Does right to conceal carry firearms make us safer? We have a study and an answer

[HomerJS]

Examining decades of crime data, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law.

Hoping for honest review and thoughtful responses. We'll see.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

 

[soulcougher73]

Gun Nut 01: That is an acceptable percentage for my right to "feel" safer....

 

[dank69]

Hoping for honest review and thoughtful responses. We'll see.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

Hoping I won the Powerball last weekend even though I didn't buy a ticket.

 

[Genx87]

Hoping for honest review and thoughtful responses. We'll see.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

Gun Nut 01: That is an acceptable percentage for my right to "feel" safer....

Made it a whole one post.

 

[soulcougher73]

Made it a whole one post.

Well he did say "honest" responses lol

 

[mdram]

and yet

Concealed carry permits rose 215 percent between 2007 and 2015, and the murder rate dropped 14 percent during that same time period.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/24/concealed-carry-215-percent/

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Citing breitbart isn't helping your case much

 

[obidamnkenobi]

and yet

Concealed carry permits rose 215 percent between 2007 and 2015, and the murder rate dropped 14 percent during that same time period.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/24/concealed-carry-215-percent/

I refuse to click on a breitbart link. But did that control for other factors to isolate the effects of gun permits? How does that compare to decrease in murder rate that was happening anyway? Is this national numbers? Then how can that explain drop in murder rate in states where permits didn't increase (I assume there were some. E.g. where I live concealed carry is very hard to get)?

 

[HomerJS]

and yet

Concealed carry permits rose 215 percent between 2007 and 2015, and the murder rate dropped 14 percent during that same time period.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/24/concealed-carry-215-percent/

Here's the flaw in your post besides the obvious Breitbart. You take a national sample where the murder rate was already going down on its own.

In the Stanford study they chose areas where RTC was introduced when it didn't exist before. Therefore one can obtain direct data on the effect of these carry laws.

 

[Lanyap]

The author is strong pro-gun control and therefore biased. He has been trying to prove his theory using various statistical methods for at least 10 years that I can find . Now he found a "new" statistical method applied in economics and political science and using it to try and prove his theory on RTC. If he had compared pre-RTC and post-RTC in the same state and adjusted for the increase in gang violence, drug violence, etc. that is not associated with RTC then he would be more believable. He could have also compared states similar to Texas. I just can't see comparing California to Texas in this context.

Donohue and his team employed a new statistical technique that creates a “synthetic control,” which attempts to find the best possible comparison for the RTC-adopting state drawn from among other states that had no RTC law at the time.

The synthetic control approach, a research method now widely applied in economics and political science, uses an algorithm that combines crime patterns from several non-RTC states – or during the time before states adopted RTC – to create an artificial or synthetic state.

https://stanfordreview.org/gun-lunacy-and-broken-policy-an-interview-with-professor-john-donohue/.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/30/s...nd-amendment-is-about-restricting-gun-rights/
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/10/23/stanford-perspectives-on-gun-violence/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?317256-1/stanford-university-hosts-gun-policy-debate

 

[Genx87]

Here's the flaw in your post besides the obvious Breitbart. You take a national sample where the murder rate was already going down on its own.

In the Stanford study they chose areas where RTC was introduced when it didn't exist before. Therefore one can obtain direct data on the effect of these carry laws.

Which ones? Until the late 1980s most states banned or only had may issue RTC laws. Meaning, not many were allowed to carry. Then a flood of shall issue and unrestricted laws have been ushered in since the early 1990s. So in order for him to find this data of before and after to support this position. He is going to have to cherry pick the hell out of the data due to a near halving of gun crime and crime in general since 1990 across the dozens of states who have enacted RTC laws over the past 30 years.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

John J. Donohue III is a law professor, economist, and the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He is widely known for his writings on effect of legalized abortion on crime and for his criticism of John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.


You expect an honest report from this guy ? No you don't, you expected a biased and slanted article and got it. Whoopee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Donohue_III

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here's the flaw in your post besides the obvious Breitbart. You take a national sample where the murder rate was already going down on its own.

In the Stanford study they chose areas where RTC was introduced when it didn't exist before. Therefore one can obtain direct data on the effect of these carry laws.

Actually no you can't. What would be relevant would be an increase in crime by those who carry. Were they responsible for increasing crime or others without permits responsible. If both, then by what percent.

If one can concretely examine all data and synthesize enough properly then one can make a claim. As it stands, no.

Perhaps broadband speeds changed and that's responsible for crime?

"Just because" or "common sense" reveals no truths, but it might provide some insight for those who reach for conclusions without rigorous scientific examination as to cause and effect.

 

[deathBOB]

The author is strong pro-gun control and therefore biased. He has been trying to prove his theory using various statistical methods for at least 10 years that I can find . Now he found a "new" statistical method applied in economics and political science and using it to try and prove his theory on RTC. If he had compared pre-RTC and post-RTC in the same state and adjusted for the increase in gang violence, drug violence, etc. that is not associated with RTC then he would be more believable. He could have also compared states similar to Texas. I just can't see comparing California to Texas in this context.





https://stanfordreview.org/gun-lunacy-and-broken-policy-an-interview-with-professor-john-donohue/.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/30/s...nd-amendment-is-about-restricting-gun-rights/
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/10/23/stanford-perspectives-on-gun-violence/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?317256-1/stanford-university-hosts-gun-policy-debate

Can you explain how this method works and why it shouldn’t have been used?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can you explain how this method works and why it shouldn’t have been used?

If the contention is that definite causal link has been made what has been said does not demonstrate that. If gun permits have gone up one may say that crime has gone up (assuming this is true) and that's it.