TexasCHLforum.com

I always hear that carry laws decrease crime - so why does this study say otherwise? I am not familiar with the methods of the various studies - I'm assuming that each study, especially from an institution I would assume has an anti-carry bias is going to manipulate data to show what they want.


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

bigity wrote:I always hear that carry laws decrease crime - so why does this study say otherwise? I am not familiar with the methods of the various studies - I'm assuming that each study, especially from an institution I would assume has an anti-carry bias is going to manipulate data to show what they want.


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

Pure statistical manipulation to achieve a desired outcome. They lost me at the part where carrying increases aggravated assaults.

I'd like to see Donohue debate Lott on this.

CHL crime stats in Texas are not "empirical" evidence. They are facts that counter what these people are trying to say using their flawed study.

The good professor seems to be something other than neutral on the subject
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/30/stanf ... un-rights/

mojo84 wrote:I'd like to see Donohue debate Lott on this.

CHL crime stats in Texas are not "empirical" evidence. They are facts that counter what these people are trying to say using their flawed study.

I'd like to see Donahue join Geraldo covering Bar Mitzvahs in Baghdad.

chasfm11 wrote:The good professor seems to be something other than neutral on the subject
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/30/stanf ... un-rights/

Ah, that's all I need to see really. About 15 pages into the actual study but that makes me think it's a complete waste of time in any case.

Garbage in.

Garbage out.

I can see how one could claim that more guns does not necessarily equal less crime. One could claim other factors, such as a decline in gang violence, drug wars, etc., having a larger influence on overall statistics.

Where anti's get me, however, is the logic that more guns = more crime. It's impractical. Assuming that we are talking about law abiding citizens legally purchasing firearms at record numbers (that is what the anti's are against):

• 1. Gun crime overall should be through the roof.
  2. More and more responsible gun owners should be in prison for gun crimes.
  3.There should be a record numbers of:
  • a. Straw purchaser convictions
    b. Negligence (accidental discharge, unlawful carry, accidental shootings, gun related brain farts, etc.)
    c. Data suggesting gun idiocy (people taking the law into their own hands, making stupid threats, etc.)
  4. Anywhere that gun rights are expanded (i.e. higher education facilities) should result in a direct spike of gun-related crime, accidents, and general danger to the public.

Of course, none of this happens on a consistent basis. While the media drools at the opportunity to make a huge story out of any gun-related incident, statistics do not support the drama. Anti's can hate guns, John Lott, and the 2nd Amendment, but to ignore factual information not only defies logic, but deceives their audience. That kind of stuff will catch up with you, hurting your cause over the long haul.

Another squishy variable is how the crimes are counted.

There have been stories in the past to the effect that when the overlords wanted/needed a lower violent crime count to support/justify a particular policy, new "guidelines" are given as to what gets counted where. If you need a bigger budget for equipment or personnel, you have more serious or violent crimes. If you need a promotion/selection to higher office, you need to emphasize how your "tough on crime" policies have lowered crime.

Look at what they can do with labor statistics!

Really, the possibilities are endless.

JALLEN wrote: I'd like to see Donahue join Geraldo covering Bar Mitzvahs in Baghdad.

I literally lol'ed at work reading that haha.

More guns in and of themselves neither increase nor decrease crime. Guns are simply a tool, much like a hammer. A person typically cannot drive more nails with two hammers instead of one. It is the intent of the user of the tool that makes the usage good or bad, criminal or not. The hammer can be used to drive nails to build a structure or as a bludgeon to hurt someone.

Guns exist, even where legally banned or restricted, so the salient question is in whose hands do guns benefit society in general (and users with no ill intent toward others). More guns used responsibly by good guys tends to decrease crime. More guns used irresponsibly or by bad guys will tend to increase crime. "Gun Control" folks want to unilaterally disarm the responsible good guys -- because the bad guys aren't going to care about laws and such. To me, this quite simple means that the "Gun Control" folks are in league with the bad guys because the direct result of "Gun Control" efforts benefits the bad guys.

Studies like this one from Stanford are only useful to the "Gun Control" crowd as talking point, and therefore are the worst kind of academic pursuit since they benefit only the bad guys. I suppose they could be of some benefit to society if the pages they were printed on could be softened into tissue for use at the end of folks' daily constitutionals, but that goes for a lot of other printed material as well...

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'd like to see Donohue debate Lott on this.

CHL crime stats in Texas are not "empirical" evidence. They are facts that counter what these people are trying to say using their flawed study.

I'd like to see Donahue join Geraldo covering Bar Mitzvahs in Baghdad.

That would prove as fruitful as his quest to uncover Al Capone's grave.

mojo84 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'd like to see Donohue debate Lott on this.

CHL crime stats in Texas are not "empirical" evidence. They are facts that counter what these people are trying to say using their flawed study.

I'd like to see Donahue join Geraldo covering Bar Mitzvahs in Baghdad.

That would prove as fruitful as his quest to uncover Al Capone's grave.

They'd have plenty of time to pursue it. I doubt there there are all that many Bar Mitzvahs in Baghdad these days. Even those two cornballs could surely handle it.

In my opinion, it is largely irrelevant whether or not right to carry laws decrease crime.

It is an indisputable fact that right to carry laws allow more citizens to protect themselves from being victims of crime.

That is enough justification.

Whenever you read a study like that, always refer to John Lott. He is the authority on crime and guns.

DO RIGHT-TO-CARRY LAWS REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME?

Interestingly, there's even a Stanford study in there that demonstrates that carry laws reduce crime, so apparently their professors have a disagreement about that.

With respect to Dr. Lott's response to this specific study: PROBLEMS WITH THE WASHINGTON POST’S AND HUFFINGTON POST’S “MORE GUNS, MORE CRIME” CLAIMS