Study: Concealed-carry means fewer murders

[Permanent Waves]

Anyone see this article today?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2014/01/02/study-concealed-carry-means-fewer-murders/

Here is the actual Study:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

"The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997)."

Going to read through when I get home. Not anything new to any of us... and will likely make me more irritated over mindset of the low informed or don't believe in reality crowd.

 

[Permanent Waves]

Well damnit, I can't read it unless I want to plop down some cash for the report. Hopefully will become public at some point.

 

[EnglishRose]

View attachment Concealed weapons article.pdf

Interesting stuff.

I've attached the actual article PDF, if anyone's interested in reading it.

 

[.40swToFreedom]

Interesting study - not that we didn't know this already. Forwarded to a couple antis I am friendly with. Curious to see their response.

and +1 for the pdf.

 

[Garys]

Thanks for posting that. It will make interesting reading, I'm sure. Of course the Lame Stream Media will ignore it. Doesn't fit the narrative, you know.

View attachment 89920

Interesting stuff.

I've attached the actual article PDF, if anyone's interested in reading it.

 

[EnglishRose]

Thanks for posting that. It will make interesting reading, I'm sure. Of course the Lame Stream Media will ignore it. Doesn't fit the narrative, you know.

No problem - I have journal access through our online library at work, it was easy enough - and free!

 

[LittleCalm]

Wait, won't it just show up on CNN or Yahoo? Oh, wait, they only report on studies favorable to gun control.

 

[Permanent Waves]

Thank you EnglishRose!

 

[shipwreck]

Nope not possible. we live in a fantasy land where the citizen cannot protect himself. This study couldn't be more wrong. /sarc

 

[EnglishRose]

Thank you EnglishRose!

You're very welcome - thanks for sharing the link!

 

[rutilate]

Help me understand this model, and especially how they are pulling numbers and percentages from the fixed-effects regression gun murder rate table below. Where does the 3.44 come from, and the 10%, and 19.3%?

IV. Results and Concluding Remarks
Results are presented on Table 1. The CCW dummy
variable is significant and positive, but the assault weapons
ban is insignificant. Given that the average gunrelated
murder rate over the period in question was
3.44, the results of the present study indicate that states
with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder
rates that were 10% higher. In addition, the Federal
assault weapons ban is significant and positive, indicating
that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the
Federal ban was in effect. These results corroborate the
findings of Lott and Mustard (1997). These results suggest
that, even after controlling for unobservable state
and year fixed effects, limiting the ability to carry concealed
weapons may cause murder rates to increase.

 

[PaulD]

Help me understand this model, and especially how they are pulling numbers and percentages from the fixed-effects regression gun murder rate table below. Where does the 3.44 come from, and the 10%, and 19.3%?

It's been a long time but in short, I believe that means there is a fixed ratio of effect to change. In other words, more CCW nets a fixed ratio of decrease in murder rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_effects_model

I need to re-read all this stuff though and read the study that was posted (thanks EnglishRose).

Regardless, it's good to see studies like this.

 

[Blitz1]

We know this already.

 

[Kicker96FS]

Someone send a copy to Marty Walsh, his first action is a very public showing about illegal guns on Boston's streets. We all know that is double speak for no guns anywhere .

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

Firstly, the Lott study has a lot of holes in it so the fact that the author places it front and center in the abstract and literature review is not encouraging.

Secondly, those areas with the absolutely most restrictive CCW laws are large urban municipalities that are predominantly black. Those places have huge murder rates compared the the rest of the country and are going to badly skew the results. And their crime rate is based solely on poor blacks with no family structure, no education, no prospects and a drug culture. It has nothing to do with the legal ability to carry. Those laws were established as a misguided attempt to try and control crime that was all ready well beyond control.

Thirdly, we all know that "assault weapons" are almost never used in home defense or in robberies. So it makes absolutely no sense that they should have any effect on the murder rate as a primary factor. However, legal ownership of an "assault weapon" is not generally associate with the poor, which means we probably have a covariant.

I think allowing for CCW can deter crime but not in a place like Chicago. It's too far gone. I think a lot of the significant values being observed are covariants or some type of artifact and the study is probably very badly skewed. And the author admits this when he says, "The most violent states may also have the toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted in this area." Well no sh*t.

And very obviously, the question "Proportion of Population That is Black" is missing. It is not the same question as how many are white….

As someone that publishes in academic journals regularly, this whole thing is so widely speculative it would never pass muster in my field.

 

[PaulD]

Firstly, the Lott study has a lot of holes in it so the fact that the author places it front and center in the abstract and literature review is not encouraging.

Secondly, those areas with the absolutely most restrictive CCW laws are large urban municipalities that are predominantly black. Those places have huge murder rates compared the the rest of the country and are going to badly skew the results. And their crime rate is based solely on poor blacks with no family structure, no education, no prospects and a drug culture. It has nothing to do with the legal ability to carry. Those laws were established as a misguided attempt to try and control crime that was all ready well beyond control.

Thirdly, we all know that "assault weapons" are almost never used in home defense or in robberies. So it makes absolutely no sense that they should have any effect on the murder rate as a primary factor. However, legal ownership of an "assault weapon" is not generally associate with the poor, which means we probably have a covariant.

I think allowing for CCW can deter crime but not in a place like Chicago. It's too far gone. I think a lot of the significant values being observed are covariants or some type of artifact and the study is probably very badly skewed. And the author admits this when he says, "The most violent states may also have the toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted in this area." Well no sh*t.

And very obviously, the question "Proportion of Population That is Black" is missing. It is not the same question as how many are white….

As someone that publishes in academic journals regularly, this whole thing is so widely speculative it would never pass muster in my field.

Ok, but why? What's your basis for that statement? You're saying further research is needed but coming to a conclusion anyway. If the crime stats in Chicago are purely a result of criminal on criminal violence, yeah, CCW won't do much since they already are. If the criminals are preying on the otherwise law abiding, then it could help. Presumably you've seen the recent article on the Detroit CoP and his thoughts on the subject.

This is entirely aside from the philosophical aspect of whether or not law abiding people in Chicago should be allowed to CCW (they damn well should).

 

[agile_1]

View attachment 89920

Interesting stuff.

I've attached the actual article PDF, if anyone's interested in reading it.

Excellent.

Thank you.

...areas with the absolutely most restrictive CCW laws are large urban municipalities that are predominantly black. Those places have huge murder rates compared the the rest of the country and are going to badly skew the results. And their crime rate is based solely on poor blacks with no family structure, no education, no prospects and a drug culture. It has nothing to do with the legal ability to carry. Those laws were established as a misguided attempt to try and control crime that was all ready well beyond control.

Just going to speculate that these areas are also economically depressed with poor education and employment prospects, and that those factors have a huge bearing on crime rate and gun violence rates. That would seem to be an area ripe for research but somehow we never see the studies that correlate gun violence with local and regional economies.

Thirdly, we all know that "assault weapons" are almost never used in home defense or in robberies. So it makes absolutely no sense that they should have any effect on the murder rate as a primary factor. However, legal ownership of an "assault weapon" is not generally associate with the poor, which means we probably have a covariant.

I think allowing for CCW can deter crime but not in a place like Chicago. It's too far gone. I think a lot of the significant values being observed are covariants or some type of artifact and the study is probably very badly skewed. And the author admits this when he says, "The most violent states may also have the toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted in this area." Well no sh*t.

IMO Chicago's reputation for a high crime rate is somewhat misplaced - for 2013 anyway. There seems to have been substantial measurable reduction in crime for 2013. Because, apparently, the police are actually trying to do something about it. Imagine that. But until the issue of poverty is addressed (somehow ?) they will be shoveling s**t against the tide.
http://news.wjct.org/post/big-cities-see-violent-crime-rates-fall-2013

CORLEY: Andrew Papachristos, a Yale University criminologist, says there are areas in Chicago where crime is stubbornly persistent. But he says there's far more crime elsewhere.

ANDREW PAPACHRISTOS: Chicago's rate is in the middle of the pack. And in fact, our rate as a city is dwarfed by the rates in places Flint, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, that have rates that are multiple times higher than that of Chicago.

CORLEY: Papachristos says Chicago's crime rate is more similar to Minneapolis or Houston. In Houston, police put the unofficial count of murders for last year at 217, just four fewer than the year before. In Philadelphia, murders dropped by a rate of about 26 percent. In Los Angeles, there were 16 percent fewer murders than the previous year. UIC criminologist Dennis Rosenbaum says despite their dramatic reductions in crime many cities experienced in 2013, there's still much work to do.

ROSENBAUM: The reality is we still need significant attention to prevention.

CORLEY: Which he says means address underlying causes of crime like concentrated poverty and the lack of jobs in order to sustain a declining crime rate in the years to come. Cheryl Corley, NPR News, Chicago. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

"Further research is warranted". Uhhhh, no kidding.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-01/news/chi-chicago-police-crime-down-16-percent-homicides-down-18-percent-20140101_1_chicago-police-16-percent-22-percent
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2013-ends-big-drop-homicides-chicago-21392633
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/01/chicago-homicide-rate-drop/4281539/
http://wgbhnews.org/post/despite-headlines-chicagos-crime-rate-fell-2013

This is entirely aside from the philosophical aspect of whether or not law abiding people in Chicago should be allowed to CCW (they damn well should).

Yes it is, and yes they should. CCW is separate issue from crime based in poverty and drugs. IMO anti's pretending that there is some relationship between legal ccw/firearm ownership and crime based in poverty is a canard that must be called out whenever it is encountered.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

This is entirely aside from the philosophical aspect of whether or not law abiding people in Chicago should be allowed to CCW (they damn well should).

I did not state that the citizens of Chicago should not be allowed to CCW. But I do not believe that CCW will help them. I would presume that New Orleans and Detroit have pretty liberal CCW laws? Based on the state in which they are located? And yet they do have extremely high rates of murder and crime.

From what I have read, most of the people that get shot and killed in these urban centers are also bad actors. There are innocent people that get killed but more often than not it is one bad guy with a gun going after another bad guy with a gun and no CCW or gun control will stop that.

 

[PaulD]

I did not state that the citizens of Chicago should not be allowed to CCW.

I was mostly making that qualification for the peanut gallery to make sure they realized the difference between philosophy and proving out efficacy.

 

[wahsben]

Lott's book is on his third edition and he has updated his information and he covers a lot. Have you contacted him about all these holes you claim there are and have you received a response?

Firstly, the Lott study has a lot of holes in it so the fact that the author places it front and center in the abstract and literature review is not encouraging.

Secondly, those areas with the absolutely most restrictive CCW laws are large urban municipalities that are predominantly black. Those places have huge murder rates compared the the rest of the country and are going to badly skew the results. And their crime rate is based solely on poor blacks with no family structure, no education, no prospects and a drug culture. It has nothing to do with the legal ability to carry. Those laws were established as a misguided attempt to try and control crime that was all ready well beyond control.

Thirdly, we all know that "assault weapons" are almost never used in home defense or in robberies. So it makes absolutely no sense that they should have any effect on the murder rate as a primary factor. However, legal ownership of an "assault weapon" is not generally associate with the poor, which means we probably have a covariant.

I think allowing for CCW can deter crime but not in a place like Chicago. It's too far gone. I think a lot of the significant values being observed are covariants or some type of artifact and the study is probably very badly skewed. And the author admits this when he says, "The most violent states may also have the toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted in this area." Well no sh*t.

And very obviously, the question "Proportion of Population That is Black" is missing. It is not the same question as how many are white….

As someone that publishes in academic journals regularly, this whole thing is so widely speculative it would never pass muster in my field.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

Most of Lott's problems relate to his statistical methodologies. I have not seen the latest reincarnation of his book but I have never believed any of his previous work.

Does carrying a weapon for personal defense make sense? Yes. Does it stop crime? Sometimes. Will it cure crime or even have an appreciable effect on reducing crime on a large scale? Highly unlikely.

Just about everyone who has tried to demonstrate that an increase in guns makes for a decrease in crime has either been outright debunked or it has been demonstrated that their conclusions were badly flawed by poor assumptions and/or inappropriate methodological controls. If you want to use Lott's work to defend the 2nd Amendment, feel free. But it is no better than the moonbats using their own silly lies and make-beleive data to attack the 2nd Amendment. You want to stop crime? Fix poverty. Since that ain't gonna happen, crime is not going anywhere.

When a criminal knows someone is armed, they simply look for an easier target. Guns do not eliminate crime or make criminals behave. Guns just shift crime to other places and other people.

 

[wahsben]

Lott does not claim that more guns eliminate crime. If you have problems with his research I believe if you contact him he will address them.
Also if you have not checked out his latest how can you give an honest appraisel of it?

Most of Lott's problems relate to his statistical methodologies. I have not seen the latest reincarnation of his book but I have never believed any of his previous work.

Does carrying a weapon for personal defense make sense? Yes. Does it stop crime? Sometimes. Will it cure crime or even have an appreciable effect on reducing crime on a large scale? Highly unlikely.

Just about everyone who has tried to demonstrate that an increase in guns makes for a decrease in crime has either been outright debunked or it has been demonstrated that their conclusions were badly flawed by poor assumptions and/or inappropriate methodological controls. If you want to use Lott's work to defend the 2nd Amendment, feel free. But it is no better than the moonbats using their own silly lies and make-beleive data to attack the 2nd Amendment. You want to stop crime? Fix poverty. Since that ain't gonna happen, crime is not going anywhere.

When a criminal knows someone is armed, they simply look for an easier target. Guns do not eliminate crime or make criminals behave. Guns just shift crime to other places and other people.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

I have never been able to decide whether Lott is a zealot or a whore.

A zealot in that he believes the crap he is spewing or a whore in that he just does it to make a living. Either way, I have no intention of contacting him to dispute his junk science. Econometrics is crap. This is known. Whether he believes his con or not, he has not admitted defeat in two decades so I am certainly not going to convince him he is full of sh*t. He has been thoroughly disputed dozens of times. He is a charlatan. The world knows it, it is just the losers attached to his doctrine that still believe.

Once again, for those not paying attention, I love the 2nd Amendment but I will not use the lies of a lying liar to defend the freedoms that my 13 documented American Revolutionary War ancestors fought for. I will not use lies to justify what is right.

Member, MASSAR, Boston Colony Chapter.

 

[PaulD]

Most of Lott's problems relate to his statistical methodologies. I have not seen the latest reincarnation of his book but I have never believed any of his previous work.

Does carrying a weapon for personal defense make sense? Yes. Does it stop crime? Sometimes. Will it cure crime or even have an appreciable effect on reducing crime on a large scale? Highly unlikely.

Just about everyone who has tried to demonstrate that an increase in guns makes for a decrease in crime has either been outright debunked or it has been demonstrated that their conclusions were badly flawed by poor assumptions and/or inappropriate methodological controls. If you want to use Lott's work to defend the 2nd Amendment, feel free. But it is no better than the moonbats using their own silly lies and make-beleive data to attack the 2nd Amendment. You want to stop crime? Fix poverty. Since that ain't gonna happen, crime is not going anywhere.

When a criminal knows someone is armed, they simply look for an easier target. Guns do not eliminate crime or make criminals behave. Guns just shift crime to other places and other people.

Can you provide cites for that?

I'm not saying that I disagree. However, there is certainly a correlation with more guns and less crime on both a state by state level and over the span of the last 20 years. Obviously, correlation isn't causation and I do believe the proof for more guns == less crime hasn't been found. However, based on everything I've seen, saying it's been outright debunked doesn't hold water either. As I said, if you have cites, please post them as I'd like to read them.