Sorry, NRA: Right-to-carry gun laws are actually associated with an increase in violent crime The study debunks the oft-cited claim that more guns equals less crime JOANNA ROTHKOPF (Credit: pio3 via Shutterstock) A new study from researchers at Stanford University debunks the oft-cited fact that more guns leads to less crime. In fact, the researchers found, the opposite is the case: right-to-carry laws are associated with higher rates of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder. The results of the study are imperfect. Lead author of the study and Stanford law professor John J. Donohue III said, “Trying to estimate the impact of right-to-carry laws has been a vexing task over the last two decades.” While they specifically found that right-to-carry laws had yielded 8 percent more instances of aggravated assault, that number isn’t set in stone because of a number of confounding factors (such as various drug epidemics). Regardless, Donohue says that 8 percent is a low guess–the reality could be much higher. Still, the study’s findings are significant in that it pokes a hole in the gun lobby’s main argument. The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham provides context: The notion stems from a paper published in 1997 by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who looked at county-level crime data from 1977 to 1992 and concluded that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Of course, the study of gun crime has advanced significantly since then (no thanks to Congress). Some researchers have gone so far as to call Lott and Mustard’s original study ”completely discredited.” One of the major critiques of the study came from the National Research Council, which in 2004 extended the data through the year 2000 and ultimately concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Or in other words, “More guns, less crime? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯” Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research,confirmed to the Huffington Post that the study accurately concluded that “right-to-carry laws increase firearm-related assaults,” although “the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.”
So we just have your (or Salon's) word for it? No study anywhere, no methodology, just a "sorry, you're wrong" with no evidence backing the claim. I see. Well, I guess it's kinda hard to offer counters to data that isn't presented or examine whether it makes sense. Let me see if I can go find it somewhere. Oh, and I don't know how a screenshot of your desktop got on there, but it was pretty funny to see all those SALON windows open. Particularly funny is the tab (one of those NOT Salon) you have open that says "Buns in My Oven"...I don't even want to know what that's about. Re-attached the image in case DB takes it down.
Salon merely reported on it. Follow the links. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
Found the study. After this in the intro (which goes against what the Salon reporter comes as a conclusion entirely)... Ah, so the study isn't designed to say what the impact on crime from RTC laws are. But, but...Salon just said the study claimed RTC laws led to an increase of crime! The entire paper (all 108 pages of it) then proceed to go through debates on the methodology of the data presented in the earlier study (some of which this one agrees with and some it does not). But it is not a study that makes any definitive claims on the impact of RTC laws on violent crimes. All it argues is that the former study should not be able to make the claims that it makes about RTC laws lowering crime. Oops.
Yeah, I found it. Silly me, I just figured that if one was going to refer to a study to make one's point, one would post the study. But I had forgotten who I was dealing with. Apologies.
Since we have strict gun control laws in courtrooms, why not test the idea above and instead give everyone in a courtroom a gun upon entry. Shouldn't take too long to test of the idea that if there are more guns around there will be, on balance, more attacks using guns.
We've gone through this before (in this very thread, I think). Your attempt at drawing a comparison between gun safe areas like airports and courtrooms is asinine, as I've said many times before. People who carry are just fine not carrying inside a courtroom because there are no bad guys with guns in there. If you could somehow magically remove ALL guns from the planet, the world would be a hell of a lot more safe. Instead, your argument continues to fail because it only focuses on how to get rid of guns that are legally purchased, while ignoring all the illegal weapons out there - the millions of them. I carry a gun because I am worried about criminals carrying guns - no other reason. If you have a safe area like a courtroom, well it's just not the same, is it. Perhaps this time you'll get that point before bringing it up again in the future.
The study professes to show that the more guns around, the more gun violence there will be on average, supposedly debunking the NRA argument that more guns means less violence. But don't get hung up on "zero" guns, that's not necessary. Have a look at other advanced nations with fewer guns per capita (but not zero guns), and compare their gun homicide rate to ours.
No, it isn't about "more guns around more gun violence". It specifically focuses on the Right To Carry laws. RTC laws, by definition talk about legally purchased, background checked, finger printed and confirmed legal individuals carrying a firearm. "More guns more violence" is a no brainer if you just say it that way, because you can be referring to anyone who has a weapon, of which there are millions of illegally acquired. A person who illegally acquires a weapon is almost certainly up to no good. It's not the same thing, no matter how much you want to pretend that it is.