Right-to-carry laws lead to more violent crime: Isn’t that a huge surprise?

rep308

NES Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
10,362
Likes
12,154
Location
inside the 495 Belt
Feedback: 68 / 0 / 0
Know your enemy: Right-to-carry laws lead to more violent crime: Isn’t that a huge...

From the people at Salon.com

One of the most contentious arguments within the larger gun control debate is over whether right-to-carry laws that make it legal for gun owners to carry loaded weapons in public, usually concealed on their person, make people safer. Gun rights advocates argue that packing heat is a prevention against crime and violence, invoking slogans like, "An armed society is a polite society." Gun control proponents, however, argue that a proliferation of loaded weapons is bound to lead to more violence, if only because people have easier access to the means to harm others.

John Donohue, a legal researcher who works for Stanford Law School, has been working on this question for the better part of two decades. "Turns out it’s a tricky question to answer through statistical means," he told Salon. But now "this data [has] become complete enough, and some of the new statistical techniques have been implemented," he continued......

.....The gun industry profits from all those stolen guns, since many people who have a gun stolen are back in the store the next day, buying a replacement. So the NRA has every incentive to encourage people to carry guns or otherwise store them in places there they can easily be stolen. That ends up boosting profits for manufacturers, whom the NRA represents first and foremost.......

........

The reality is that carrying guns may make people feel safer, but all the available evidence suggests that it makes society less safe. Having guns everywhere makes lethal violence more likely, and also has a psychological effect, making it seem more socially acceptable — desirable, even — to resolve conflicts with violence instead of diplomacy. We all need to heed the immortal words of Johnny Cash: "Don't take your guns to town, son/ Leave your guns at home.".........
 
...people who have a gun stolen are back in the store the next day, buying a replacement. So the NRA has every incentive to encourage people to carry guns or otherwise store them in places there they can easily be stolen. That ends up boosting profits for manufacturers, whom the NRA represents first and foremost...

Uh. What?
 
Uh. What?

Whats the confusion? The comment about the NRA representing manufacturers? There are those who argue the NRA is not the grassroots organization it once was. The NRA today derives a great portion of its funding from corporate industry donor than from its membership dues. As such, it is more beholden to the interests of its corporate supporters than the private members.
 
Whats the confusion? The comment about the NRA representing manufacturers? There are those who argue the NRA is not the grassroots organization it once was. The NRA today derives a great portion of its funding from corporate industry donor than from its membership dues. As such, it is more beholden to the interests of its corporate supporters than the private members.

Alternative explanation: The NRA board consists of enthusiasts like you and me who grew up to have successful firearms businesses because they followed what they loved... Who's being represented?
 
Whats the confusion? The comment about the NRA representing manufacturers? There are those who argue the NRA is not the grassroots organization it once was. The NRA today derives a great portion of its funding from corporate industry donor than from its membership dues. As such, it is more beholden to the interests of its corporate supporters than the private members.

I don't think there's enough tinfoil at BJ's Wholesale Club to cover a conspiracy theory like "The NRA is bankrolled by manufacturers, and encourages people to own guns in the off chance they might be stolen, because then the manufacturers can sell more..." - really? C'mon.

I'd be tempted to bite at "more buyers = more profit for manufacturers".

Even then I wouldn't make that leap; it's a symbiotic relationship. Can't have guns if nobody is making them, can't make guns if nobody is buying them. At the end of the day we have a fundamental right to our firearms that's protected by the constitution. The NRA, regardless of changing leadership or goals, stands for private ownership (as well as safety, education, legal protection and defense, etc)... I can't imagine they'd suddenly stop supporting ownership and civil rights if the manufacturer money dried up.

Have you looked at the MFGs in the country? We're not talking "big business" or big profits, relative to other industries, especially considering who the our politicians are in bed with... The largest manufacturing groups turn profits that are less than what Bloomberg donates to individual anti-gun groups every year. Our firearms manufacturing industry taken as a whole is miniscule compared to the smallest of US corporations in other fields, by almost any metric.
 
A couple interesting quotes fro the actual study
...RTC laws generate crime increases in non-RTC states...
So in the RTC state it works, unfortunately not all criminals are stupid so they just move to where it's safer to be a criminal.
...The magnitude of the estimated increase in violent crime from RTC laws ...
Wait! So the conclusions aren't even based on actual data. There are based on estimates which are based on a method used by Alberto Abadie and Javier Gardeazabal, I tried to look at these but it's going to take me some time to understand it, if I even can.
 
I would also like to know which areas this moron that wrote this article was studying. Since no actual facts are presented just conspiracy theories and assumptions, its tough to tell.

I can think of some real world examples that run counter...
UK Homicide Rate.PNG
 
........
The reality is that carrying guns may make people feel safer, but all the available evidence suggests that it makes society less safe. Having guns everywhere makes lethal violence more likely, and also has a psychological effect, making it seem more socially acceptable — desirable, even — to resolve conflicts with violence instead of diplomacy. We all need to heed the immortal words of Johnny Cash: "Don't take your guns to town, son/ Leave your guns at home.".........

The gun grabbers always make this claim, and yet, the only people who act that way are inner city gangbangers. it must be projection or something, or maybe since they all live in the city that's what they see everyday, and assume the rest of the country is like that?
 
You don't get it. Violent crime against criminals by their intended victims is up. Liberals view the following scenarios:

1) Guy pulls knife and threatens to stab you - you give him your money. Not a violent crime.
2) Guy pulls knife and threatens to stab you - you shoot him. Violent crime.
3) Guy in above scenarios is 18 = Gun violence against children increases.
4) Above scenarios happen within 1/2 mile of school = school shooting with child victim

I can make a statistic say whatever I want, too - I just need to suspend reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom