New Study: Since 2007, Concealed Carry Up 130%, Murders Down 22%

[GardoneVT]

If we're going to be scientifically/statistically rigorous we can't even conclude that from this information alone. There may simply be other factors that impact the murder rate more strongly that are pushing the murder rate down faster than increased gun ownership is pushing it up.

Of course the additional information that murder rate among CCW holders is exceptionally low adds some compelling weight to the hypothesis that they might be weakly coupled or uncoupled, at least in a non-rigorous way.

I realized something in the aftermath of my foiled-by-ccw not-carjacking. Guns DO have a social utility, but we'll never be able to measure it to rigorous scientific standards. When Mr Thug tried to take my car and stopped at the sight of my carry gun, no report was generated. The cops didnt show up, and the bad guy definitely didn't run to a local PD station to report he had the kitten scared out of him whilst breaking the law.

I'm theorizing dozens of times throughout America bad guys and gals are deterred by their intended victim producing a firearm at a choice moment. There won't be any paper trail to follow, however, because unless someone actually gets shot the police don't get called. No police report means no paper which can be used in a verifiable study or survey.

Sadly, when the bad guys attack unarmed victims there's all kinds of documented proof, which means the opposition always has stats while we don't.

[Tamara]

Thanks Tam.

Your thread title was definitely more indicative of the contents.

[BLR]

Correlation does not, of course, equal causation, but that's been the smart argument for our side all along. Tying gun ownership to social utility is a bad move long-term, whereas pointing out that the murder (or overall violent crime) rate is largely decoupled from gun ownership rates is beneficial.

Still, blood in the streets was promised. Gutters and storm drains overflowing, IIRC.

[Shellback]

Still, blood in the streets was promised. Gutters and storm drains overflowing, IIRC.

Same thing with Constitutional/permitless carry in the states that have passed it. Good guys carrying guns aren't a problem and bad guys don't obey the laws anyway.

[NETim]

What I like most about reports like this is that it blows great big gaping holes in anti-freedomite's argument that "more guns=more crime." All they have going for them is theatrics.

[RevolverRob]

What I like most about reports like this is that it blows great big gaping holes in anti-freedomite's argument that "more guns=more crime." All they have going for them is theatrics.

Uhh, you might go re-read Tam's comments. The more guns = more crime argument is as much fallacious as the more guns = less crime argument. Crime stats are influence by a number of factors: socioeconomic status, current economic status of the country, education, alternative venues of income gain than crime, addiction rates, policing and enforcement, etc. In other words you can see crime rates drop for a number of reasons.

Here is an example, the crime rate in Detroit has dropped recently. It does not appear that crime has been reduced in Detroit by any stretch of the imagination, rather the police infrastructure is so bad that there are not enough officers to respond to most of the crime and reports do not get filed and reported (see GardoneVT earlier for another example of this). Thus the crime rate has dropped. Weak corollary arguments would say it's because "CCW permit holders are shooting bad guys!" Which they are, at a higher rate than anywhere else in this country. But in fact likely crime rate has dropped, because the infrastructure is inadequate to accurately report crime statistics.

See Hooper for an excellent break-down of what might be interpreted from these data. Be very careful flinging stats like these around in support of any particular hypothesis. As Samuel Clemens once wrote, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." All stats are capable of easily being manipulated and if evidence is not gathered to test a specific set of null and alternative hypotheses you have at beast weak correlation-based arguments that fail to hold up to strong scrutiny and rigorous evaluation. Both sides of gun control suffer from this problem, which is why rhetoric is the more important tool in arguments of this nature. You can use the weakness of any of these data to open the door to productive dialog about it with fence-sitters.

-Rob

[MDS]

Both sides of gun control suffer from this problem, which is why rhetoric is the more important tool in arguments of this nature.

Great post! I guess it begs the question - if numbers don't tell the story that more guns == more better, how do we know that's true? (Putting aside for a moment that the ultimate argument for the 2A is liberty.)

[Tamara]

I would say that it doesn't matter if more guns = more better or not. The idea of taking away a citizen's possessions because of something that they (or someone else) might do with them flies in the face of all kinds of foundational beliefs of our society.

• Group punishment belongs nowhere outside of boot camp and Mrs. Crabapple's 3rd grade classroom.
• You shouldn't be required to prove a "need" to buy things.
• Prior restraint is un-American.
• Et cetera.

[joshs]

I would say that it doesn't matter if more guns = more better or not. The idea of taking away a citizen's possessions because of something that they (or someone else) might do with them flies in the face of all kinds of foundational beliefs of our society.

• Group punishment belongs nowhere outside of boot camp and Mrs. Crabapple's 3rd grade classroom.
• You shouldn't be required to prove a "need" to buy things.
• Prior restraint is un-American.
• Et cetera.

Unfortunately, whether or not a given gun control law is unconstitutional does depend on social science data. I don't agree with the analysis, but almost all federal courts examining claims under the Second Amendment have looked at the government interest sought to be protected by the law and weighed it against the burden the law creates on the individual right to self-defense (all courts that I'm aware of have completely disregarded Heller's guidance that self-defense is only one of several purposes for the Second Amendment. E.g., Colorado's 15 round magazine limitation may be a relatively minimal burden on self-defense, but it significantly burdens the militia purpose of the right).

[Chuck Haggard]

I realized something in the aftermath of my foiled-by-ccw not-carjacking. Guns DO have a social utility, but we'll never be able to measure it to rigorous scientific standards. When Mr Thug tried to take my car and stopped at the sight of my carry gun, no report was generated. The cops didnt show up, and the bad guy definitely didn't run to a local PD station to report he had the kitten scared out of him whilst breaking the law.

I'm theorizing dozens of times throughout America bad guys and gals are deterred by their intended victim producing a firearm at a choice moment. There won't be any paper trail to follow, however, because unless someone actually gets shot the police don't get called. No police report means no paper which can be used in a verifiable study or survey.

Sadly, when the bad guys attack unarmed victims there's all kinds of documented proof, which means the opposition always has stats while we don't.

I can think of five incidents where I was off-duty had a gun in hand and bad guys being detered that never made it to paper. It happens often IMHO.