Crime Rate & Concealed Carry

[Brian Pfleuger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...y+lowers+crime http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...y+lowers+crime http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...s+crime&page=2 http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...y+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/...y+lowers+crime

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

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...y+lowers+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...+reduces+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...+reduces+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...+reduces+crime

We all want something magical to happen

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.c...ract_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]

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=DraTc...x=0&playnext=1

[Shane Tuttle]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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]

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]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Doesn't amtter,

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

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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]

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]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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?

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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

Almost is not every.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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]

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]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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:

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Alloy

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.]

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]

Thanks Hank, I am glad you liked it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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?

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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

And I disagree as stated before.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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]

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]

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]

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.