and rape.

 

Ayuh,... Crime rates Can also Decrease...

It's yer Assumptions, not a Fact...

 

Again you cannot support this opinion with evidence. Also we've already seen that logic informs us that the overall crime effect is ambiguous; i.e. we have competing facilitating and deterrent effects

A very poor source. Rather than referring to a secondary source, you should be referring to scholarly research that undertakes- with some robustness- analysis into self-defence effects. Crikey, it can't even refer to primary analysis correctly. Using J. Neil Schulman really wasn't cunning. You should be referring to the original work by the likes of Kleck. Try McDowall and Wiersema (1994, The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 84, pp 1982-1984). This found that firearm self-defence, relative to gun crimes, is really rather rare. Less than 2 victims in 1000 defended themselves with guns. Here's a nice quote concerning the Kleck methodology:

"Kleck's findings rest on 49 respondents, and any person who reported self-defense without a victimization would noticeably influence the results. National Crime Victimization Survey interviewers ask about self-defense only when respondents report a crime, and the survey screens out acts that are not illegal. We believe that the Victimization Survey provides a stronger basis for inference than do Kleck's methods."

An alternative study is presented by Wilcox (2002, Self-Help? Examining the anti-crime effectiveness of citizen weapon possession, Sociological Focus, Vol 35, pp145 -167). Note that this finds that carrying a gun is associated with a higher probability of being a crime victim. Note also that this effect exists even when controlling for numerous risk factors (and therefore the likelihood of possessing a gun because of increased fear)

 

If just one person uses a handgun to prevent a robbery or if just one person uses a handgun to prevent a rape or if just one person uses a handgun to prevent a murder then it overrides any other considerations. The Right of Self-Defense is an inalienable Right of the Individual. That is a fact that is being ignored by anti-gun advocates.

 

You would only have a logical argument if the risk of victimisation could be assumed to be constant. However, the evidence doesn't predict that assumption.

 

BS. The risk exists whether it is contant or not and the individual has an inalienable Right of Self-Defense. The only argument against this would be if no risk existed at all and that will never be the case.

 

No, simple logic based on appreciating the empirical evidence. That evidence refers to increases in the risk of crime victimisation. You're essentially using dogma to hide from that reality: Higher crime and therefore greater coercion!

 

A person that can defend themself is not concerned with an increase in risk. Only the person that chooses to be a victim has this concern. The choice is to either be a victim or to not be a victim regardless of the risk factor.

 

You're continuing to ignore logic. We know that gun possessors are more likely to be victims (despite controlling for numerous risk variables). We also know that the general risk of being a victim is found to increase with gun prevalence. In a nutshell, you're supporting greater coercion.

 

Where do people come up with this poppycock?

To make that assumption one would have to first establish that a person intent on committing a crime would have to determine whether a person was armed and dangerous and then choose the armed individual over an unarmed individual as the intended victim. Rarely do criminals choose to victimize a person known to have a firearm.

A well armed and well trained individual has virtually no risk of becoming a victim of a criminal act but, as noted, the criminal attack in and of itself is still a crime. By way of a simple example if I'm carrying a concealed .357 magnum it is not only unlikely but virtually impossible for anyone to rob me at knife-point. They would be insanely stupid to even try.

 

Rather than being reliant on dogma and spurious relationship, they focus on logic and empirical evidence.

Technically I'm not making any assumption. I'm referring to the evidence and how its inconsistent with your assumption. We have an increased risk of victimisation and therefore greater coercion.

 

Your own evidence says the most effective means of self defense is an armed citizen with a gun.