More Guns in Citizens' Hands Can Worsen Crime, Study Says

The Los Angeles Times ^ | 1/23/03 | Aparna Kumar

[Gothmog]

WASHINGTON -- State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution.

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict an influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

[Dick Bachert]

PRECISELY! And it looks like defrocked "Professor" Michael Bellisles, late of Emory, has found a new job: Researcher at Stanford.

BOTH THESE MORONS HAVE COMPLIMENTARY MEMBERSHIPS WAITING FOR THEM AT THE "WILL CALL" -- SO NAMED TO REMIND THEM TO BRING COPIES OF THEIR WILLS -- DESK AT CAMP GUNFREE (JUST OUTSIDE MUNICH).

CAMP GUNFREE.
A common sense and historically proven way to keep those dangerous and destructive GUNS out of YOUR life.
MEMBERSHIPS AVAILABLE NOW!
Details below

Concerned about the easy availability of guns in our society?

Alarmed about the "gun nuts" and other freedom wackos the government allows to run loose?

Wish the government would just repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns because you believe sensible people shouldn't suffer because of some idiotic notion about some antiquated “right?”

While we can't take the guns away from the people, we CAN take the people (or at least SOME of them) away from their guns.

At CAMP GUNFREE, we have created an atmosphere of near-total tranquility where you and your family will experience the benefits of a GUN FREE environment.

The unique main gate at Camp GunFree. Most arriving camp guests never see this view from their comfortable rail cars.

Each of our camps is a gated community designed to keep guns away from camp guests. Firmly enforced security measures ensure that these dangerous and destructive devices are kept outside. Each camp boasts 24 hour, 7 day a week sentries and state-of-the-art enclosure systems, guard dogs, trenches and surveillance equipment to absolutely GUARANTEE that no firearms enter the facility. Rigidly controlled access ensures that no guns can ever be smuggled in.

No cost has been spared to ensure that Camp GunFree remains gun free.

All camp members are given distinctive uniforms to distinguish them from any gun-toting barbarians who might attempt to evade our security measures. Each camp member is also assigned a distinctive ID number to ensure that only the right people are allowed within the camp.

Room and board are provided to each member in exchange for rewarding tasks designed to provide a sense of accomplishment and to demonstrate that large numbers of people CAN exist in a gun violence free community.

Camp members engaged in one of our many fun-filled organized work activities.

The current headlines prompt us to remind you that there has NEVER been a shooting by a student in any of the camp schools and we can GUARANTEE that there never will be!!

For more information, call 1-800-GUNFREE
OR visit our new website at
http://www.privategunsareabadthingandwe'llseethatyouare”safe”.batf.gov

(This idea from a pamphlet originally created by The Minnesota Center for Individual Liberty, PO Box 32170, Minneapolis, MN 55432-0170)

[Redcloak]

From the article...

A comparison of crime trends in adjacent counties in two states -- one with a right-to-carry law and one without -- demonstrates "a drop in crime rates in the areas with the law and an increase in those without the law," Lott said.

But Donohue argues that such comparisons are generally skewed, since the states that have adopted such laws tend to be rural and relatively isolated from the types of violent crime -- such as offenses related to crack cocaine -- that disproportionately affect more urbanized states, many of which have not enacted similar laws.

However, Lott and Mustard already accounted for differences such as rural versus urbanized. They found, contrary to Donohue's ranting, that right-to-carry has a greater impact on violent crime in urban areas! Of course, this means letting non-Whites carry concealed weapons; a thought that terrifies racist, White liberals.

[SauronOfMordor]

If it is true, it's the smoking gun (har, har) of bias in the study, because those states have both rural and urban populations.

Florida kept stats on CCW holders and license revokation:

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 - 2/28/94 (over 6 years) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

(from Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed

I read the same stats from other sources. The reason Florida stopped bothering to keep stats after 1994 was because there were too few offenses to keep track of.

[SauronOfMordor]

Hence if you examined the relationship between CC and crime without controling for crack addiction, you would that CC tends reduce crime even though it may not. This is called correlated omitted variable bias.

The relevant stat is not the level of crime in CCW states, but the level of crime COMMITTED BY CCW HOLDERS (which is generally insignificant). The only justification for restricting CCW is if CCW holders were likely to commit crimes with their guns. Since the gun-grabbers are unable to show anything like this, they have to work with other statistics

[traditionalist]

It may be that the rates of violent crime, after dropping at the initial passing of CCW, stabilized for several years at the new, lower level. This would tend to appear to dilute the crime-lowering effect of CCW, if such exists.

If this were true, then CCW should still be asssociated with lower levels of crime. While this relationship shows up in the 1977-1992 data, it disappears when you add 1993-1999 data.

[B.O. Plenty]

Everything this guy just said is bullshit!....My Cousin Vinney.

[sailor4321]

Other than Lott and a few others, gun studies tend to be characterized by "cherry-picking" data to "prove" a hypothesis. I suspect very much that is the case here as well. Can't wait to see what Lott has to say about this study....

[traditionalist]

The relevant stat is not the level of crime in CCW states, but the level of crime COMMITTED BY CCW HOLDERS (which is generally insignificant). The only justification for restricting CCW is if CCW holders were likely to commit crimes with their guns.

Oh, I agree with you, but John Lott's claims were that CCW was associated with lower crime trends and levels. All Donohue's paper shows, using methodology I find sound, is that Lott's original result is not robust.

In his research paper, Donohue does not claim that his results justify restricting CCW. He only does that in the LA times article, but his statements are clearly not supported by his own findings.

[Nataku X]

99% of men are just looking for free milk from the cow. Gals, don't be fooled no matter how flowery your boyfriend is.

[traditionalist]

I suspect very much that is the case here as well.

I did too, at first, but unfortunately it is quite sound. The good news is that the study does not find that CCW increases crime. The only valid conclusion one can draw from it is that CCW doesn't affect crime one way or another.

[Nataku X]

Sorry, meant to respond to a thread about cohabitation.

[gnarledmaw]

Out of curiosity, does his work tend to show how "good" trade with China is or is that really not his area?

[Blood of Tyrants]

One is trained in the professional use of statistics, and the other is trained in the professional use of bullsh**. Which results should I believe to be scientific?

Ummm... dirtboy? Is there a difference between statistics and bullsh##?

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Author unknown.

[traditionalist]

No, he's not a trade economist. You can read his CV if you want.

[Atlas Sneezed]

How did you get the study? They want five bucks to see it.

[sailor4321]

Evidently Lott disagrees --- the article says the May issue of the Stanford Law Review will have a piece on this study plus an update by Lott of his work and a rejection by Lott of the findings of the Brookings "study".

When Lott's work was first published, all sorts of people came out of the woodwork with critiques. Lott patiently demolished these, and I suspect that will be the case here as well....

[traditionalist]

You can get it an the NBER. I've posted several links already.

[traditionalist]

I'll be very curious to see Lott's rebuttal. I honestly cannot see what he can complain about. Even when Donohue copied Lott's methodology, but only extended the data to include years' Lott's paper didn't, the Lott's results disappeared.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Yeah, I noticed the 'exactness' of his data, ha ha ha. Yeah, well, maybe the gun would misfire and blow up and cause other guns around it to blow up and this would create a chain reaction that kills everyone in the entire gun carrying state!

I know that guns are nothing but evil weapons. If you have a gun in your house you are 50 times more likely to have it used on you than for it to be used correctly. This is why we have over 79 million gun owners in the U.S.A. and 30 million people die every year from the bad bad guns.

(I believe the above statistics everytime I hear Hillary Clinton or Chucky Schumer puke out the lies.)

[dirtboy]

If this were true, then CCW should still be asssociated with lower levels of crime. While this relationship shows up in the 1977-1992 data, it disappears when you add 1993-1999 data.

However, with the 1993-99 trends, crime was making significant drops with or without CCW due to economic and demographic factors. If CCW caused a five percent drop in crime during, say, 1987 to 1993, but crime dropped sixty percent from 1993 to 1999 because of national trends, you can lump the two together to trivialize the drop from CCW.