Crime Rate & Concealed Carry

[Shane Tuttle]

John R. Lott, Jr.: Formerly(IIRC) of University of Chicago, School of Law? Where can you site this?

He and David B. Mustard, also at the UofC in Dept of Economics assembled an abstract titled "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns back in July, 1996. It was pretty detailed on their analysis. When I lived in Michigan, Mr. Lott came up to Lansing to present their abstract when hearings were in session to introduce the Shall Issue bill.

Also, in his abstract, he challenged Kleck's and Patterson's papers they:

"involve little more than either time-series or cross-sectional evidence comparing mean crime rates, and none controls for variables that normally concern economists (e.g., the probability of arrest and conviction and the length of prison sentences or even variables like personal income). These papers fail to recognize that, since it is frequesntly only the largest population counties that are very restrictive when local authorities have been given discretion in granting concealed handgun permits, "shall issue" concealed handgun permit laws, which require permit requests be granted unless the individual has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness (Cramer and Kopel, 1995, pp. 680-707), will not alter the number of permits being issued in all counties."

This is a quoted excerpt from his abstract and it's only icing on the cake.

 

[FF/EMT]

hkmp5sd...I'm with you brother. +1

 

[Buzzcook]

Wagonman: If it were just a matter of Lott dressing in virtual drag then it'd just be embarrassing. But falsifying results is a big deal.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott.php

Of course you can dismiss all his critics if it makes your life easier.



Michelle Malkin? Geez, now we're talking real loon squad members.

 

[Kyo]

to anyone who cares if CCW reduces crime:

CCW isn't about reducing crime. Its about defending myself. so, if you are in the mindset that in fact it does nothing for crime, then all more the reason I should carry my firearm.
I bet you would want one if you went into one of those cities. Would you rather not carry one because "it doesn't reduce crime"??? how horribly backwards that logic is. You go on ahead, leave your gun at home because it does nothing to stop crime. Ill be happy with mine everywhere I go. Cause bad guys don't tell me when they want to act in a criminal way. I can't tell the future that far.

 

[Wildalaska]

There are far better people to cite, such as Kleck, but even so there is no clear connection between an increase in the number of concealed carry permits issued and the over all crime rate.

Yay, give the man an A

WildastatforeverythingandeverythingastatAlaska TM

 

[Tru Trak]

I have read both sides of this argument and have come to the conclusion that it is a useless one. The folks against CCW will always be against it (until attacked themselves) and the folks for it will always be for it. This has not changed in our whole history as far as I can see it. I can't imagine someone telling our Fore Fathers that they needed a permit to carry thier weapon. In my opinion I believe there is a slab of our society that is just evil and without weapons to keep them in check they will over run the rest of us in a short time. I for one don't intend to let someone from that slab do the harm that is their lifestyle to me or my family if I am at all capable. Capable meaning being able to take them out with a weapon as a last resort. This isn't something I take lightly and I hope never happens, but I can't and won't take that chance with my Beloved Bride or my Children. I like most others on this site see awful things happen on the news every day and any one of them could be me or my family, but if I have any say-so it will not be me you will be reading about I pray. The slab I speak of will never stop doing the harm they do and pass it on to the next generation, and I am sure they wonder (and I am glad) if the next person they try to do harm to is armed or not. Although that slab will always be who they are, the one thing I think that could make them happy is the thought that we could easily become an unarmed society.

 

[Wagonman]

Of course you can dismiss all his critics if it makes your life easier.



Michelle Malkin? Geez, now we're talking real loon squad members.

I am not dismissing anyone, I googled the subject and read a little and made a judgement. His explanations look reasonable.


What's wrong with MM, I enjoy her pieces and her debating style.

 

[FF/EMT]

to anyone who cares if CCW reduces crime:

CCW isn't about reducing crime. Its about defending myself. so, if you are in the mindset that in fact it does nothing for crime, then all more the reason I should carry my firearm.
I bet you would want one if you went into one of those cities. Would you rather not carry one because "it doesn't reduce crime"??? how horribly backwards that logic is. You go on ahead, leave your gun at home because it does nothing to stop crime. Ill be happy with mine everywhere I go. Cause bad guys don't tell me when they want to act in a criminal way. I can't tell the future that far.

Amen brother. I was gonna say something but I couldn't have said it better.

 

[txstang84]

to anyone who cares if CCW reduces crime:

CCW isn't about reducing crime. Its about defending myself. so, if you are in the mindset that in fact it does nothing for crime, then all more the reason I should carry my firearm.
I bet you would want one if you went into one of those cities. Would you rather not carry one because "it doesn't reduce crime"??? how horribly backwards that logic is. You go on ahead, leave your gun at home because it does nothing to stop crime. Ill be happy with mine everywhere I go. Cause bad guys don't tell me when they want to act in a criminal way. I can't tell the future that far.

+1

I don't think it's gonna get much if any more succint than this...

 

[ECHOONE]

What's up with this Double Naught guy is he running for public office or something? Yo.... Naught Obama already got the Presidency buddy!! Jobs filled!

 

[Sixer]

Same topic, different week...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358300

 

[Mr. James]

If one could adduce proof positive that concealed carry actually increased the crime/homicide/suicide rates, it would matter not a whit. Such debates may be mildly interesting in a parlour-game kind of way. But in point of fact, they are utterly irrelevant.

I have never thought much of utilitarian arguments about what a public benefit the Second Amendment, or concealed carry, or gun ownership in general provides. It ain't about crime stats or reducing violent crimes or about anything more or less fundamental than this: the individual's right to protect himself and his family from violent predators (or, in the extreme, predatory government) with the best tools available.

Carry on . . .

 

[Kaiser sose]

Where I live a CCW makes all the difference. The town I live in only has about 3,000 people, and about 70% of us are armed. There are several larger cities not far from us,one just a stones throw across the columbia river; and they do have their fair share of crime. But it is known far and wide that our town don't tolorate scum,and because of that fact we don't even have police on duty after 10pm. We citizens deal with any problems ourselves,and if more folks started taking a more active role in policein' their streets and cities maybe crime whould really drop; and things would get better....I don't know why I even bother,its unlikely that anyone who reads this knows what "A Citizen's Duty" is, thats truely sad...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Double Naught, you seem to be quite the number cruncher. Here is a good one for ya...

Why dont you add up all of the instances where a CHL has used deadly force in a justified way, then compare it to all of the times a CHL has used deadly force in an unjustified way.

After you have secured this data, please report back and tell me if you still think CHL has not lowered the crime rate in instances where a CHL served any relavance to the said crime.

I will tell you what, you show me how the ratio of valid to invalid CHL use is causative to the overall crime rate and I will get the data for you. You can't because it isn't.

Furthermore, the punks and thugs are performing "crook on crook" crimes. Dope dealers shoot crackheads for being late on their meth bill. This has nothing to do with CHL. A CHL cannot prevent that crime.

Thanks for helping make my point! CHLs don't do squat for crimes that don't occur against or in the presence of CHL holders who act in a positive manner on said crimes. You see, those data are part of what constitutes crime rates. There are so few people who have CHLs/CCWs (or whatever you call them where you are) that overall crime isn't affected in spite of claims by CHL/CCW proponents that it is.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

You want to throw out data you don't like. Got it. Thanks for helping make my point!

Yet you are basing your argument on FBI data that even the FBI says not to use because of inaccuracies in reporting.


Given the number of LEOs in the country (several hundred thousand) vs. LEOs involved in gun fights vs. LEOs killed in gun fights vs. LEOs killed with their own gun (approximately 10%), we could prove that either cops do not need to be armed or it would make cops safer if we disarm them.

"Statistics" can be bent to support any argument.

I guess that is why people that swim in the ocean are statistically more likely to be bitten by sharks than those that only swim in pools.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

In my simple little mind, complicated stats that may or may not support a theory gets trumped by common sense just about every time.

The current small percentage of active concealed carriers may not be enough to see a dent made to show an actual reduction in crime. But how many cases have been not reported that a plausible crime was deterred?

If concealed permits were issued to 50% of the population that's law abiding and they actively carried, do you think your assertion will hold water then? I don't. Didn't think so in the beginning, either.

An armed society is a polite society. It's as simple as that.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The current small percentage of active concealed carriers may not be enough to see a dent made to show an actual reduction in crime. But how many cases have been not reported that a plausible crime was deterred?

This thought often occurs to me as well. I don't think we'll ever get accurate stats because (for better or worse) we'll NEVER get accurate reporting on crimes that "almost" happened.

I'd love a world where folks did feel comfortable calling the police and saying "hey, just wanted to get this short-circuited crime attempt on report" and the cops would say, "thanks, we'll add that to the statistics" without any further hassles or weird looks.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I take the Dallas Morning News with a tiny grain of salt. They're getting about as liberal as the Houston Chronicle and Atlanta Constitution.

Okay, that is well and good. I guess you are saying they fudged the data? Well then, go look at it for yourself and crunch the data and see if things have indeed changed or not.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/

The current small percentage of active concealed carriers may not be enough to see a dent made to show an actual reduction in crime. But how many cases have been not reported that a plausible crime was deterred?

Well gee, how about all the crime that isn't reported at all? There is a lot of it. If you want to argue about John Lott fantasy numbers, that is fine, but you just have to know that they are fantasy numbers.

In my simple little mind, complicated stats that may or may not support a theory gets trumped by common sense just about every time.

Got it. If the data don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the data.

 

[Bud Helms]

Man! I turn around and this topic is in it's second page. Obviously a topic for L&CR.

Moving. You guys behave over there. They don't take prisoners.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Hmmm.....

Got it. If the data don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the data.

If you want to argue about John Lott fantasy numbers, that is fine, but you just have to know that they are fantasy numbers.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.