Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 13, 2019

In the most thorough study yet published on the effects of concealed carry laws, a team led by Stanford University law professor John Donohue found that state laws making it easy to carry concealed firearms lead to more violent crime.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Using different statistical approaches, and operating with the most complete data yet compiled, the researchers tested the effects of right-to-carry firearm laws in 33 states that adopted them between 1981 and 2007 -- tracking violent crime before and after, and controlling for other factors. The exact conclusions varied depending on the statistical method. The bottom line did not. No matter which model was used, the study found that in states that adopted RTC, "violent crime is substantially higher after 10 years than would have been the case had the RTC law not been adopted."

And the impact isn't trivial. RTC laws increased violent crime by between 13 percent and 15 percent 10 years after adoption. "There is not even the slightest hint in the data from any econometrically sound regression that RTC laws reduce violent crime," the study concluded. States that adopted RTC "not only experienced higher rates of violent crime but they also had larger increases in incarceration and police than other states," the study noted, meaning that RTC states generated higher levels of violent crime even as they increased investments to prevent and punish it."

-Bloomberg www.google.com

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-13 09:04 AM | Reply

Here you go, Boaz. Contrary to the right-wing NRA-sponsored talking points, more guns do not equal less gun violence.

#2 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-06-13 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is why they're against gathering the data on this stuff. The reality is that common sense is the right approach.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-13 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice the founders didn't make it "just any armed moron"

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-13 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

While I am not a fan of concealed carry, or weapons of most any kind.

I am of the opinion, if the NRA talking point was valid there is some threshold percentage that must be carrying, where it gets better. Below this, only people carrying weapons are those that want to use them on a daily basis.

Also it would seem reasonable that there would be a large spike in gun violence as the crazys and some innocents were naturally deselected. Then through some lamarckian evolution it would become a peaceful utopia.

"just any armed moron", they should have stated "an armed educated moron" ....

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-13 11:27 AM | Reply

Your experiment must exist in this dataset.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-13 11:39 AM | Reply

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice the founders didn't make it "just any armed moron"
#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-13 10:45 AM

You haven't met many people.

#7 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-06-13 11:46 AM | Reply

Your experiment must exist in this dataset.
#6 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Well my guess is the threshold percentage is pretty high. I think the only time this existed was during Western expansion, my understanding is that gun fights were few and far between ...

Its a sort of mutually assured destruction, it doesn't work if percentage wise you aren't likely to run into someone with a weapon, even though legal.

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-13 12:02 PM | Reply

I considered that too. My understanding is that there were enforced no gun zones in the western expansion.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-13 12:49 PM | Reply

"No matter which model was used" they were all programed by the same anti gun nut.

How many arrests were made on people with a concealed permit?

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-13 04:08 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Notice the founders didn't make it "just any armed moron"
#4 | Posted by BruceBanner

Just what were they thinking bru?

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

#11 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-13 04:12 PM | Reply

-More guns=less crime is wishful thinking!

people that are so intent on carrying guns have never cared if that statement was ever true in the first place.

they aren't about less crime....they are about the guns.

Oh, they'll hide behind that myth as a justification....but they don't care if it's true. They just want the guns.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-13 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

during Western expansion, my understanding is that gun fights were few and far between ...

#8 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-06-13 12:02 PM

Even if that is the case (though I haven't seen any data to back it up, and it is unlikely that reliable data exists) that is still a extremely poor example to use from a scientific perspective. For one, the population that engaged in "Western expansion" was self-selected (people CHOSE to go to the frontier). So it is entirely possible that the population that self-selected itself also was one less prone to violence.

Also, with Western expansion it was a different environment. There were opportunities for success, and if things did not work out for you, then you could move to the frontier and start over. Having options makes people less likely to lash out at people around them when things don't go their way. As well, the Frontier provided an outlet. It allowed people who did not fit in well with society to move outside of society but still be successful (it is theorized that a lot of these people became trappers and traders).

#13 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-06-13 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just what were they thinking bru?

#11 | POSTED BY SNIPER

You tell me. What were they thinking when they put those words at the beginning ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State")?

What is their purpose? You seem to think they have none. Do you think those words are superfluous? Were they just adding a justification for why people should have the right to bear arms?

Read through all of the amendments. None of the others have "superfluous" words that do not add to the purpose of the amendment. None of them feel it is necessary to add justification for the amendment.

So why do you think that the second amendment is special? Why would it be crafted differently from all of the others?

Btw... unlike (apparently) you, I don't think that the second amendment is different. I think that it is crafted in the exact same way the other amendments were, and that the part that you want to IGNORE is actually an integral part of the amendment and is intended to state the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the right to bear arms cannot be infringed (in the furtherance of a Militia).

#14 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-06-13 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 | Posted by Sniper

sniper I am so proud of you!

You included actual quotes from actual people!

Nice.

Now do some with "a well regulated militia"

Here is one

The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

People have the right to own a gun to protect himself or herself, family, and property. There is no inherent right to carry a weapon in public, including public buildings.

And the Founding Fathers were wrong about one thing (at least)

No matter how many guns the People carry they are not adding to "the security of a free state".

Can we agree that even if every American carried a gun it would do nothing to add to the security of a free state??? In fact, can we agree yet that it is adding to the insecurity of a free state??

For further details google "Active Shooter Training in our public schools". (About 7,400,000 results (0.37 seconds))

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-13 05:03 PM | Reply

I am of the opinion, if the NRA talking point was valid there is some threshold percentage that must be carrying, where it gets better. Below this, only people carrying weapons are those that want to use them on a daily basis.
Also it would seem reasonable that there would be a large spike in gun violence as the crazys and some innocents were naturally deselected. Then through some lamarckian evolution it would become a peaceful utopia.

One of the dumbest ------- posts i've ever seen. So we all have to be subjected to gun violence until enough people are carrying guns that your hypothesis proves itself to be true? No thanks.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-13 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#15 | Posted by donnerboy

At that time it may actually have been the best defense of the country but that is no longer true.

#17 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-06-13 05:23 PM | Reply

Go back and read about the National Firearms Act of 1934. Amazing how many guns they banned and are still banned today or require special licenses to own - too bad they didn't include handguns as intended. Not sure why they ever let the 1994 Assault Weapon ban sunset for that matter. Was it just to get it through congress?

#18 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-06-13 05:27 PM | Reply

Why would it be crafted differently from all of the others?
#14 | Posted by gtbritishskul

The Constitution provides for the formation of the militia. The founders were aware of tyrannical governments abolishing militia's as a means of arms control. Thus the right to arms was given to the people rather than the militia. And yes the preamble states a purpose that neither expands or limits the right to arms given to the people.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2019-06-13 05:58 PM | Reply

Scratch "just any armed moron" and replace with "just any white armed moron". Looser gun laws, open carry and concealed carry are NOT for black folks...

#20 | Posted by catdog at 2019-06-13 06:08 PM | Reply

"The founders were aware of tyrannical governments abolishing militia's as a means of arms control. "

The Founders gave us the Second Amendment so we could assassinate Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, rather than run the risk of having Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy assassinate us.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-13 07:35 PM | Reply

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Is a blatant lie.
Laws based on lies are the embodiment of injustice.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-13 07:39 PM | Reply

At that time it may actually have been the best defense of the country but that is no longer true.

#17 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

When they wrote it was indeed true.

It is no longer true and we need to grow up and admit it and stop the slaughter of innocents.

Where are the Pro-lifers when you really need them to protect the lives of actual citizens? (a fetus is not a citizen)

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-13 08:08 PM | Reply

"the preamble states a purpose that neither expands or limits the right to arms given to the people"

How so counselor? You lawyers think we cannot read or somethin? The second amendment as it is clearly prevents us from achieving our purpose of creating a more perfect union and the purposes stated in the Constitution.

Since the second amendment no longer helps to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" anymore I would say that the second amendment is in violation of the spirit of the intent of Constitution.

In fact, as I have suggested, the second amendment does not secure a free state, and it does nothing to ensure domestic Tranquility, does not provide for the common defence (only an individual's defence), does not promote general welfare (obviously our general welfare is suffering tremendously), and prevents many victims of gun violence from securing the Blessings of Life and Liberty to themselves and their Posterity.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-13 08:22 PM | Reply

More guns in the hands of gun nuts equals more violence? No ----!!!!!

#25 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-06-13 08:27 PM | Reply

The Founders gave us the Second Amendment so we could assassinate Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, rather than run the risk of having Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy assassinate us.

Is that acceptable price to pay for the freedom to own guns, supporters of the Second Amendment?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-13 08:29 PM | Reply

I think the only time this existed was during Western expansion, my understanding is that gun fights were few and far between ...

#8 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Despite pop culture depictions, most western towns barred public carry and they were far safer than those that allowed weapons.

www.smithsonianmag.com

scholarship.law.duke.edu

#27 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-06-13 09:01 PM | Reply

Even if that is the case (though I haven't seen any data to back it up, and it is unlikely that reliable data exists) that is still a extremely poor example to use from a scientific perspective.

Its a theory, I don't propose its completely correct, but that it might be the basis of understanding their idea of more guns equals less gun play. How is it not scientific?

For one, the population that engaged in "Western expansion" was self-selected (people CHOSE to go to the frontier). So it is entirely possible that the population that self-selected itself also was one less prone to violence.

The people going west were probably less risk averse. Imagine at the time what it would take to travel across the country with your family. Imagine also that there would be people possibly preying on them, much like the migrants from SouthAmerica today. Its not about being prone to violence or not.
Its about defending yourself against it.

Women don't carry handguns because they are prone to violence.

Also, with Western expansion it was a different environment. There were opportunities for success, and if things did not work out for you, then you could move to the frontier and start over. Having options makes people less likely to lash out at people around them when things don't go their way. As well, the Frontier provided an outlet. It allowed people who did not fit in well with society to move outside of society but still be successful (it is theorized that a lot of these people became trappers and traders).
#13 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

Yes it was a different environment pretty much lawlessness in between oasis of law, over time it transformed into civilized behavior and people could put their weapons away because justice could be served.

We see this today with honor killing societies, being transformed overtime, as justice by the "state" becomes overarching.

most western towns barred public carry and they were far safer than those that allowed weapons.

The Duke link didn't work. But as the Smithsonian link mentioned most everyone owned a gun, though didn't carry it, so it doesn't ameliorate their argument, but actually re-enforces it. What was interesting from that link too was upholding the Alabama ban. Be interesting to read more of what Dykstra has to offer, the example of Bodie is interesting as it was really the last frontier given its location. It follows the theory that law came to town and settled the crazy making eventually.

One of the dumbest ------- posts i've ever seen. So we all have to be subjected to gun violence until enough people are carrying guns that your hypothesis proves itself to be true? No thanks.
#16 | POSTED BY JOE

You don't seek to understand Joe, otherwise you would know its not my position, just a hypothesis as to what gun proponents are thinking and why. Unlike you, I try to ascertain what people are say before I disagree. You must be a real joy to be with in the real world.

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-13 09:27 PM | Reply

"The people going west were probably less risk averse."

Talk about revisionist history.
The peasants moved West to seek greater opportunity, not lower risk.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-13 09:30 PM | Reply

Pioneers are the definition of risk takes.

#30 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-14 02:21 AM | Reply

#20 | Posted by catdog, Might like to view the Huey Newton gun club's march in Dallas a couple of years ago.

#31 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 11:08 AM | Reply

Of course there were all those Black Panthers walking around with guns on the street, I didn't see black guys arrested then or now for having a gun in plain view.

#32 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 11:11 AM | Reply

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris "Women don't carry handguns because they are prone to violence". You should come to my neighborhood, every woman living alone has a firearm, usually a 12 gauge shot gun. Me and my neighbor,(retired cop) ensured that they did. We have loaners. Number of habitation burglaries in the last ten years, one. Number of assaults and home invasions 0. Of course there is that little sign on the corner that warns any passerby of that fact. Most older women I know have a pistol and a Concealed Carry Permit. This is Texas, we refuse to become a victim due to the base desires of some subhuman. In my opinion, meth heads are subhuman. They are notorious for doing inhuman things.

#33 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 11:25 AM | Reply

"I didn't see black guys arrested then or now for having a gun in plain view."

No, they just barged into their homes at night and murdered them for having the audacity to try to make black people believe they have the right to stand up against oppression.

#34 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-06-14 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#34 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine I guess the Panthers promising to "Kill the Pigs" had nothing to do with it. I lived through the era, the Panthers wanted to fight and they got one.

#35 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 11:51 AM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

It was my point :-), the arguement was that people carrying weapons are prone to violence. My response, while perhaps poorly worded meant to say, women aren't prone to violence, but they carry weapons for protection against violence.

I was driving home after posting my last post and was wondering about this from a risk perspective.

If Liberals want guns off the streets they have to create a safer world. Instead what we get from Liberals is a more and more unsafe world, with less and less consequences for uncivil behavior.

People have a right to protect themselves. The more we allow criminal behavior to run rampant the more resistance Liberals will have in taking weapons away from people that perhaps even should not have them.

DocNJO makes it perfectly clear if you are paying attention.

Liberals don't seem to see the second order affects of their policies, and the responses normal people have. Even the WillieMCCoy episode, he had the gun for protection, why because the government can't protect him.

Fix that, and guns will be easier to grab.

#36 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-14 11:55 AM | Reply

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris "Women don't carry handguns because they are prone to violence". You should come to my neighborhood, every woman living alone has a firearm, usually a 12 gauge shot gun. Me and my neighbor,(retired cop) ensured that they did. We have loaners. Number of habitation burglaries in the last ten years, one. Number of assaults and home invasions 0. Of course there is that little sign on the corner that warns any passerby of that fact. Most older women I know have a pistol and a Concealed Carry Permit. This is Texas, we refuse to become a victim due to the base desires of some subhuman. In my opinion, meth heads are subhuman. They are notorious for doing inhuman things.

#33 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

You literally just cited the national average for a decent neighborhood and pretended its due to having guns. Your neighborhood isn't special.

Lots of guns in the ghetto too. Lot more burglaries and home invasions there.

Guns isn't the causal factor.

#37 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-14 12:06 PM | Reply

If Liberals want guns off the streets they have to create a safer world. Instead what we get from Liberals is a more and more unsafe world, with less and less consequences for uncivil behavior.
People have a right to protect themselves. The more we allow criminal behavior to run rampant the more resistance Liberals will have in taking weapons away from people that perhaps even should not have them.
DocNJO makes it perfectly clear if you are paying attention.
Liberals don't seem to see the second order affects of their policies, and the responses normal people have. Even the WillieMCCoy episode, he had the gun for protection, why because the government can't protect him.
Fix that, and guns will be easier to grab.
#36 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Why is it Conservatives are so fact averse?

FACT: The safest states are all Blue and have the strictest gun laws. The states with the highest per capita violent crime rates are all Red with the least strict gun laws.

FACT: Countries with stricter gun laws have less violent crime per capita than the US.

Here's the issue: Conservatives aren't smart enough to think outside of all or nothing gun policies. Yes, dummy, people have the right to protect themselves. Democrats aren't trying to take everyone's guns but sensible regulations would make sure the right people have them.

New laws like:
1. Background checks for criminal and court holds for all sales of guns.
2. Tougher sentencing for violations of gun laws.
3. Yearly Registration of all firearms.
4. Insurance for all owned firearms.
5. Mandatory training for gun owners with a license to own a gun that must be renewed every number of years.
6. Significant fines for owners of lost or stolen guns.

Conservatives talk about being personally responsible. But don't want any rules requiring gun owners to be responsible.

#38 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-14 12:17 PM | Reply

Kind of common sense but the problem is they don't match up the results to research regarding states that pass very restrictive gun laws. If people are using this research as reason to pass more restrictive gun laws but more restrictive gun laws cause more violence also, then they are reaching the wrong conclusion. And, on first perception for anyone in America, more restrictive fun laws ALSO cause more violent crime.

I know for objective people with an ounce of intelligence will see this as an absurd thing to have to post. But, in this country, it does have to be said which is just terrible.

#39 | Posted by humtake at 2019-06-14 12:39 PM | Reply

#37 | Posted by Sycophant The average value of a home on my street is less than 50 K, Affluent we are not. Being a decent neighborhood is doubtful, we have to deal with tweekers fairly often. Two have been sent to prison in the last year with in a block of me, one for being a dealer, the other for being a pervert. (he had a habit of playing with himself while peeking through windows and exposing himself to children). He was a serious meth user.
#38 | Posted by Sycophant, The problem with some of your proposals is owning firearms is a right, not a privilege like driving. I can ride my horse or bike without a license.
I can own the firearms left to me by father without registering them. I am criminally libel for my misuse of any firearm. I take significant precautions to prevent the theft of them. So should I be punished for the criminal behavior of others? What firearms I have is none of the government's business, unless it is already prohibited, IE- Machine guns and cannons of more than a 1 inch caliber That requires a class three license, and with that the feds can search my place at any time unannounced. Besides, IF I thought I needed one, my brother and I can make one.

#40 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 01:44 PM | Reply

FACT: Countries with stricter gun laws have less violent crime per capita than the US.

#38 | Posted by Sycophant

That isn't just a lie, it is a damn lie.

#41 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-14 02:47 PM | Reply

It's true for modern countries, Sniper.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-14 02:52 PM | Reply

"I didn't see black guys arrested then or now for having a gun in plain view."

Philandro Castile.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-14 02:55 PM | Reply

"So should I be punished for the criminal behavior of others?"

Is it legal to distill whiskey at yout home?
No.
Doesn't that make you feel like you're being punished for the criminal behavior of others?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-14 02:57 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by snoofy, Actually I have and still have the apparatus to make my own hooch if I want to. But what I intended for that 190 proof was to use as a fuel for small engines and lamps if there wasn't any thing available otherwise. Basically the need would have to be great, it costs about 9 bucks a gallon not counting the labor. And yea, that is legal, and I would not drink it, I have no idea how much formaldehyde it has in it.

#45 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 07:33 PM | Reply

So you're okay with being punished for the criminal behavior of others, because you personally don't want to make hooch.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-14 07:47 PM | Reply

#46 | Posted by snoofy, Did you miss the point that distilling alcohol for fuel is legal? No I will not suffer punishment for the criminal behavior of others.

#47 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-14 08:09 PM | Reply

Of course there were all those Black Panthers walking around with guns on the street, I didn't see black guys arrested then or now for having a gun in plain view.

#32 | POSTED BY comrade and racist DOCNJO

I bet this pisses you off to no end.

#48 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-06-15 01:18 AM | Reply

#48 | Posted by aborted_monson Yea, I was so concerned with having black people armed, I gave several to my kids and ex.

#49 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-06-15 08:07 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort