Concealed guns criticized -Study challenges lower-crime theory

[2dogs]

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/1/23/16406439.cfm

Concealed guns criticized

Study challenges lower-crime theory

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution.

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict a highly influential study by economist John Lott, currently a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

Since the late 1970s, 33 states have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law-enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada.

Donohue's study, which builds on work with Ian Ayres, a law professor at Yale University, will appear in "Evaluating Gun Policy," a book to be released by Brookings this month. The book also includes a separate study by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States.

Donohue's study will also be published in the May issue of the Stanford Law Review -- side by side with an updated study by Lott, who defends his position and rejects Donohue's findings. Though they differ in methodology, both studies attempt to control for outside factors that may influence crime rates.

Donohue said right-to-carry laws may deter violent crimes, such as murder or robbery, in some situations, while encouraging them in others. For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from his victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim.

Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.

By contrast, Lott -- whose position is summed up in the title of his 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime" -- says that in states with right-to-carry laws, criminals are more wary of armed citizens who are prepared to defend themselves.

 

[Leatherneck]

For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from his victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim.

Is there any case at all of this happening to a CCW holder? Or is this pure speculation?

Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.

That is a risk. That's why training, maturity and self-discipline are so important. Traits typically exhibited by pro-RKBA people to a much greater extent than liberal gun-grabbers, in my experience.

I'd sure like to read the head-to-head discussion between this lot and our Lott.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[JPM70535]

Just goes to show that the results of any study can be skewed to reflect whatever viewpoint is being sought.

The one unimpeachable truth is that if you have the RKBA and it's use saves you or your family from harm, there need be no other justification. And if in the process you eliminate one BG, you have definitely lowered the crime rate.



GOD MADE MAN, SAM COLT MADE THEM EQUAL1!!

 

[bedlamite]

I didn't read past Brookings Institution in the first paragraph. Figured it was 1) A waste of time, and 2) better for my digestive system if I didn't.

 

[Drjones]

For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from his victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim.

I'd like Mr. Donohue to show me exactly how one would go about "wresting" my gun away from me.

While it is LOADED.

As Leatherneck said, has there been a SINGLE documented case of this happening?

Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.

Again, no basis in reality WHATSOEVER for that nonsense.

 

[Drjones]

The one unimpeachable truth is that if you have the RKBA and it's use saves you or your family from harm, there need be no other justification. And if in the process you eliminate one BG, you have definitely lowered the crime rate.

EXACTLY.

Period, End of Story.

The fact that guns MAY be used for evil means does NOT negate in the least the fact that guns can also be used for GOOD means.

To say "well, guns are used in crime, so we should ban guns" is a utilitarian statement, implying that the "cost" of guns outweighs the societal "benefits."

We should all know that utility is the killer of individual rights.

Read "Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder. Fantastic read.

 

[Zundfolge]

For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from his victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim

emphasis added

Bovine Scat!

I would be willing to bet the vast majority of CCW holders in this country are more experienced in handling firearms then the majority of police officers, let alone criminals

I'd love to see Mr. Lott and Mr. Donohue square off in a televised debate (or better yet, let Mr. Donohue try to wrest control of Mr. Lott's handgun away and see who walks away )

 

[Drizzt]

The Houston Chronicle


January 23, 2003, Thursday 3 STAR EDITION

SECTION: A; Pg. 21

LENGTH: 555 words

HEADLINE: Groups say gun laws' effect on crime rates inconclusive

SOURCE: Staff

BYLINE: ROBERT CROWE

BODY:
While two groups promote their dueling studies over the effect of concealed weapons laws on crime rates, opponents and proponents of gun control in Texas say it's difficult to conclude how or if this state's "right-to-carry" laws have affected crime rates.

However, each side is firm in its stance on concealed handguns.

A study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution argues that state laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, the Los Angeles Times reported. The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict a highly influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., now a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who concluded in 1997 that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

"I'd say that no one can claim or disclaim that concealed handguns have lowered crime rate in Texas," said Jim D. Nicholson, past president of the Texas State Rifle Association. "There are too many factors to say exactly what has taken effect."

Nicholson, who favors Texas' concealed weapons laws, supports Lott's assertion that concealed weapons do make criminals think twice before committing crimes.

David Smith, president of Texans for Gun Safety, also believes there are too many factors that could lead to the reduction in crime rates. He thinks that anytime people are armed with loaded weapons, the likelihood for crime - whether by a criminal or a law-abiding citizen with a legally concealed weapon - can dramatically increase.

"If guns made you safer, we would be the safest country and have the lowest crime rates," Smith said. "Instead, we have some of the highest crime rates and an armed citizenry."

Since the late 1970s, 33 states have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada.

Since Texas began allowing residents to obtain licenses to carry concealed guns in 1995, the Department of Public Safety has issued more than 220,000 permits. About 15 percent of them have gone to residents of Harris County, which is home to 16 percent of the state's population.

Social scientists, represented on opposing sides by Donohue and Lott, remain stubbornly divided over the effect of such laws on crime rates.

"If somebody had to say which way is the evidence stronger, I'd say that it's probably stronger that the laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime," Donohue said Wednesday in an interview. "But the stronger thing I could say is that I don't see any strong evidence that they are reducing crime."

Donohue's study, which builds on work with Ian Ayres, a law professor at Yale University, will appear in Evaluating Gun Policy, a book to be released by Brookings this month.

The book also includes a separate study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States.

Donohue's study will also be published in the May issue of the Stanford Law Review - side by side with an updated study by Lott, who defends his position and rejects Donohue's findings.

 

[Waitone]

Proof positive the RKBA position is winning and winning big.

How say I?

Simple. Why waste time and money attacking a losing position. Notice over the last few days an attack on Lott's work claiming he made of the data on defensive use of guns. Now switch to this announcement.

It is interesting the attacks are now based in "data" and have the patina of statistical respectibility. Anti's still fall into the "coulda, shoulda" mode of argumentation. Outlaw hi-cap mags because they might be used in a crime. Outlaw .50 cal rifles because they might be used to destroy oil refineries or blow up airports. Outlaw silencers because they might be used to murder people. CCH might cause more crime because the perp might wrest the gun away from the holder. . . . . .

As long as the pro second amendment side sticks to hard facts we will continue to keep the grabbers off balance.

 

[Baron Holbach]

The recent incident where a disabled man in a wheelchair sought to obtain a carry permit in Maryland but was denied, is indicative of the same mindset prevalent amongst the anti-Second Amendment crowd. Somehow or another, the anti-Second Amendment gun haters would have us believe that the disabled man is safer unarmed, even though Maryland leads the nation in robberies six years straight and is currently second or third in murders.

 

[tyme]

The book also includes a separate study by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States.

Incredible. You mean when you have an unstable society that drives criminals toward a life of crime, then prevent them from buying firearms legally and force them to buy from the black market, some of them might actually track down those who have firearms they want and steal those instead?

Let's increase the penalty for weapons possession even more, so criminals will be even more desensitized to burglary, b&e, and theft.

 

[Drjones]

David Smith, president of Texans for Gun Safety, also believes there are too many factors that could lead to the reduction in crime rates. He thinks that anytime people are armed with loaded weapons, the likelihood for crime - whether by a criminal or a law-abiding citizen with a legally concealed weapon - can dramatically increase.

:banghead:

 

[MrAcheson]

CCW decreases violent crime, but it increases property crime. CCW doesn't reduce the number of criminals out there very much, it just makes them more cautious. So they rob from houses when no one is home, etc, etc. This is a bad thing? Would you rather be threatened/beaten/knifed/shot and then robbed or just robbed? Hell I could care less about the money or the stuff, I can make or buy more of that.

 

[Oatka]

"Concealed guns criticized

Study challenges lower-crime theory"

Bellesiles II?

 

[p35]

There was a study a few years ago that showed that in something like 99% of intrafamily homicides, the police had been there before for domestic violence problems. In other words, being violent increases the odds that you will shoot someone-having a gun doesn't. A violent mindset causes shootings.

Preaching to the choir, I know.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.

Yeah, and otherwise law-abiding citizens might steal candy bars from drug stores, rape little old ladies, stick up banks, rob liquor stores, and... Oh. Wait. We wouldn't still be law-abiding citizens, would we?

Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites.

 

[thaddeus]

Cutting through all the fluff, I only see a couple phrases that actually contain claims:

who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States.

Gun ownership increases burglary? That is a tough one to prove unless you prove the criminals knew guns were in the home and they were not locked up.
England has 4 times the home invasion rates we do.....I would prefer high burglary rates over high violent crime rates.

Overall this is a silly claim. is like saying "owning a television (or any other valuable item) increases your likelyhood of being burglarized".

Donohue said right-to-carry laws may deter violent crimes,

So, he admits this is true? And he still publishes his anti-gun study?

Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent"

This is the oldest claim in their book, and completely invalid since the rates of incidence are so absurdly low compared to non-CCW criminals and even Police Officers.

 

[Ryder]

Of Attributions and Retributions

Sounds to me like the anti side really want to even the score on that Bellesiles thing. They got burned pretty bad for their lies. If they don't learn a lesson from that it will only change more minds against them... Let's keep that a secret, eh?

As for lower crime rates. I suspect CCW does contribute but how can a crime never commited have a verifiable cause? It's like asking someone to prove God. So we can expect the anti groups to not let this bone go anytime soon even though a definitive answer in their favor would be of little value to them since self defense is a right.

Quote from above: "CCW doesn't reduce the number of criminals out there very much, it just makes them more cautious."

Lots of logic in this quote. Some criminals don't act on impulse. But there is something reducing the number of criminals, it's called abortion. The people who have been aborted would be of prime crime commiting age since it's legalization. Kind of blurs any CCW distinction since both began taking effect simultaneously.