New study: Since 2007, concealed carry up 130%, murders down 22%. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/new-study-since-2007-concealed-carry-up-130-murders-down-22/# 11.1 millions concealed carry permits with four states not reporting. I'm glad I live where citizens can be armed.
I do not think all responsible adults in America should be required to carry a firearm, but it should be encouraged. I also think training classes, just like drivers ed, should be available for high school students.
Here is a excellent link with resources, I enjoy John R. Lott Jr. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/
You do realize that the baby boomers hitting their sixties has something to do with the lower rates of violent crime, right? Old men do not make good muggers.
Never underestimate a person because of their age. Muggings are really easy with a tranquilizer dart. - - - Updated - - - Never underestimate a person because of their age. Muggings are really easy with a tranquilizer dart.
So, now we have a proven correlation? Time to start trying to prove a causality. Because, you know, correlation doesn't equal causation. If it did, a person losing their hair as the apple tree in their garden grows could save their hair by cutting down the tree.
Why should gun rights proponents be held to a higher standard of proof than the gun control proponents? I see gun control proponents use loose correlations between the rate of gun ownership in various countries and their respective levels of gun crime as justification to reduce gun ownership in the US. If that is enough proof to justify something like that, than this is enough proof to justify an increase in gun ownership.
I believe you refer to an argument on gun control that I have never made. If you could locate a single instance where I have argued that correlation equals causation on this issue before, I'd like you to link it to me so that I may amend it.
Not you in particular, but gun control proponents in general. In many of the threads in this section you'll find plenty of examples from gun control proponents using the varying rates of gun deaths by country as proof that reducing the number of guns in a country will reduce gun deaths. They don't seem to be held to a standard that requires proof of causation for their claims, so there is no justification to require it of their opponents.
Here's a little kibble for all to chew over: What Is Gun Violence? July 14, 2014 by Kevin Michalowski The term gun violence seems to have been coined by either the anti-gun media or some other anti-gun group in an effort to vilify the tool used to perpetrate violence on another. Somewhere someone said, If we call it gun violence that will make it sound like guns are bad. We should do that You and I know guns are neither good nor bad. Guns cannot do anything on their own. A gun cannot be violent any more than can a hammer, or a bowling pin or a rose bush. A gun can be used during violent acts. But here is something interesting: A violent act is not always a bad thing. Righteous violence in defense of the innocent is a good thing and should be applauded. Yet still the media and anti-gun politicians continue to beat the drum of gun violence in America as if to say, If we take away all the guns, there will be no more violence. Several years back, politicians also said, If we take away all the booze, no one will drink and all those problems will go away. We saw how that turned out. It spawned the largest crime wave in U.S. history and directly gave rise to criminal syndicates that are still running today. Since 1993, crime has been dropping. Despite a few recent high-profile cases, the numbers of mass shootings have been dropping. Armed citizens regularly intervene to protect others by employing or threatening to employ violence with a gun. But the media doesnt report on that. Criminals are much more interesting. Guns work. Violence, when employed against criminal predators, benefits honest citizens. So I ask again, What is gun violence? It is a fantasy term. It is political spin designed to dupe the masses. If the media and the politicians can keep you thinking that guns are bad and keep telling you that reducing the number of guns will reduce crime, maybe you will believe them and one day give up your freedoms. Our Founding Fathers knew that each individual citizen of a free Nation would need guns in defense of those freedoms. To restrict guns is to restrict our ability to, when needed, draw a line in the sand and be able to back up our words. So many liberals will decry such ideas as something that will never happen and will say that the right to bear arms against the government is something that simply is not and will not be needed. I give to you The Battle of Athens, Tenn. In 1946, after election fraud and voter intimidation in the elections of 1940, 1942 and 1944, the citizens of McMinn County took up arms to finally stop corrupt politicians. We need guns. Righteous violence works to protect Americans. Dont let liberals use the term gun violence. Call them on it, every time. Guns are not violent. Kevin Michalowski http://personalliberty.com/gun-violence/
And that makes you afraid to read it. You might learn something. Facts are hard when they go against your emotions,eh?
The correlation & causation between concealed carry and crime rates has been proven since the late1990's through many multivariable regression studies in which the various state laws, economic conditions, population pressures, crime rates, and gun permit data were analyzed. Staying with John Lott, his book "More Guns, Less Crime" goes into great technical detail about the subject. In the 3rd edition he addresses opponents but not through word play, he applies the opponents criticisms to the study and reruns the study. For example, one complaint was that Florida biased the national result, so Lott reran the study excluding Florida - the resulting change was trivial. And Lott is good because he will provide his entire database to any researcher who requests it, including opponents. No researcher who received his database ever criticized his results again.
Oh, so if I look up, say, what the National Academy of Sciences has written about Lott's studies, I will find that they wholly agree with his conclusions?
And you think it's fair to demand that I answer for opinions that I do not have and arguments that I do not use that are used by people I haven't even heard of?
No, because the NAS is influenced by politics and seems to try to take a careful stand on guns. Some official NAS studies support Lott's conclusions but do not directly endorse him, some conclude there is no link between concealed carry and crime, but I am not aware of any NAS report that gun control reduces crime or that citizen ownership of guns results in increased violence and crime. And there are some NAS members who are anti-gun, and on their own pursue the gun ban agenda. James Wilson is one, you can find the back & forth between Wilson and Lott on the web. Wilson makes a claim, Lott disproves him with data, Wilson whines about something else, etc. But why go to a middle man? Read Lotts book or his papers, read the criticisms and rebuttals, and decide for yourself.
The problem there is that Lott obviously also has a political agenda to push. Okay, so we're in agreement about disregarding the views of James Wilson in particular? Good, because in the report from 2004, he was the only one to actually argue that Lott's conclusion had any validity at all. But you were the one who said we should ignore him, not I, remember that. I'm no expert. I've taken one single half-term university course in statistics. I'm not qualified to judge this stuff. So, I turn to people whom can be relied upon to do that reliably. Like the Mythbusters, or, as in this case, the NAS. - - - Updated - - - If you like, go ahead. Science doesn't have an opinion of nationality, though.
Ah, the standard attempt to deny facts - claim everyone has a political agenda and by inference claim their research is tainted by that agenda. That doesn't work here, Lott came to is conclusions based on research which - as I wrote - he makes fully available to any researcher who requests it. No, actually YOU said WIlson should be ignored. This is what I wrote: "And there are some NAS members who are anti-gun, and on their own pursue the gun ban agenda. James Wilson is one, you can find the back & forth between Wilson and Lott on the web. Wilson makes a claim, Lott disproves him with data, Wilson whines about something else, etc." Lott addresses all criticisms, the long running back and forth between Lott & Wilson is well documented on the web, Wilson brings up a lot of the usual gun ban arguements. I support addressing gun banners because the data is on our side, not theirs. Lott wrote his book not for scientists but for the people. He is careful to explain the methods, results, even the flaws, in language that the average person will understand. If you really want to learn, go read it. You won't find that kind of outreach from the NAS.
Wh...is this some kind of joke?! You were the one who said in no uncertain terms that you dismiss the findings of the NAS specifically because you think they are tainted by a political agenda! The NAS came to their conclusions through research too. How do you actually, scientifically, question their research? I don't care about you gripe with people based on your assumption that they want to ban guns. I'm interested in science, not pissing contests. Have you actually read the report from NAS on his findings?
Wrong, learn to read what was written, not what you want to see. I did not write that the NAS should be ignored, I wrote that they were influenced by politics in sensitive subjects (such as gun rights) and some of the members were politically biased. I have read the 2004 review by the NAS. It does not support gun control and generally concludes gun control does not work, but it does not directly endorse gun rights either. You wrote you did not have the background to judge these reports, I suggested reading Lotts book as it was written for the general population and does explain the statustical methods and the flaws. If you are dependent upon second sources and middlemen to interpret things for you, then you are prone to manipulation and propaganda - the tools of the banners.
