Skip to comments.Concealed-carry saves lives, gun advocates say(TX barf alert)
Posted on 09/17/2012 7:45:30 AM PDT by marktwain
WASHINGTON -- In the wake of mass shootings this summer, a fusillade of a different sort erupted when gun-rights advocates suggested an audience member with a concealed weapon might have saved the day.
After gunman James Holmes opened fire in a crowded Aurora, Colo., theater, killing 12 and wounding 58, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, wondered whether an armed movie patron "could have stopped this guy more quickly."
Later, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a staunch gun-control advocate, called Gohmert's view "nonsensical."
This exchange shows how far the gun debate has come since the days when it was centered on the simple question of whether firearms ownership is a Second Amendment right.
"Unfortunately, the science that Lott put forth is bad but the message had political resonance with the NRA and the Republicans," said John Donohue, a Stanford University law professor who also is a Ph.D. economist. "They linked up in a perfect storm with a false message."
In a study last year, Donohue and two other researchers re-crunched Lott's numbers and found that between 1992 and 2010 concealed-carry laws had little or no impact on declining crime rates with one exception: The drop in aggravated assault was less dramatic in Texas than in California and New York.
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
"Among peer reviewed studies in academic journals, 16 studies examining national data find that right-to-carry laws reduced violent crime, 10 claimed that they found no discernible effect, and zero studies found a bad effect from the law. Five other non-refereed studies were more divided, with three finding drops in crime, one claiming to find no effect, and two saying that there were either no effect or possibly small increases in crime. But even "no discernible effect" is usually not the same as "debunking" or "refuting" a hypothesis. Rather it often means that the evidence is not sufficient to draw a conclusion." John Lott
The article failed to mention a single study that reinforce John Lott's conclusions.
It appears that they did not even contact John Lott, though their article skirts very close to slander.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/14/arizona-shootings-gun-violence-research-facts-vs-new-york-times/#ixzz26joxYgei
>>The drop in aggravated assault was less dramatic in Texas than in California and New York
Not all of us live in a high density urban setting where it is cost-effective to put a cop on every street corner. For most Americans, a cop is a phone call and several minutes away while a would-be assailant is in your face.
You could probably do a similar study and “prove” that door locks do not reduce break-and-enter burglaries. Its all in how you frame the question.
Only a collectivist cares about the total number. What it all comes down to is the one lonely individual. Should they be refused the right the defend themselves from rape, murder, robbery, feral racist gangs, kidnap etc,,, because it is deemed better for the group?
If one person uses it sucessfully, that proves it’s effectiveness.
Peer-reviewed studies = Ivory tower Bravo Sierra
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.