New study disputes "more guns, less crime"

[Milsurp Collector]

Legalizing concealed guns doesn't deter crime, Texas A&M study concludes

Every state in the U.S., to one degree or another, allows its residents to carry concealed handguns. The reason is a belief -- supported by various studies -- that concealed-carry laws help reduce crime...

A new study from Texas A&M University throws cold water on that conclusion...

...Their conclusion is that concealed-carry laws have "zero effect" on crime rates. "This research suggests that the rate at which CHLs (concealed handgun licenses) are issued and crime rates are independent of one another -- crime does not drive CHLs; CHLs do not drive crime," the study states.


Read more at http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/09/legal_concealed_guns_dont_dete.html

[ElvenSoul]

Did they go to Detroit?

[Librarian]

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcrim/2015/803742/

I will be interested to read Dr Lott's response at CPRC (http://crimeresearch.org/).

Ah! It's already up - http://crimeresearch.org/2015/09/problems-with-a-new-study-from-journal-of-criminology-claiming-that-permitted-concealed-handguns-have-no-effect-on-crime/

[SoCal Bob]

On the positive side, any antis that embrace this study can't say more permits cause more crime.

[R Dale]

On the positive side, any antis that embrace this study can't say more permits cause more crime.

That is true, On another note I was thinking to the uninformed that would read the study one might think that permits to carry are readily available in all states when the truth is in some states permits are unavailable to 99% of the population and in other states counties within those states restrict permits to about 1% of their population

[clbshooter]

Texan A&M study was for 1998 to 2010. Way too long ago to be relevant. JMO

[baggss]

Texan A&M study was for 1998 to 2010. Way too long ago to be relevant. JMO

You do understand that for trend analysis the more data go back in time you have the better the trend that can be determined. Age of data is not so much a factor as is the data being collected consistently over time. Changes in the methodology of collecting data can skewer trend results in unintended ways. The data isn't old and is quite relative.

[rootuser]

Texan A&M study was for 1998 to 2010. Way too long ago to be relevant. JMO

Errr, huh???? Looking at trends in a microcosm is a trick of the fake right. The longer the better for obvious reasons. Sorry if you were being sarcastic, it just didn't come across and maybe I'm misreading it. Always a good idea to take a long period of time and cut off the head and tail as anomalies and then you can find trends in the data.

The best thing I see about all the studies like this is it proves:

GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

More guns doesn't mean more crime, and they don't mean less crime. Guns are neither the solution or the problem. Abridging the rights of law abiding citizens when it has no real impact one way or the other is just stupid IMHO. Banning "assault this" or "assault that" has no real effect on crime, period. To limit people's rights you certainly need more concrete evidence that there is a country wide imperative. Studies like this prove to me, there is not.

[clbshooter]

baggss
I do understand your point.
But I also believe that CCW permit holders have grown faster in the last 5 years or so, than any time in our history. I know here in SWFL the office that takes your app. is busy every day I go past it. I only live 3 blocks away and go by it every day.
If you look at Detroit where the sheriff told the people to arm themselves to keep safe because the police couldn't get there in time, you will see a drop in crime. I realize that he was talking about at home but it has helped.

When the next study comes out in 2020 I believe we then see a better number.

and again JMO :oji:

rootuser I believe this study was slanted so the outcome would be what they wanted.

[Milsurp Collector]

The way the antis are spinning it is that concealed carry is an overall negative since it doesn't decrease crime (according to the study) and there is still the danger of accidental or negligent discharge (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/), people losing their firearms (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/12/loaded_gun_left_in_tillamook_t.html), etc.

Here are some comments from the Oregonian article:


Roy Bacon
@LArdman

The more firearms present in any situation, the greater the likelihood that a mishap could occur. That's simple statistical analysis.


LArdman
@Roy Bacon

The study says no increased danger with a 500% increase in lawfully carried firearms.


Roy Bacon
@LArdman

Wherever firearms are present, there is danger.

The only question is: how much?

It's a cost-benefit ratio.

LArdman
@Roy Bacon

So you disagree with the study?


Roy Bacon
@LArdman

It's too simplistic to dismiss the lawful possession of firearms as risk-free.

LArdman
@Roy Bacon

Nobody says it's risk free. Being armed and not being armed come with their own set of risks. The study suggests they are a wash.

SomedayIWill
@LArdman @Roy Bacon

The study is about crime. Roy Bacon is including "accidental" and negligent gun injuries, and the statistics back him up. More guns means more gun injuries/deaths.

[sl0re10]

sounds a little straw manny. I don't really remember more concealed carry = less crime being a regular / mainstream argument on our side.... there was some more guns=less but not CCW. Just the belief more CCW wouldn't cause more crime.

[wildhawker]

On the positive side, any antis that embrace this study can't say more permits cause more crime.

This.

[rootuser]

rootuser I believe this study was slanted so the outcome would be what they wanted.

Of course it was. But I think it's perfect because it doesn't show more guns (Which there are now) cause more crime, it shows that more guns doesn't equal less crime. So the 2A reigns supreme. No need to crush people under insane gun laws because its not doing any good and the harm to the constitutional right is greater than the good by denying it.

If we get into the argument more guns equals less crime you have done the worst thing imaginable: You have tied guns to crime. By that measure, the minute crime goes up, it's because of guns. Guns either do have an effect, or do not, on crime and are not a head and or tail effect on the bell curve. My assertion is criminals will act criminally, guns or not and the vast majority of crimes would happen, guns or not, so why in the hell are we destroying a constitutionally protected right?

[baggss]

But I also believe that CCW permit holders have grown faster in the last 5 years or so, than any time in our history. I know here in SWFL the office that takes your app. is busy every day I go past it. I only live 3 blocks away and go by it every day.
If you look at Detroit where the sheriff told the people to arm themselves to keep safe because the police couldn't get there in time, you will see a drop in crime. I realize that he was talking about at home but it has helped.

When the next study comes out in 2020 I believe we then see a better number.

Definitely agree there. The number of CCWs nationwide has grown significantly in the last 5 years and as time goes on there will be more data to either confirm or change the trend that is seen now. The nice part is that if this happens the data will clearly show the correlation as the number of permits spikes significantly and amount of crime drops.

I also believe that the trend will show that more CCWs = less crime of certain types, while other crimes will rise (Read Dr. Lott's book for an explanation).

[IVC]

You do understand that for trend analysis the more data go back in time you have the better the trend that can be determined.

ONLY if the underlying generative model doesn't change.

In case of CCW, the national shift from "may issue" to "shall issue" significantly changed the demographics that carries from "cronies" to "enthusiasts" to "average persons."

[Victor Cachat]

Like any leftist "study", the point is to give the left a hook to hang their rhetorical hat on.

It doesn't matter if it is garbage because the media will not call the antis on it.
Even if they check it and find it is bogus, they will not give any coverage.

[mag360]

Man the losers that did this study missed the whole point, whether it makes crime go up down or sideways it doesnt matter, what matters is that i am able to protect myself.

[CessnaDriver]

Item 1 and 2

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz3nOPA2Zss

[Fyathyrio]

Texan A&M study was for 1998 to 2010. Way too long ago to be relevant. JMO

I haven't read Dr. Lott's response yet, but I suspect he'll say something along the lines that this particular span was cherry picked to get the results the authors wanted. At the national level, violent crime has been on a downward trend since 1993, (Prior to the national "assault weapons ban") and the data is easily available...so why pick 5 years after the reduction started. Data is also available up to 2013 (I believe), so why stop in 2010?

[dchang0]

I haven't read Dr. Lott's response yet, but I suspect he'll say something along the lines that this particular span was cherry picked to get the results the authors wanted.

Even if the authors of a study haven't personally cherry-picked the data, the very fact that they are relying on REPORTED CRIME RATES is itself a form of selection bias.

For instance, a simple real-world example.

My brother and I were driving to LAX when we saw a small fender-bender car accident between a lady in an expensive Mercedes SUV and a livery limo driver. She had rear-ended him with a light bump. No visible damage. He was irate and had gotten out of his limo and was screaming at her in the middle of the road, blocking traffic.

We were a couple of lanes over and rolled slowly by. She had her window down while this guy was yelling at her, and she slowly pulled a brilliantly-chromed gun out of her purse and pointed it at him. He got suddenly calm and quiet, although he did not run away (kudos to him).

There was no report on the news, nor were any cops called as far as I could tell. He drove away without incident (no visible damage to his bumper anyway).

A concealed gun stopped a potential physical assault. Not reported: either the brandishing of the gun or the physical assault on the woman that might've occurred.

If any study fails to take into account the very real possibility that a crime was prevented and thus not reported, it cannot be trusted because of that innate selection bias.

This is the fundamental flaw with the left trying to pose gun violence as a public health issue. If all they're counting are the lives lost due to guns and none of the lives saved, they are going to draw seriously-flawed conclusions.