PDA

View Full Version : Crime Rate & Concealed Carry


Double Naught Spy
May 27, 2009, 07:29 AM
For those who believe that concealed carry CAUSES a reduction in crime, here is some sobering information. Texas instituted its CHL program in 1996 and crime went down. In fact, crime had been dropping for several years preceding 1996 and so the fact that crime went down can't be attributed to the CHL program.

Now in 2009, we see that crime isn't down so much. In fact, the top three cities with the highest crime rates in the US with populations of more than a million are San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. Dallas is now thrilled to no longer hold the top spot for crime which it held for at least the last 10 years.

Note that these three cities alone constitute roughly 24% of the population of Texas.

It is pretty hard to see how CHLs are lowering the crime rate when places with the largest population densities in the state have the worst crime rates in the nation for cities over a million people.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052709dnmetcrime.41fe673.html

Dallas' crime rate no longer the highest among large U.S. cities
06:38 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 27, 2009

By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News
teiserer@dallasnews.com
Dallas has shed its title as the U.S. city of more than 1 million with the highest crime rate.

The city is poised to announce that the No. 1 rank, which Dallas held for at least 10 years, now goes to San Antonio.
Based on an analysis of population growth and crime numbers released last week by the Texas Department of Public Safety, Dallas will drop to the No. 2 spot, and Houston will rank third.

"We're clearly headed in the right direction," said Mayor Tom Leppert. "I believe there is still a lot of work left to be done. We want to see it lower than it is today."

According to statistics individual cities reported to the state, Dallas now has a rate of 68 crimes per 1,000 residents; San Antonio has 79 crimes per 1,000 residents and Houston has 59 crimes per 1,000 residents.

The Dallas City Council had set a goal for the Police Department to get the city out of the top spot by 2008. The city appears to have met that goal.

"That's good news," said Police Chief David Kunkle, who took the post almost five years ago. "Our officers have worked very hard. It is a credit to a lot of different people whenever crime is going down in a community."

Last year, every category of crime – ranging from murder to theft – fell in Dallas. The city recorded more than 10,000 fewer offenses.

And crime continues to fall. It is down 17.5 percent through April.

Crime report concerns
Criminal experts have always said that using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports to make comparisons among cities is misleading. The FBI strongly discourages the use of its national crime data for ranking purposes, in part because the way data is gathered can vary greatly from city to city, depending on the interpretation of the reporting guidelines.

"They are called uniform crime reporting, but they're not all uniform in terms of how police departments interpret the rules and record the data," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston.

Simply crunching all the different crime categories to come up with an overall crime number isn't a good indicator of how dangerous a city is, he said. By tabulating it that way, a murder counts the same as a theft in the overall tally. It also means that a city could have a murder problem, but still look good overall if it had low recorded property crime.

Fox also said it is problematic to come up with a crime rate based on a city's resident population because some cities have large numbers of people who commute to work or visit.

"The resident population may not be a good indicator as to how many people are at risk," he said.

Dallas police readily acknowledge that changes to the department's reporting practices contributed greatly to the decrease in the city's reported crime numbers.

Changing the system
Kunkle began changing the department's offense reporting system about three years ago. He believed the system was broken, with too many incidents that were not actual crimes being recorded as such. He also found that Dallas wasn't following commonly used reporting practices, making the city look worse in comparison to its peers.

Early in 2007, the department changed how it recorded aggravated assaults after finding that officers were incorrectly recording offenses. Later that year, the department started requiring individuals who report their vehicles stolen to sign affidavits, a change that police officials say has dramatically reduced the incidents of people falsely reporting their vehicles as stolen.

That same year, police officials found that they hadn't been following the FBI's guidelines on reporting many property crimes such as theft or car burglaries. In some cases, the rules allow multiple crimes to be reported as a single criminal act.

Without one recent procedural change, for example, Dallas' crime figures would have dropped about 7 percent last year, rather than the 10 percent that was recorded. That procedural change also continues to affect the city's crime numbers.

Downward trend
But crime is trending downward sharply, even without the reporting changes.

Last week, The Dallas Morning News reported that a 17.5 percent drop in overall crime would have actually been about 12.5 percent without the change.

The dubious distinction of being No. 1 in crime among major cities, first reported about six years ago, played a part in the firing of Police Chief Terrell Bolton and caused consternation among city officials who feared the ranking would scare away businesses and hamper economic development. It also helped prompt the city to pour resources into the manpower-strapped department.

Leppert and other city officials believe that getting more boots on the ground has played a crucial role in helping drive down the city's crime numbers. The city now has about 3,500 police officers, about 600 more than in 2004. Dallas now has about 2.7 officers per thousand residents, placing it ever closer to reaching the longtime goal of three officers per thousand.

Even facing a tough fiscal crunch, city officials plan to add 200 more police officer positions to the force in the next budget year.

"People will come up to you and say, 'I saw a police officer patrolling my neighborhood. I never used to see that,"' Leppert said. "Clearly, we've had some terrific results in terms of the reduction in crime. But I want to make sure that we continue this."

Many criminal justice experts believe that because so many other crime categories can be subject to reporting vagaries, murder is the best indicator of a city's performance.

On that front, Dallas continues to do very well. The city ended last year with 170 murders, a 15 percent decline from the prior year's tally. The city is on track to record about 150 murders this year, which would be the lowest number in at least 40 years.

In San Antonio, a police spokesman said he could not comment on his city's rise in the rankings. But he attributed a spike in property-related crime, such as thefts, to the tremendous population growth the city continues to experience. San Antonio's overall crime jumped about 17 percent last year, fueled in large part by an increase of 10,000 theft offenses.

"We really haven't felt the crunch of the economy," Officer Joe Rios said. "We're still building homes and growing at a fast rate. We're seeing construction sites being burglarized. Metal theft also increased our numbers through the first part of the year."

The FBI is expected to release comprehensive crime statistics for American cities next week.

christcorp
May 27, 2009, 08:18 AM
I don't see the correlation between their crime and CCW. San Antonio specifically mentions an increase in housing being built and an increase in theft that is probably associated with that. You need to look at the stats for personal crimes such as muggings, rape, assault, and other crimes where a CCW is meaningful. Any other stat is irrelevant.

MikeGoob
May 27, 2009, 08:57 AM
If they are talking about non violent crime like credit card fraud or shoplifting I dont see what CCW would have to do with the statistic. If they are talking about gangbangers getting in gunfights with other gangbangers on gang property, it still wouldnt have any affect from CCW citizens. Are there less home invasions? Less muggings?

Jim March
May 27, 2009, 11:01 AM
Two things:

1) Texas was hit hard by a crime wave caused by Katrina refugees. They're still dealing with that to some degree.

2) CCW doesn't affect all crime types...not even all violent crime types.

OK, MOST murders in the US are "crook versus crook". CCW has little effect, except in rare cases where good folk are caught in the crossfire.

The second largest block of murders are "in home" of various sorts, where CCW has only a limited effect. Having a CCW permit DOES increase the odds for some folk that you'll have a gun handy when your crazy brother finally loses it and goes completely bonkers with a chainsaw, fr'instance :). But the effect isn't that serious.

Criminal attacks on honest folks are the third largest block of murders/assaults/rapes/etc. That's where CCW has the most effect.

Wagonman
May 27, 2009, 12:45 PM
You also have to look at the mindset (how, I don't know) of the offender of a crime against a law abiding citizen.

Criminals are like wolves, they prey on the weakest/dumbest of the herd, and if they don't know who the weakest one is i.e. a non CCW they will move on to the dumbest one.

Creature
May 27, 2009, 12:52 PM
I am "bookmarking" this thread. I am interested in seeing where this one goes...

Hellbilly5000
May 27, 2009, 01:19 PM
I am "bookmarking" this thread. I am interested in seeing where this one goes...

Same here.

Now for my comment.

I live in Austin and am from San Antonio.
So I would say I know a little about Texas

After Katrina a lot of idiots from NO moved to Houston ( there crime rate sky rocketed even higher then it was) San Antonio, Austin, and the Dallas area.

After Ike hit Houston a lot the idiots from NO moved from Houston to Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and a few other places.

Here in Austin we saw a huge spike in crime right before Ike hit due to evacuees (were still waiting for some to go home) I am sure San Antonio and Dallas had the same problems we did after Ike and Katrina


Legal Disclaimer: I am not stating all people from LA or New Orleans are idiots I am speaking specifically of the criminal element. There are no facts that I can prove, The statements are more from what I observed here in Texas after the storms hit. I am sure there are plenty of nice honest people in the Houston Austin San Antonio and Dallas areas that were displaced by an angry mother earth

Double Naught Spy
May 27, 2009, 04:39 PM
Well gee guys, hurricane Katrina was in 2005. That hardly accounts for the high crime rates before 2005 unless like the proponents of Texas CHL you are going to discount everything before a given date. Dallas was still #1 before Katrina for several years.

Even with Katrina, what you are saying is that the folks from Katrina weren't terribly scared of Texans and their concealed carry guns. For crying out loud, they came from places like Louisiana and Mississippi where plenty of folks have guns as well.

Hkmp5sd
May 27, 2009, 05:00 PM
For those who believe that concealed carry CAUSES a reduction in crime, here is some sobering information.

You know, I don't really care what effect it has on "crime." Statistics can be made to say pretty much anything. Just look how "wonderful" the country is doing based on Obama's number crunching.

Having a shall issue CCW does give me the option to defend myself and that is all that matters.

Doodlebugger45
May 27, 2009, 05:30 PM
I doubt if any people who opt for CCW give a hoot about national or state statistics. They just want to make sure they are not one of the victims that make up the statistics.

I symapthize with the folks who live in areas that have crime. I have to remind myself each time I read this forum to keep quiet about the current mania about the CCW stuff. I can't ever remember even having a murder or a robbery in my county, so it's easy for me to scoff at what I might see as paranoia. But when I travel to Denver, Houston, or elsewhere on business, I could easily see myself being worried about my safety if I had to live there.

Hellbilly5000
May 27, 2009, 06:14 PM
Are there any statistics on how many crimes were prevented by chl's in Dallas/Ft Worth?

ZeSpectre
May 27, 2009, 06:23 PM
For those who believe that concealed carry CAUSES a reduction in crime, here is some sobering information.

The funny thing is I've never really cared about how much CCW causes a reduction in crime overall, just how it causes a reduction in crimes committed against ME.

Creature
May 27, 2009, 06:55 PM
The funny thing is I've never really cared about how much CCW causes a reduction in crime overall, just how it causes a reduction in crimes committed against ME.

Good point. And same here.

Wagonman
May 27, 2009, 07:11 PM
The funny thing is I've never really cared about how much CCW causes a reduction in crime overall, just how it causes a reduction in crimes committed against ME.

Pithy and cogent. +1

Double Naught Spy
May 27, 2009, 07:16 PM
You know, I don't really care what effect it has on "crime." Statistics can be made to say pretty much anything.

Yeah, and my point is that gun folks really really want to believe that concealed carry has this dramatic affect on crime to the point of broadcasting it as fact when it isn't.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219168&highlight=texas+chl+10+years

They just want to make sure they are not one of the victims that make up the statistics.

The funny thing is I've never really cared about how much CCW causes a reduction in crime overall, just how it causes a reduction in crimes committed against ME.

And that is all that matters and the only place in which the statistics about concealed carry can be shown to have an effect that is significant - at the individual level.

Tex S
May 27, 2009, 07:36 PM
Double Naught, you seem to be quite the number cruncher. Here is a good one for ya...

Why dont you add up all of the instances where a CHL has used deadly force in a justified way, then compare it to all of the times a CHL has used deadly force in an unjustified way.

After you have secured this data, please report back and tell me if you still think CHL has not lowered the crime rate in instances where a CHL served any relavance to the said crime.

Furthermore, the punks and thugs are performing "crook on crook" crimes. Dope dealers shoot crackheads for being late on their meth bill. This has nothing to do with CHL. A CHL cannot prevent that crime.

Here is some more number crunching for you. Go to your local projects and take a survey (be sure to take your piece though!). Ask a few folks around there what a CHL is. I would be willing to bet that a good margin of the folks have no idea what that even means.

Bottom line. CHL's lower crime when the said crime is pertinent to them. We CHL's cannot be responsible for gangsta's killing each other in East Dallas.

Ok, one more scenario and I will quit. I betcha that Oak Cliff in East Dallas has one of the highest crime rates in the city. I would also venture to guess that they have an extremely low number of CHL's. I would LOVE to see some data on that.

Levant
May 27, 2009, 08:02 PM
Texas got hit pretty hard with an influx of new criminals after Katrina and has always been hit hard with illegal immigrants and drug dealers. I don't think you can look at crime or changes in crime rates in Texas in the same as you would anywhere else.

Shane Tuttle
May 27, 2009, 09:45 PM
If you want to dismiss the Katrina issue since it happened in 2005, then I present Jon R. Lott, Jr. He has compiled evidence from every county, not state, county, on the crime rates they occured. His long term study involved the before and after effect on Shall Issue. His conclusion, although dated, supports the fact that counties changing from May/No issue to Shall issue drops crime rate in major categories. Murder, rape, assault, etc. all have dropped in the over 3,000 counties in the U.S.

I take the Dallas Morning News with a tiny grain of salt. They're getting about as liberal as the Houston Chronicle and Atlanta Constitution.

Even if they think the rates aren't contributing to the drop in crime, the FACT remains that my chances of not being a victim of a crime is greater if I'm allowed to arm myself. I'm willing to bet this is what Creature means.

Buzzcook
May 27, 2009, 10:56 PM
John Lott (Mary Rosh to his friends), Has been debunked so many times and by so many people it's always a bit surprising when someone mentions him as an authority on anything except self promotion.

There are far better people to cite, such as Kleck, but even so there is no clear connection between an increase in the number of concealed carry permits issued and the over all crime rate.

Facts don't have a political bias.

Wagonman
May 27, 2009, 11:23 PM
I wasn't aware of the issue with Dr Lott, I did some quick google-fu and judging from the websites that were making a commotion about it and his point by point refutation of Michelle Malkin's (who I adore) piece on him I find it not a big deal.

The fact of the matter is that CCW may or may not lower "crime" on a macro level. It does at a micro level. The 2nd doesn't mention self defense explicitly, it is just a nice added benefit. You can use the same gun to protect yourself from criminals that you might need to defend yourself from a out of control government.

Shane Tuttle
May 27, 2009, 11:28 PM
John R. Lott, Jr.: Formerly(IIRC) of University of Chicago, School of Law? Where can you site this?

He and David B. Mustard, also at the UofC in Dept of Economics assembled an abstract titled "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns back in July, 1996. It was pretty detailed on their analysis. When I lived in Michigan, Mr. Lott came up to Lansing to present their abstract when hearings were in session to introduce the Shall Issue bill.

Also, in his abstract, he challenged Kleck's and Patterson's papers they:

"involve little more than either time-series or cross-sectional evidence comparing mean crime rates, and none controls for variables that normally concern economists (e.g., the probability of arrest and conviction and the length of prison sentences or even variables like personal income). These papers fail to recognize that, since it is frequesntly only the largest population counties that are very restrictive when local authorities have been given discretion in granting concealed handgun permits, "shall issue" concealed handgun permit laws, which require permit requests be granted unless the individual has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness (Cramer and Kopel, 1995, pp. 680-707), will not alter the number of permits being issued in all counties."

This is a quoted excerpt from his abstract and it's only icing on the cake.

FF/EMT
May 27, 2009, 11:52 PM
hkmp5sd...I'm with you brother. +1

Buzzcook
May 28, 2009, 12:46 AM
Wagonman: If it were just a matter of Lott dressing in virtual drag then it'd just be embarrassing. But falsifying results is a big deal.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott.php

Of course you can dismiss all his critics if it makes your life easier.



Michelle Malkin? Geez, now we're talking real loon squad members.

Kyo
May 28, 2009, 01:25 AM
to anyone who cares if CCW reduces crime:

CCW isn't about reducing crime. Its about defending myself. so, if you are in the mindset that in fact it does nothing for crime, then all more the reason I should carry my firearm.
I bet you would want one if you went into one of those cities. Would you rather not carry one because "it doesn't reduce crime"??? how horribly backwards that logic is. You go on ahead, leave your gun at home because it does nothing to stop crime. Ill be happy with mine everywhere I go. Cause bad guys don't tell me when they want to act in a criminal way. I can't tell the future that far.

Wildalaska
May 28, 2009, 01:49 AM
There are far better people to cite, such as Kleck, but even so there is no clear connection between an increase in the number of concealed carry permits issued and the over all crime rate.


Yay, give the man an A

WildastatforeverythingandeverythingastatAlaska TM

Tru Trak
May 28, 2009, 07:17 AM
I have read both sides of this argument and have come to the conclusion that it is a useless one. The folks against CCW will always be against it (until attacked themselves) and the folks for it will always be for it. This has not changed in our whole history as far as I can see it. I can't imagine someone telling our Fore Fathers that they needed a permit to carry thier weapon. In my opinion I believe there is a slab of our society that is just evil and without weapons to keep them in check they will over run the rest of us in a short time. I for one don't intend to let someone from that slab do the harm that is their lifestyle to me or my family if I am at all capable. Capable meaning being able to take them out with a weapon as a last resort. This isn't something I take lightly and I hope never happens, but I can't and won't take that chance with my Beloved Bride or my Children. I like most others on this site see awful things happen on the news every day and any one of them could be me or my family, but if I have any say-so it will not be me you will be reading about I pray. The slab I speak of will never stop doing the harm they do and pass it on to the next generation, and I am sure they wonder (and I am glad) if the next person they try to do harm to is armed or not. Although that slab will always be who they are, the one thing I think that could make them happy is the thought that we could easily become an unarmed society.

Wagonman
May 28, 2009, 08:39 AM
Of course you can dismiss all his critics if it makes your life easier.



Michelle Malkin? Geez, now we're talking real loon squad members.


I am not dismissing anyone, I googled the subject and read a little and made a judgement. His explanations look reasonable.


What's wrong with MM, I enjoy her pieces and her debating style.

FF/EMT
May 28, 2009, 09:49 AM
to anyone who cares if CCW reduces crime:

CCW isn't about reducing crime. Its about defending myself. so, if you are in the mindset that in fact it does nothing for crime, then all more the reason I should carry my firearm.
I bet you would want one if you went into one of those cities. Would you rather not carry one because "it doesn't reduce crime"??? how horribly backwards that logic is. You go on ahead, leave your gun at home because it does nothing to stop crime. Ill be happy with mine everywhere I go. Cause bad guys don't tell me when they want to act in a criminal way. I can't tell the future that far.

Amen brother. I was gonna say something but I couldn't have said it better.

txstang84
May 28, 2009, 11:14 AM
to anyone who cares if CCW reduces crime:

CCW isn't about reducing crime. Its about defending myself. so, if you are in the mindset that in fact it does nothing for crime, then all more the reason I should carry my firearm.
I bet you would want one if you went into one of those cities. Would you rather not carry one because "it doesn't reduce crime"??? how horribly backwards that logic is. You go on ahead, leave your gun at home because it does nothing to stop crime. Ill be happy with mine everywhere I go. Cause bad guys don't tell me when they want to act in a criminal way. I can't tell the future that far.

+1

I don't think it's gonna get much if any more succint than this...

ECHOONE
May 28, 2009, 12:58 PM
What's up with this Double Naught guy is he running for public office or something? Yo.... Naught Obama already got the Presidency buddy!! Jobs filled!

Sixer
May 28, 2009, 01:06 PM
Same topic, different week...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358300

Mr. James
May 28, 2009, 04:30 PM
If one could adduce proof positive that concealed carry actually increased the crime/homicide/suicide rates, it would matter not a whit. Such debates may be mildly interesting in a parlour-game kind of way. But in point of fact, they are utterly irrelevant.

I have never thought much of utilitarian arguments about what a public benefit the Second Amendment, or concealed carry, or gun ownership in general provides. It ain't about crime stats or reducing violent crimes or about anything more or less fundamental than this: the individual's right to protect himself and his family from violent predators (or, in the extreme, predatory government) with the best tools available.

Carry on . . .

Kaiser sose
May 29, 2009, 01:56 PM
Where I live a CCW makes all the difference. The town I live in only has about 3,000 people, and about 70% of us are armed. There are several larger cities not far from us,one just a stones throw across the columbia river; and they do have their fair share of crime. But it is known far and wide that our town don't tolorate scum,and because of that fact we don't even have police on duty after 10pm. We citizens deal with any problems ourselves,and if more folks started taking a more active role in policein' their streets and cities maybe crime whould really drop; and things would get better....I don't know why I even bother,its unlikely that anyone who reads this knows what "A Citizen's Duty" is, thats truely sad...

Double Naught Spy
May 29, 2009, 06:42 PM
Double Naught, you seem to be quite the number cruncher. Here is a good one for ya...

Why dont you add up all of the instances where a CHL has used deadly force in a justified way, then compare it to all of the times a CHL has used deadly force in an unjustified way.

After you have secured this data, please report back and tell me if you still think CHL has not lowered the crime rate in instances where a CHL served any relavance to the said crime.

I will tell you what, you show me how the ratio of valid to invalid CHL use is causative to the overall crime rate and I will get the data for you. You can't because it isn't.

Furthermore, the punks and thugs are performing "crook on crook" crimes. Dope dealers shoot crackheads for being late on their meth bill. This has nothing to do with CHL. A CHL cannot prevent that crime.

Thanks for helping make my point! CHLs don't do squat for crimes that don't occur against or in the presence of CHL holders who act in a positive manner on said crimes. You see, those data are part of what constitutes crime rates. There are so few people who have CHLs/CCWs (or whatever you call them where you are) that overall crime isn't affected in spite of claims by CHL/CCW proponents that it is.

Hkmp5sd
May 29, 2009, 07:07 PM
You want to throw out data you don't like. Got it. Thanks for helping make my point!


Yet you are basing your argument on FBI data that even the FBI says not to use because of inaccuracies in reporting.


Given the number of LEOs in the country (several hundred thousand) vs. LEOs involved in gun fights vs. LEOs killed in gun fights vs. LEOs killed with their own gun (approximately 10%), we could prove that either cops do not need to be armed or it would make cops safer if we disarm them.

"Statistics" can be bent to support any argument.

I guess that is why people that swim in the ocean are statistically more likely to be bitten by sharks than those that only swim in pools.

Shane Tuttle
May 29, 2009, 10:31 PM
In my simple little mind, complicated stats that may or may not support a theory gets trumped by common sense just about every time.

The current small percentage of active concealed carriers may not be enough to see a dent made to show an actual reduction in crime. But how many cases have been not reported that a plausible crime was deterred?

If concealed permits were issued to 50% of the population that's law abiding and they actively carried, do you think your assertion will hold water then? I don't. Didn't think so in the beginning, either.

An armed society is a polite society. It's as simple as that.

ZeSpectre
May 29, 2009, 10:35 PM
The current small percentage of active concealed carriers may not be enough to see a dent made to show an actual reduction in crime. But how many cases have been not reported that a plausible crime was deterred?


This thought often occurs to me as well. I don't think we'll ever get accurate stats because (for better or worse) we'll NEVER get accurate reporting on crimes that "almost" happened.

I'd love a world where folks did feel comfortable calling the police and saying "hey, just wanted to get this short-circuited crime attempt on report" and the cops would say, "thanks, we'll add that to the statistics" without any further hassles or weird looks.

Double Naught Spy
June 2, 2009, 03:20 PM
I take the Dallas Morning News with a tiny grain of salt. They're getting about as liberal as the Houston Chronicle and Atlanta Constitution.

Okay, that is well and good. I guess you are saying they fudged the data? Well then, go look at it for yourself and crunch the data and see if things have indeed changed or not.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/

The current small percentage of active concealed carriers may not be enough to see a dent made to show an actual reduction in crime. But how many cases have been not reported that a plausible crime was deterred?

Well gee, how about all the crime that isn't reported at all? There is a lot of it. If you want to argue about John Lott fantasy numbers, that is fine, but you just have to know that they are fantasy numbers.

In my simple little mind, complicated stats that may or may not support a theory gets trumped by common sense just about every time.

Got it. If the data don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the data.

Bud Helms
June 2, 2009, 07:17 PM
Man! I turn around and this topic is in it's second page. Obviously a topic for L&CR.

Moving. You guys behave over there. They don't take prisoners.

Hkmp5sd
June 2, 2009, 07:20 PM
Hmmm.....


Got it. If the data don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the data.

If you want to argue about John Lott fantasy numbers, that is fine, but you just have to know that they are fantasy numbers.


Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Shane Tuttle
June 2, 2009, 08:19 PM
Oh, yes. The dreaded universal crime rates. Well, to throw the curve ball, Detroit has one of, if not, the highest crime rate in America. Yet Michigan is a shall issue state. Supports your case, right? Not so fast. Doesn't exactly show in the stats that many law abiding citizens made a mass exodus to the suburbs. So the overall crime rate may be higher, but it doesn't make sense. Just because the crime rate is sky high in Detroit due to all the hooligans are left behind there doesn't mean CCW permits don't reduce crime. A higher concentration of CCW and law abiding gunowners in most well ran highly populated towns in the metro area provides significant evidence that CCW can "cause" safer places to live. Also, UCR, as another member argued, doesn't take into account for potential crime that's thwarted necessarily. It only uses stats that are REPORTED. UCR is a complete joke.

The whole point missed here is there's not nearly enough active concealed carry users out there to provide proof it can "cause" a reduction in crime. One day, if we have significantly sized cities that has permits issued to 30-40%, this argument will not only be conjecture, it will prove that it provides a safer environment.

Got it. If the data don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the data.

Let's put it this way: I would take a platoon sergeant's word before some general at ICOR on how the actual battle is going in his own trenches. You cling to the UCR as hard, conclusive data. I'll keep my common sense.

nitetrane98
June 2, 2009, 08:57 PM
Double Naught,
You're constructing a strawman argument by saying that CCWer's believe CCW laws are passed to prevent crime. I've lived in Texas for 35 years. I was here when the law was passed. I don't recall any of the proponents of CCW saying anything about reducing crime. So your premise is false from the beginning.

I do remember in 1995 the Luby's massacre in Killeen TX. where a man killed 20+ folks in cold blood. I also remember the anti gun crowd screaming like stuck pigs that there would be blood running in the streets of Texas. "It'll be like the Wild West days, OMG the humanity. Well, guess, didn't happen.

Your statistics are of no use trying to connect CCW with the rise in the crime rate because there was never a connection in the first place.

Cerick
June 2, 2009, 10:35 PM
CCW sure doesn't increase crime. Look at D.C. One of the higher crime rates and no CCW at all. Your sample list of cities with populations over 1,000,000 was weak too because other than the 3 cities you listed, there are only 8 more cities in the country with a population that big. Also San Antonio has a relatively low rate compared to alot of major cities.

skydiver3346
June 3, 2009, 08:16 AM
I really don't know all the facts to your original question/post? Folks make some good points so far regarding this question.

However, the only fact I'm concerned about, is that my conceal carry should hopefully help (in the event that a crime is committed against me and/or my family).

Bartholomew Roberts
June 3, 2009, 08:23 AM
Texas has a high crime rate; but what about violent crime? Most of Dallas's crime problem is theft from motor vehicles, which is pretty common around here; but it isn't the type of crime you would expect CCW to deter.

In fact, without getting into the merits of the Lott study, if I remember Lott correctly, I believe he suggests that their is a substitution factor and that criminals may choose less confrontational crimes as a substitute in his study.

Hank D.
June 3, 2009, 09:28 AM
I for one well know that you can take the statistacs and make them do whatever you want them to do, the noumbers game! I'm not saying that happened here!!! I try very heard to talk of things that I know to be true and not what I hear from any second or third parties, now with that said, one thing I know to be true Is that most criminals are very big cowards, not all but most, whach out for the nut job!!! They go after the weak and try very heard to stay away from the strong! Case In point, I grew up In New York City, "Washington Hights"
My father had a butcher shop there from about 1946 till I think 1978 or so and we had a lot of stores around us, on our street going South was next a hardwear store, a shoe maker , a Deli, a dry goods store and a book store and then a candy store and so on, My point In all the years that we had that store we were never held up, or even an attemped made to hold us up! The same with the shoe maker, all the other stores on that block and across the street were all held up at gun point from time to time. I worked in my Dad's store every weekend for well over 25 years.
Why were we and the shoemaker left out of the holdups? Think about who is always working with a knife and or clever In hand and the shoe maker always had a knife or hammer in hand!!! "Most criminals are cowards" they go for the weak and not the strong! There is another story that I heard of from I think GA. about 10 or 15 years ago??? Two towns close to each other,lets just say town "A" and town "B" town "A" had an anti gun Mayer, and town "B" had a pro gun Mayer, I think this story was in The American rifel Man or Guns and Ammo 10-15 years ago??? Town "A" tolds all the people that there would be a ban on guns In that town and as town "B" heard of this they went 180 and stated that all good standing people In that town should have a gun in the house hold by law? Well guess just what happened to the crime rate in each of them towns, now it was not over night, but the crime rate In town "A" went up by about 3-4 times and town "B" the crime rate went down by just about the same!!! for you people that like to go digging things like this up, go at it, I'm going from memory here about the times and the States and also which magazines I saw the stories In and when!!! If any of you find the stories I'm talking about, please post them back here.
Semper FI to all, Hank D. Please note, I'm not a very good speller/my weak point.:confused:

David Armstrong
June 3, 2009, 09:35 AM
Well then, go look at it for yourself and crunch the data and see if things have indeed changed or not.
And thus the problem with so many people, particularly those in the gun world. Way too many folks who want to argue the facts based on what they think, or based on a bumper sticker cliche they found, or based on something they read about what someone posted talking about what someone said about what they read. Not many folks want to take the time and effort to actually read the research, to study the information, to look at the analysis, and so on. Nobody goes to look at the data, nobody crunches the data themselves, many can't find the data, more can't crunch it, and even more could care less what the data shows and what the facts are if it disagrees with what they think. Then they get mad because you tell them to go read some of the material. Sad.

David Armstrong
June 3, 2009, 09:40 AM
CCW sure doesn't increase crime. Look at D.C. One of the higher crime rates and no CCW at all.
Apparently doesn't do much to reduce it, either. New Orleans and Baton Rouge both are CCW towns and have some of the highest violent crime rates in the U.S.

Hank D.
June 3, 2009, 09:48 AM
Also take a good look a Washington DC.Hank D.

Hank D.
June 3, 2009, 09:54 AM
I have two good books for anyone that wants to look into the stats, Book #1 more Guns less crime, #2-The bias ageinst guns, both by a once anti gunner John R. Lott Jr. Semper FI to all, Hank D.:cool:

Brian Pfleuger
June 3, 2009, 10:03 AM
Of course, to truly know if something like CCW has any effect on crime it would have to be introduced in significant numbers very quickly, to an area that previously had no legal carry method. Otherwise, there is simply no way of isolating the effect of CCW. Things like entire societies are simply too complicated with far too many variables to be able to identify solid causal relationships over an extended period of time.

For example, New Orleans has CCW but we have NO WAY of knowing if the crime rate would be higher or lower or indifferent without it. DC could actually be a good testing ground. If they are forced to allow concealed carry in the near future and they issue thousands of permits in a short time then we may be able to identify a positive correlation.

You simply cannot take a snippet of time from a complex equation and identify the effects of any variable you choose.

XYZ city has CCW and low crime. Is there a correlation? Maybe it's because it's a Bible belt city and they have more devout Christians. Maybe they've got a judicial system that's tough on crime. Maybe it's low unemployment. Maybe it's because they're not on a major highway that serves as a drug route. Maybe it's a combination of all those things and more.
There is simply NO WAY to tell.

Double Naught Spy
June 3, 2009, 03:38 PM
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Fine. Show cause and effect and I will gladly capitulate. I want to believe guns should reduce crime as well and no matter how many times I look at the data, the changes in crime rates so often attributed to guns don't show a direct correlation.

Concealed carry doesn't seem to change crime trends in any way.

Along similar lines, the many political types will tell you that putting more police officers on the streets reduces crime. Death penalty advocates used to argue that the death penalty reduced crime, but that doesn't pan out either, nor does heavier prison penalties.

My point here is that lots of people/groups/causes want to take credit when crime rates drop and will show some sort of correlation, but none show causation. All have excuses for why crime rates may go up in spite of the championing of their pet causes.

Shane Tuttle
June 3, 2009, 10:33 PM
Concealed carry doesn't seem to change crime trends in any way.

Of course not........when it's a small fraction of the population that actually has a CCW permit and practices their right. That's why all the "stats" that come out may or may not support your claim.

Give me 5 active CCW holders in a crowd of 5,000 strangers and they aren't going to hold a candle to cause a drop in crime. Give me 2,500 CCW holders in the same crowd and it's a whole 'nuther ball game. UCR stats don't do anything for this, do they? It's that darn common sense thing....

Can't comment much on your claim of heavier prison penalties and the death penalty not panning out without going off-topic. All I have to say is the former hasn't been further from the truth, i.e. child rapists getting 60 days probation (thanks judge Edward Cashman of Vermont) and the latter hasn't worked when the convicted is getting three hots and a cot knowing it won't happen anyway by looking at the odds. The strongest chain is it's weakest link and if you don't have all cylinders firing the way it should, it's a failure from the get go and the theory is the scapegoat.

And thus the problem with so many people, particularly those in the gun world. Way too many folks who want to argue the facts based on what they think, or based on a bumper sticker cliche they found, or based on something they read about what someone posted talking about what someone said about what they read. Not many folks want to take the time and effort to actually read the research, to study the information, to look at the analysis, and so on. Nobody goes to look at the data, nobody crunches the data themselves, many can't find the data, more can't crunch it, and even more could care less what the data shows and what the facts are if it disagrees with what they think. Then they get mad because you tell them to go read some of the material. Sad.

What's equally sad is others that cling to "stats" but don't provide anything more than vague references.

Let's get down to an individual level. Does anyone think they are probably NOT increasing their odds of keeping them from being a statistic if one is carrying concealed? Not me. If this is the case, then why wouldn't it work at a mass level? It would work at an even better rate if there were significant numbers amongst us. Until then, the UCR or whatever stat you want to throw at trying to debunk the theory isn't worth a grain of salt. All it's showing, AT BEST, is a very small percentage of actual active CCW holders isn't enough to provide ANY conclusion.

David Armstrong
June 4, 2009, 01:12 AM
What's equally sad is others that cling to "stats" but don't provide anything more than vague references.
That sort of proves my point. Often it is only when one looks at those "vague references" that one can understand the stats in context. Much like peetzakilla said, most concepts in the social realm are complicated with many variables, and with concepts like that a one-line explanation of "why" just doesn't work. I think that is what Spy is saying here. The little one-liners, such as "Look how much CCW has reduced crime" are sort of feel-good, but they aren't accurate when you look at them in depth. To understand the reduction in crime and the role CCW has played in it requires a lot of reading/research about a number of different things that have gone on in society in the last 20 years.

Double Naught Spy
June 4, 2009, 08:30 AM
Concealed carry doesn't seem to change crime trends in any way.
Of course not........when it's a small fraction of the population that actually has a CCW permit and practices their right.

And yet pro-gun people claim this on a regular basis, even some in this thread. They believe that it is a fact that concealed carry laws drive the crime rate down when there is no data to support such a "fact." John Lott is cited as a sort of guru of the claim.

They also like to cite states like Texas those form Texas where crime dropped the very year the CHL program came online, as if bad guys magically got a clue and stopped committing crime because of a new law and without consider the data in the greater context of things like trends already in progress.

Give me 5 active CCW holders in a crowd of 5,000 strangers and they aren't going to hold a candle to cause a drop in crime. Give me 2,500 CCW holders in the same crowd and it's a whole 'nuther ball game. UCR stats don't do anything for this, do they? It's that darn common sense thing....
And yet folks want to believe otherwise. I don't know why, but they do. See... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245415&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219168&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137220&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime&page=2 http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108935&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime

And how can you argue with this logic that concealed carry reduces crime? Mod: What empirical evidence is there that concealed weapons reduce crime.
Lott: Not 1 study shows increases in violent crime with increases in CCW. No one has found a significant downside to issuing more CW permits. The size of the drop in crime varies with the number of permits.
from http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90759&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime

So obviously, if concealed carry doesn't increase violent crime, then it must reduce it? What???:rolleyes:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52916&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358300&highlight=ccw+reduces+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131943&highlight=ccw+reduces+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100562&highlight=ccw+reduces+crime

We all want something magical to happen

Glenn E. Meyer
June 4, 2009, 09:37 AM
There's a scholarly debate on Lott. Some is from antigunners and some from progun folks but who are critical scholars.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431220

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/2/187

It might be useful to read such if one is serious in the debate.

I've heard that Kleck isn't a big fan of Lott's analyses.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 4, 2009, 10:22 PM
DoubleNaught,

Here is a link that starts a 13 part YouTube video of a debate from I2QUS. The title: Resolved; Guns Reduce Crime. On our side is Gary Kleck, John Lott, Stephen Halbrooke(NRA Lawyer) and on the other side; Paul Helmke (Brady Campaign), John Donohue(whose paper Glenn cited), and Gil Kerlikowski the Chief of Police of Seattle. It takes on a lot of these issues. I found it fascinating. I really like Kleck and Halbrooke. Takes awhile to watch but well worth it and not quite as dry as reading a thesis!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DraTc7h1LPg&feature=PlayList&p=A2F6A07F296DAFA6&index=0&playnext=1

Shane Tuttle
June 4, 2009, 11:47 PM
And yet folks want to believe otherwise.

So that makes it fact, then?

Find a town that will participate in an experiment supporting my claim and I'm willing to put a Buffalo Nickel down for a bet.

This is my last post since this is going nowhere. It's obvious by reading the links you've provided that your mind is already made up and won't concede to my point of common sense. I wouldn't take up a criminal profession. You'd probably be caught on the wrong side of a gun in short order. Criminals usually weigh in probables before commiting to a crime. This simple issue touches base with all the unknowns that stats just aren't covering. This is my whole point. It may have been a whopping 20 years give or take that shall issue has been restored. But it's only been in recent years that the majority of states changed to shall issue. Even then, I still assert CCW holders are in the extreme minority and are severely outnumbered. Uh-oh, there's that probability factor again...

I'm still going to listen to the Platoon Sergeant...

alloy
June 5, 2009, 07:01 AM
Of course, to truly know if something like CCW has any effect on crime it would have to be introduced in significant numbers very quickly, to an area that previously had no legal carry method.

Altho it is very different from any one city's population or particular criminal motives(bank robbery and such not being likely)...the recent example of National Park carry...where it was banned for years, then allowed for a few months, and then not allowed...might be an indicator.

My guess would be it was totally...unchanged.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 10:15 AM
Takes awhile to watch but well worth it and not quite as dry as reading a thesis!
And that is the problem with these little YouTube clips, most TV debates, etc. They don't get into the details that are so important, the discussions tend to be question oriented instead of information oriented, and just don't give anywhere near as good a picture of the research as studying the actual material. Sort of interesting how the academics, like Glenn, keep telling people to read books and journal articles and such, while others want to watch a video.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 10:40 AM
And that is the problem with these little YouTube clips, most TV debates, etc. They don't get into the details that are so important, the discussions tend to be question oriented instead of information oriented, and just don't give anywhere near as good a picture of the research as studying the actual material.

David, have you watched the 13 part debate that I posted? I think it gets into a little bit more detail than you might think.

Sort of interesting how the academics, like Glenn, keep telling people to read books and journal articles and such, while others want to watch a video.

Not really interesting at all. Most of us who read and post here are neither academics nor students in school. There are lots of ways to gather information and YouTube is one of them. This is an internet forum and so the media is more varied than just print. Many of the books and journals are not available to some depending on where you live and then there is time elements as some have day jobs, also the jargon used in some of the works is not familiar to many. I think we should look at all avenues of information and evaluate them thoughtfully before we form judgements about them.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 11:01 AM
David, have you watched the 13 part debate that I posted? I think it gets into a little bit more detail than you might think.
Doesn't amtter, I guarantee that there is nowhere near as much detailed info as there will be in original research. The debate format itself prohibits it.
Not really interesting at all. Most of us who read and post here are neither academics nor students in school.
Not interesting to you? Doesn't surprise me. Interesting to those who emphasize learning and lament the loss of in-depth understanding of complex issues in favor of bumper sticker cliches.
There are lots of ways to gather information and YouTube is one of them.
Lots of ways to gather information, some more accurate and reliable than others. MSNBC is one of them. YouTube is worse.
This is an internet forum and so the media is more varied than just print.
Yes, and look at the overall quality of information provided in many internet forums and I think you see my point. It has nothing to do with the source of the information, it has everything to do with the quality and rigor of the information.
Many of the books and journals are not available to some depending on where you live and then there is time elements as some have day jobs, also the jargon used in some of the works is not familiar to many.
More evidence of what I am talking about. Virtaully anyone anywhere in the country can get any book or journal just by going to the library. And if one does not have time to look something up and make an effort to understand it, watching a highlight reel isn't going to make them understand any better. thta is the point. Way too many folks talking about stuff they do not understand and don't want to take the time to understand, so they find some little snnippet that supports their personal view and run with it. Again, That is Spy's point, as I understand it. It is easy to toss out "CCW makes crime drop" and then argue that you saw somebody on YouTube say so. But the issue is far more complicated than that.
As Glenn said, "It might be useful to read such if one is serious in the debate." There are those that are serious about learning, and they read the books, the journal articles, the reviews and analysis. Then there are those that are not serious, who are only interested in finding snippets and nuggets of info without any concern for understanding the whole picture.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 11:17 AM
Doesn't amtter,

So, you won't look at the information but simply dismiss it out of hand. Interesting.

Interesting to those who emphasize learning and lament the loss of in-depth understanding of complex issues in favor of bumper sticker cliches.

Not sure who you are talking about but that doesn't describe me. I like to keep an open mind. I think there are lots of ways to learn and lots of information to use. I thnk we should look at them as much as we can.

Yes, and look at the overall quality of information provided in many internet forums and I think you see my point.

Well, this is an internet forum and I thought TFL was created to facilitate discussion. I did not think this was an academic research panel limited only to scholars.

It has nothing to do with the source of the information, it has everything to do with the quality and rigor of the information.

So how can you know it lacks rigor without viewing it? Seems like you are saying if it is on YouTube the information is no good. Seems kind of biased.

Virtaully anyone anywhere in the country can get any book or journal just by going to the library.

That is not true. Libraries have budgets and often don't have the resources to obtain those materials especially if they are not well known.

As Glenn said, "It might be useful to read such if one is serious in the debate."

Serious is subjective. I appreciate Glenn's cites and I will read them when I have time. I don't like to dismiss information out of hand. Also, I am not planning to debate this issue on TV on a panel anytime soon as I will leave that to the likes of Dr. Kleck and Lott and others.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 12:20 PM
So, you won't look at the information but simply dismiss it out of hand. Interesting.
As usual, you make assumptions for which there is no evidence. I did not say I wouldn't, didn't, or hadn't looked at it, I said it didn't matter. Try to deal with what is said, not what you make up.
Well, this is an internet forum and I thought TFL was created to facilitate discussion. I did not think this was an academic research panel limited only to scholars.
I don't think anyone said anything about it being limited in any way. The point is that it is wide open, thus there is no control on the quality of information presented.
So how can you know it lacks rigor without viewing it? Seems like you are saying if it is on YouTube the information is no good. Seems kind of biased.
Again, you might want to deal with what is actually said instead of making things up about what something "seems like." And as often happens, you make an assumption without checking the facts. That is the problem. You might try asking if someone has done something before talking about what they have or haven't done.
That is not true. Libraries have budgets and often don't have the resources to obtain those materials especially if they are not well known.

Of course it is true, as anyone who uses a library very often would know. Almost any library can get almost any book or joiurnal through inter-library loan.
Serious is subjective.
True, but suggesting one read the literature about a subject if they want to seriously discuss it is not subjective.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 02:01 PM
I did not say I wouldn't, didn't, or hadn't looked at it, I said it didn't matter.

So, getting back to my original question; have you viewed the debate?

Almost any library can get almost any book or joiurnal through inter-library loan.

Almost is not every.

suggesting one read the literature about a subject if they want to seriously discuss it is not subjective.

Yes it is and so I suggest that anyone who is serious about the subject watch the debate I posted.

Nevertheless, I have downloaded and read Mr. Donohue's 2003 paper.

A couple of thoughts.

First this is not research but a brief commentary about research that someone else did. Mostly, Kovandzic and Marvell who according to Donohue criticized Lott's work.

Second, Donohue clearly shows his anti-gun bias by agreeing with and praising Kovandzic and Marvell when their findings suit his views but is nonplussed and critical when they conclude; the (CCW) laws might still prove beneficial which he doesn't like.

He then goes on to make some strange comments about how much it costs law enforcement to have CCW and it is easier to enforce a law where no carry is permitted versus one where some are licensed. That statement makes no sense and he offers no explanation.

Now he goes on to tell a story about the movie Actor Sean Penn (who is a flake and probably should not be allowed to CCW) who had a rare CA permit (probably because of his star status a la The Robert Deniro Rule) and stupidly left his gun unsecured in his car while he "did lunch" and it was stolen along with his car and they found the car but not the gun. Not sure what that had to do with Lott's research about law abiding citizens CCW but there it was.

In footnote 21 he quotes a historian Randy Roth who blatantly misquotes Kleck's study by saying that DGUs mean shooting someone and that if Kleck and Gertz's studies were true then "American gun owners shot 100,000 criminals in 1994 in self-defense – a preposterous number.” Since Kleck didn't say all DGUs meant someone was shot, and meremly drawing the weapons stopped the crime I agree it is preposterous and Roth needs to read Kleck's study.

Conclusions; Mr. Donohue offers little to the debate and doesn't nearly go into the depth that my link provides about guns and crime.

However, during the debate I posted Donohue, who is participating, keeps bringing up some panel or board that he claimed refuted Lott's work. Kleck and Lott descend on him with swiftness and adroitly refute and rebuff his claim and even the moderator is forced to agree with Lott and Kleck that the board or group really did a "Ponitus Pilate" and washed their hands concerning a conclusion. Donohue is speechless. But I don't want to ruin it for you.

Does more guns mean less crime? I don't know, but neither does Mr. Donohue. All he knows is that he doesn't like guns.

After you have viewed the link I provided I would be happy to discuss it more. I think those who are progun rights will like how the audience (a hostile NY crowd) changed a good bit after hearing both sides.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 02:24 PM
So, getting back to my original question; have you viewed the debate?
And as I originally said, it doesn't matter. By definintion, the IQsquared debates are not particularly rigorous sources of information, as they are designed to persuade, not inform. The data is not analyzed nor is it even discussed much outside of the findings. It is interesting that you chose to make a number of claims that I had not watched the debate without finding out the facts first. FWIW, not only have I seen the debate, I also have the written transcript of it. It's OK if you want bumper sticker info, but outside of that there isn't much.
Almost is not every.
Which is why I said "almost." Some libraries are not on the inter-library loan system by their own choosing, in which case they can and often do charge a small fee for getting material for the reader. Some libraries are private in nature. But either way anybody in the country that is not somehow legally restricted from getting this stuff can get any book or journal article in common circulation. It is not at all difficult.
Yes it is and so I suggest that anyone who is serious about the subject watch the debate I posted.
Or they can actually get the information itself from the research itself, which will give a much better perspective of the issue. Again, serious researchers don't base findings based on what someone said on a debate posted on YouTube.
First this is not research but a brief commentary about research that someone else did.
Much like the "information" you posted in another thread about Kleck and tried to defend. Good to see that you have recognized the problem with that approach.
He then goes on to make some strange comments about how much it costs law enforcement to have CCW and it is easier to enforce a law where no carry is permitted versus one where some are licensed. That statement makes no sense and he offers no explanation.
Which is why, as I said, debates like that don't matter. The claims are not reviewed, the data is not there, there is no verification process, etc.
After you have viewed the link I provided I would be happy to discuss it more.
Nothing to discuss except that the material you are using isn't worth much for learning about the subject. That is the point I've been making, that Spy has made, that Peetza has made. These are complicated issues, and if one wants to have a serious discussion about them one might want to actually learn something about the research that has been done and the material in the field.

ETA: This is one of those reasons why one should actually get the material and look at it.
However, during the debate I posted Donohue, who is participating, keeps bringing up some panel or board that he claimed refuted Lott's work. Kleck and Lott descend on him with swiftness and adroitly refute and rebuff his claim and even the moderator is forced to agree with Lott and Kleck that the board or group really did a "Ponitus Pilate" and washed their hands concerning a conclusion. Donohue is speechless. But I don't want to ruin it for you.
Actually what happens is that Donahue says "They (the panel) concluded that the data does not support the proposition that we’re debating today which is that guns reduce crime." And after a comment from Kleck, "No, actually what that report persistently said was, we don’t have strong enough evidence to
draw firm conclusions about virtually every issue they addressed, so, that was more of a no-decision decision than it was reaching the opposite conclusion, they did not reach the conclusion that making it easy to get a carry permit increases crime. They did not conclude that John Lott was wrong, and basically, you know, you learn nothing from what that particular panel said." Donvan, the moderator, then says, "I’ve read the same report and I have to say, Gary, that I read it the same way, actually, it was a bit of a Pontius Pilate moment that didn’t know who was right or who was wrong." In other words, the moderator agrees with Donahue's statment about the panel, that the panel did not find any evidence that guns reduced crime. Kleck even acknowledges that by saying, "Yeah, you kind of read the thing and you ask was this trip really necessary." Everybody basically agrees with Donahue, who's entire comment, when put together without the interruptions, is as follows: All the tests that John do show that crime gets better. But, again, this is exactly what the National Academy of Science looked at. And, they concluded the opposite, that the data did not support the proposition that we’re debating today which is that guns reduce crime.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 02:39 PM
FWIW, not only have I seen the debate, I also have the written transcript of it.

Good, finally a straight answer. I didn't say you didn't see the debates I asked if you had seen them and until now you didn't give a straight answer. Good to see you watched it.

The data is not analyzed nor is it even discussed much outside of the findings.

I disagree. Lott is asked by an audience member about how he did the data. Kleck talked about what he controlled for that previous studies had not. The debate certainly looked at more than the Donohue article. Lott talked about how the studies were controlled and for what.

Which is why, as I said, debates like that don't matter. The claims are not reviewed, the data is not there, there is no verification process, etc.

I think you misread. I was referring to the "scholarly" article Glenn provided not the debate.

Much like the "information" you posted in another thread about Kleck and tried to defend. Good to see that you have recognized the problem with that approach.

No relation. I have read the work I quoted.

Again, serious researchers don't base findings based on what someone said on a debate posted on YouTube.

I didn't say they did however we are not doing research in this thread but discussion and to that end it is useful.

These are complicated issues, and if one wants to have a serious discussion about them one might want to actually learn something about the research that has been done and the material in the field.

No doubt crime is a complicated matter and I never said that this debate was the answer. No single piece of information is but I disagree with you that it is not useful to our discussion.

Edit:

Everybody basically agrees with Donahue,

No I think they say that the panel said nothing and neither refuted nor supported Lott. It was a draw.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 03:10 PM
I didn't say you didn't see the debates I asked if you had seen them...
And then you leaped to a wildly inaccurate and incorrect assumption. What you said was, "So, you won't look at the information but simply dismiss it out of hand. Interesting."
I disagree.
No big surprise. We've seen that you don't understand basic research issues many times before, that is only further support for it.
I think you misread. I was referring to the "scholarly" article Glenn provided not the debate.
Perhaps you are having trouble understanding yourself? Your statement specifically refers to Mr. Donahue and the debate.
No relation. I have read the work I quoted.
You didn't quote the work. You linked to a website that had an article where the author talked about what somebody else had said about what Kleck's findings were.
I didn't say they did however we are not doing research in this thread but discussion and to that end it is useful.
I go back to glenn's statement, "It might be useful to read such if one is serious in the debate." While that was in reference to another issue, I think it is good for all discussions. If one wishes to be serious and actually learn something about the topic, read the material instead of watching YouTube debates. Then we don't get nonsense like "CCW reduces crime rates".
No single piece of information is but I disagree with you that it is not useful to our discussion.
Everything is useful in some way, even if it is to just serve as a bad example. The YouTube site you posted is a bad example of how to learn about an issue, IMO.

Brian Pfleuger
June 5, 2009, 03:56 PM
Altho it is very different from any one city's population or particular criminal motives(bank robbery and such not being likely)...the recent example of National Park carry...where it was banned for years, then allowed for a few months, and then not allowed...might be an indicator.

My guess would be it was totally...unchanged.

Well, unchanged yes, but also far too small of a sample to have any predictive powers anyway. The crime rate in national parks only runs like 1 crime per 63,000 visitors and when a number is so small any minor anomaly, especially over short time periods, can make it appear as though a sudden change has occurred. For example, the small city (18K population) where I grew up has a murder rated measured most appropriately in decades. When a murder does occur the city suddenly appears to be a dangerous place for that one year simply because the population is so small. Never mind that for the past 5 and the next 5 years the murder rate will be zero.

Hank D.
June 5, 2009, 03:56 PM
I want to thank you for putting me on to that 13 part Item on You Tube, I watched all of it and as always if you were pro gun before you will still be now and also con. What came first the chicken or the egg!!! I remember when Florida first was talking about going for the CCW and it was going up for a vote and the press went wild, there will be shootouts is the streets and we will be going back the the wild west and on and on! Well P.S. the vote was passed and nothing happened, people got there CCWs by the droves and no shootouts In the streets , no wild west, nothing and just what did you hear from the press? Nothing, the sound of silince!!! it's that good old double standard over again, the one that stood out for me was that john Donohue, a tipical teacher type that will only talk to the people that think like him, no rime or reason, his way or the highway, I never saw him before, but that's just how he came across to me!!! and that group of people, who were they, were were thy from, did they belong to some group, because that can change everything. Some of the stories that came from the cop and Mayor sound like they were coming right out of a politicians mouth, slanted & bias. so when all was finished, much ado about nothing.
I'm still glad I took the time to watch, like minds think alike. Some people hear just what they want to hear and also you have the people that will tell them just what they think they want to hear, so around and around we go.
As always sorry for the bad spelling, not my thing, and Semper FI to all Hank D.:)

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 04:13 PM
Thanks Hank, I am glad you liked it.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 05:02 PM
as they are designed to persuade, not inform.

As are many "studies" as many that the Joyce Foundation produces. I think the debate illuminated the differences and explained to the layman well what the research showed.

We've seen that you don't understand basic research issues many times before, that is only further support for it.

That is incorrect and insulting.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding yourself? Your statement specifically refers to Mr. Donahue and the debate.

No, it is referring to the Donohue article Glenn posted just before my conclusions about the article. Donohue did not talk about LE CCW expense in the debate.

Then we don't get nonsense like "CCW reduces crime rates".


Apparently some academics believe CCW reduce crime. What research have you done on that subject?

The YouTube site you posted is a bad example of how to learn about an issue, IMO.

And I disagree as stated before.

I go back to glenn's statement, "It might be useful to read such if one is serious in the debate."

And I read and commented on the Donohue article he posted which IMO shed no better light on the discussion than the debate.

BillCA
June 5, 2009, 06:08 PM
Anybody remember the short-lived spate of German tourists who were being robbed (and two killed) in Florida in the late 80's or early 90's? There is one indication of one of the "unintended consequences" of CCW.

From what I recall reading of the case one of the gang members involved in the tourist robberies had his own "close call" with a CCW holder. This got a small group to thinking about hitting foreign tourists, as they would be unarmed, carrying U.S. cash for the trip as well as having cameras and video gear.

It went fairly well until two German tourists were killed and then, under pressure from the tourism trade, police began a serious effort to stop the robberies.

In Texas, a car-theft ring was stealing cars from shopping center lots. Police lucked out when a known parolee was spotted getting into a Mercedes in a mall lot and driving away. An officer trailed the car while waiting for back-up and pinpointed a crooked car shop in the process. 8 of 12 suspects arrested had priors for armed robbery, robbery, assault and one rape. During interrogation one admitted that stealing cars was "much safer than risking getting shot in a robbery."

Now... maybe you don't believe or you discount those as ancedotes that don't mean much. In most states, less than about 3% of the population has a CCW permit. That number will rise if you eliminate children (about 40%) and those disqualified from owning guns. Call it 8% of the adult population.

If 8% can shift some criminals from violent crime to property crimes that means a slightly safer society. Most important, is that it gives the honest citizen the means to protect himself and family from the dregs of society.

Brian Pfleuger
June 5, 2009, 06:38 PM
Anybody remember the short-lived spate of German tourists who were being robbed (and two killed) in Florida in the late 80's or early 90's? There is one indication of one of the "unintended consequences" of CCW.

From what I recall reading of the case one of the gang members involved in the tourist robberies had his own "close call" with a CCW holder. This got a small group to thinking about hitting foreign tourists, as they would be unarmed, carrying U.S. cash for the trip as well as having cameras and video gear.

It went fairly well until two German tourists were killed and then, under pressure from the tourism trade, police began a serious effort to stop the robberies.


Yep, I've used that example numerous times. When the thugs were asked why they had targeted tourists they explicated stated "because we know they're not armed."

Even though that is a redirection of crime rather than a reduction, it does make one wonder what the thugs would have done had there not been tourists around. A reduction in their activity would certainly be likely.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 5, 2009, 08:59 PM
Let's just keep it calm, folks. I think the point is that we need to examine the sources and look at the originals if we can. Panel discussions with experts are quite useful as summaries.

I think we have reached a useful conclusion that we can't just spout a catch phrase but gather real info to back up the summaries.

I will now bring peace to the Middle East.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 5, 2009, 10:00 PM
Thanks Glenn. I think it is difficult to prove or disprove the question. In fact, didn't the CDC say they could find no causality between gun control laws and the reduction of crime? I am beginning to think crime rates are independent of gun availability as relates to causality.

Double Naught Spy
June 6, 2009, 08:29 AM
Funny how that works.

David Armstrong
June 6, 2009, 10:14 AM
As are many "studies" as many that the Joyce Foundation produces. I think the debate illuminated the differences and explained to the layman well what the research showed.
There is the problem. Some want to "illuminate the difference" while others suggest learning about an issue.
That is incorrect and insulting.
Sorry, I can only comment based on what you have shown. Again, if one considers a debate posted on YouTube as a good source of information, or if they think that a link where someone posts something they read about what somebody else about what somebody else wrote, or if they don't understand the concept and ease of inter-library loan, and so on, I'm gong to suggest they don't understand basic research issues.
Apparently some academics believe CCW reduce crime.
Some academics believe in Intelligent Design. Most academic don't. Same with the idea the CCW was responsible for the drop in crime rates without considering all the other variables out there.
And I read and commented on the Donohue article he posted which IMO shed no better light on the discussion than the debate.
I think that says more about ones ability to be a good consumer of research than anything else.

David Armstrong
June 6, 2009, 10:18 AM
Let's just keep it calm, folks. I think the point is that we need to examine the sources and look at the originals if we can. Panel discussions with experts are quite useful as summaries.

I think we have reached a useful conclusion that we can't just spout a catch phrase but gather real info to back up the summaries.

BIG +1. Examine the sources, look at the originals, gather real info to flesh out and understand summaries. Learn something about what it is yo want to discuss so you can discuss it intelligently. Get off the internet sometimes and go read a book! :mad:

Tennessee Gentleman
June 6, 2009, 11:20 AM
There is the problem. Some want to "illuminate the difference" while others suggest learning about an issue.

That's a nice opinion but I think we can learn a lot by seeing how experts disagree as Glenn mentioned.

Sorry, I can only comment based on what you have shown...Again, if one considers a debate posted on YouTube as a good source of information

I accept your apology. This of course is your opinion but not factual. Lots of very good information is on the internet as well as bad. However, the debate was very useful to the discussion IMO and not all good information comes from books alone. Furthermore as I have stated repeatedly I am not doing academic research but rather participating in a discussion forum with mostly non-academics.

Some academics believe in Intelligent Design. Most academic don't.

I agree with your idea that just because an academic says something doesn't make it so. Hence I look at multiple sources of info.

or if they think that a link where someone posts something they read about what somebody else about what somebody else wrote,

Which the Donohue article was.

I think that says more about ones ability to be a good consumer of research than anything else.

Again your opinion but I think other posters can look at the two and make their determination. Once more, this is a discussion forum not an academic panel. Not all knowledge is in print these days. But you know that article Glenn posted was on ....the internet!

Glenn E. Meyer
June 6, 2009, 03:31 PM
I think the relevant points have been made. Stand down.

IMHO - reading the original sources is the best. However. a panel discussion of the experts who produce the original literature can be useful. I've watched such panels myself.

But we are done for a bit. The issue of whether CCW reduces crime will need a look from scholary folks past Lott and Donahue.

So say Goodnight, Gracie. :D