Posted on 07/01/2017 3:45:28 PM PDT by Ennis85
While the National Rifle Association (NRA) has long insisted that allowing Americans to carry guns make communities safer, an analysis of nearly 40 years’ worth of data has found that is not necessarily true.
A Stanford Law School professor, John Donohue, and his team analyzed crime data from 1977 to 2014 and didn’t find evidence that areas where more Americans carry guns enjoy enhanced public safety or less crime. On the contrary, the researchers discovered that states that have enacted so-called right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have experienced higher rates of violent crime than states that did not adopt those laws.
All U.S. states and Washington, D.C., allow concealed carry in some form, and nearly every state has some restrictions on where its residents can carry the weapons. Donohue analyzed the 33 states that enacted RTC laws during his data period.
The team estimates that the adoption of RTC laws substantially elevates violent crime rates (excluding murder rates), but seems to have no impact on property crime. States that adopted RTC laws have experienced an average 13 percent to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws, the researchers wrote in a working paper published on June 21 by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue said.
The theory that more guns equal less crime is one of the most deeply seeded and prominent in the gun-rights movement. Perhaps the most well-known recent example of that idea came from Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association, in the wake of the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
(Excerpt) Read more at disqus.com ...
Blah, blah, blah de blah blah.
Run Wyoming and Vermont alone.Compare them to the rest.
Fake Study
Which came first? Chicken or egg? Higher crime rates or higher gun carrying rates?
So Chicago is a right to carry city?
Gun grabbers are coming out from under their rocks of late.
The question I'd put to the professor is if firearms are so utterly useless why does just about every elected official,every celebrity,every multi millionaire and every 7-eleven owner in this country either pack heat him/herself or have a 24/7/365 armed cohort for protection?
I'd also be curious to know if the professor himself packs heat for his own and/or his family's safety.
I added ‘banglist’ to the keywords. You should have.
False premise. Weapons are the means of defending life, liberty and property in an unsafe world. Having them allows us to deal with the threats delivered by individuals or groups whether human or animal. We are not safer with or without them only better equipped to deal with the problems.
Had to do much grabbing with a sucking chest wound.
“So Chicago is a right to carry City?”
It is indeed.
L
It could easily be that ‘Rat controlled areas were heading South faster than those who chose to stay could arm up.
I'm no expert on the matter but it's my understanding that Vermont...yes,VERMONT...has just about the most lenient gun laws in the nation.It's also my understanding that they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.
Of course those of us familiar with the state know that there's another noteworthy fact about Vermont that might help explain its low crime rate.
My purpose in carrying is not to make the community safer in general, just me and my family.
They built models to predict what crime WOULD have been without the changes in law, to compare to what actually happened.
So for example, Texas had a 19% drop in violent crime after passing concealed carry, but the group created a model that predicted a 30% drop without the new law.
So like magic, a 20% drop was actually a big increase.
I would note that you wouldn’t necessarily expect a drop in violent crime with a concealed carry law. What you would expect is a drop in deaths by violence, and an increase in violent crimes being halted by people with guns.
The problem with Concealed carry is that nobody knows you have the gun, so it isn’t a deterrent like putting a police officer on the street corner. But it will protect you if someone starts committing a violent crime.
Still, it appears that violent crimes were decreased after these laws passed.
*also, concealed carry laws don’t really “increase the number of guns”, they just increase the possibility that a gun owner will HAVE their gun with them when there is a crime to be stopped.
Straw-man argument.
The right to bear arms is, first and foremost, to protect against a tyrannical government.
As many have pointed out before, when a government wants to control and oppress, they first disarm. World history.
Which is why the Common Core public schools don’t teach it anymore.
I don't accept the author's claim that the two go hand in hand. Per everything I've read on the subject, over many years, the exact opposite is true.
The so-called "study" the author cites, is just another in a continuing series of efforts by the left, to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
fom the comments
n. • 4 hours ago
Hey, this is interesting. Right from the above article.. John Donohue says, “ All this work is based on statistical models,” “When the models all generate similar estimates, it increases your confidence that you have captured the true effect”
Isn’t statistical modeling what climate science is based on as well? And we’re expected to just accept it at face value.
Maybe the one of the questions we should be asking is when do we accept statistical modeling as fact and unquestionable ,,,or not?
Bad example. What did Sandy Hook have to do with RTC? The only person carrying at Sandy Hook was Adam Lanza.
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.