20 year old man shot dead in London...where guns are banned..

[candycorn]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

Most gun crime is committed by people who illegally possess guns.

There is no evidence that the people who own and acquire guns legally contribute to gun crimes

Except for selling them no questions asked to anyone with enough money to buy them…..

Oh wait, let me guess… that never happens, right?

 

[Blues Man]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

Most gun crime is committed by people who illegally possess guns.

There is no evidence that the people who own and acquire guns legally contribute to gun crimes

Except for selling them no questions asked to anyone with enough money to buy them…..

Oh wait, let me guess… that never happens, right?

And how often do you think that happens?

Most criminals get their guns from their criminal friends or their family

 

[Vagabond63]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

You’re a real winner. I gave you visual proof and you responded with a smiley. Your family must be really proud of you....

What? You confusing me with someone else?

 

[Vagabond63]

There is no evidence that the people who own and acquire guns legally contribute to gun crimes

Really? So all those mass shootings and murders in the USA are ALL done by criminals who acquired their guns illegally? A "law abiding citizen" remains so until he/she uses their gun to kill someone, THEN they become criminals, QED.

 

[Vagabond63]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

Moron, they aren't supposed to advocate for or against gun ownership..... and Pew, not the NRA, points out the fact that since the 1990s, gun murder went down 49%....which you can't explain because during that time, more Americans went out, bought guns, and a lot of them now carry them for self defense.........without an increase in gun crime, gun murder or violent crime....

Which blows your theory all to hell......

Well Pew never actually said that private gun purchases CAUSED the decline in murder/violence rates, that's purely a gun nut wet dream fantasy, this article examines several possible causes for that decline, guns had nothing to do with it, What Caused the Crime Decline?

 

[Vagabond63]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

This research does.....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states.

These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter.

We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



https://econjwatch.or

Saw "John Lott", and lost interest. I may trawl through the rest of these so called "studies" if I get a moment.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

You’re a real winner. I gave you visual proof and you responded with a smiley. Your family must be really proud of you....

What? You confusing me with someone else?

No. I am not.

 

[Vagabond63]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

You’re a real winner. I gave you visual proof and you responded with a smiley. Your family must be really proud of you....

What? You confusing me with someone else?

No. I am not.

Was my post in this thread? If so please quote the post number or provide a link to the post in question.

 

[2aguy]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

This research does.....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states.

These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter.

We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



https://econjwatch.or

Saw "John Lott", and lost interest. I may trawl through the rest of these so called "studies" if I get a moment.

Considering I don't think I used his papers, you won't have to read his work....but he is the preeminent researcher in this area.....but of course, that made him the primary target of anti-gunners even though when he did his initial research he was neutral to anti-gun in his beliefs....

 

[2aguy]

Save me your nra bullet points. Come back to me when your guns make you as safe as me. And all of Western Europe. You are so full of shit.

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

Moron, they aren't supposed to advocate for or against gun ownership..... and Pew, not the NRA, points out the fact that since the 1990s, gun murder went down 49%....which you can't explain because during that time, more Americans went out, bought guns, and a lot of them now carry them for self defense.........without an increase in gun crime, gun murder or violent crime....

Which blows your theory all to hell......

Well Pew never actually said that private gun purchases CAUSED the decline in murder/violence rates, that's purely a gun nut wet dream fantasy, this article examines several possible causes for that decline, guns had nothing to do with it, What Caused the Crime Decline?

What you are willfully ignoring with this last post is that PEW simply points out the fact that as more Americans over the last 26 years went out, bought guns and more and more of them carried them for self defense......the gun murder rate did not go up as you keep saying it must when more law abiding people own and carry guns.......

Your theory is that if more people have guns...that would be more law abiding people who don't commit crimes with guns......then the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate has to go up.....that is your theory, the one you and the other anti-gunners hang their hat on.

This PEW research shows that your theory is wrong.... it covers 26 years of actual experience, with more and more people actually carrying guns into the public space...and the gun murder rate going down 49%, the gun crime rate going down 75%.....

PEW doesn't make the argument that gun owners helped reduce gun crime.....what it shows beyond doubt is that your theory is wrong..... guns in the hands of people who do not use them for crime, does not increase the gun crime rate.

Your theory is wrong. That is what PEW shows...

My other papers listed show that gun ownership helps to lower the interpersonal crime rate.

 

[2aguy]

There is no evidence that the people who own and acquire guns legally contribute to gun crimes

Really? So all those mass shootings and murders in the USA are ALL done by criminals who acquired their guns illegally? A "law abiding citizen" remains so until he/she uses their gun to kill someone, THEN they become criminals, QED.

No....those mass shootings....all 12 of them in 2018.....were done by individuals who passed every gun law on the books, including federally mandated background checks.

of the 10,982 gun murders....how many were committed by this category of gun criminal....?

93.

in a country of over 320,000,000.

The rest, were committed primarily in democrat party controlled voting districts, by repeat felons...with long histories of crime and violence, in tiny areas of these cities.

So the 150 million or so gun owners did not commit these crimes with their legal guns....

Knives were used to kill over 1,500 people.....every single year.....more than the 93 killed by mass public shooters.......and that 93 number is an outlier, not the norm.

 

[bodecea]

So....whoever the shooter was, which British gun control law stopped them from going to a mall, a church, a theater, or a school and shooting lots of people?

Man shot dead on London estate

t is the fourth episode of gun violence on the streets of London in the past week, and the second fatal shooting following the killing of Eniola Aluko, 19 – shot dead in Plumstead on 14 June.

t's & p's

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You must not be able to read English...Pew is not spelled N.R.A. CDC is not spelled N.R.A..........they are the two most common places I quote for actual facts on gun self defense.....along with another three letter government agency, FBI...which also isn't spelled N.R.A.

Neither Pew nor the CDC, nor the FBI have ever said more guns in private hands are the answer to reducing crime rates; that's pure NRA BS.

You’re a real winner. I gave you visual proof and you responded with a smiley. Your family must be really proud of you....

What? You confusing me with someone else?

No. I am not.

Was my post in this thread? If so please quote the post number or provide a link to the post in question.

No it was a response to one of my posts in a different thread.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no evidence that the people who own and acquire guns legally contribute to gun crimes

Really? So all those mass shootings and murders in the USA are ALL done by criminals who acquired their guns illegally? A "law abiding citizen" remains so until he/she uses their gun to kill someone, THEN they become criminals, QED.

you do know that mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders don't you? The fact that millions of people legally own guns and that 99.999% of all those people who legally own guns will never commit any felony never mind murder invalidates the idea that people who legally own guns turn into mass murderers because they own guns.

And the whole everyone is a criminal until they aren't argument is pure bullshit.

All men who rape little boys aren't pedophiles until they are so maybe we should just castrate all men right?

 

[2aguy]

There is no evidence that the people who own and acquire guns legally contribute to gun crimes

Really? So all those mass shootings and murders in the USA are ALL done by criminals who acquired their guns illegally? A "law abiding citizen" remains so until he/she uses their gun to kill someone, THEN they become criminals, QED.

you do know that mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders don't you? The fact that millions of people legally own guns and that 99.999% of all those people who legally own guns will never commit any felony never mind murder invalidates the idea that people who legally own guns turn into mass murderers because they own guns.

And the whole everyone is a criminal until they aren't argument is pure bullshit.

All men who rape little boys aren't pedophiles until they are so maybe we should just castrate all men right?

Yes...there were a total of 12 mass public shootings in 2018, with 93 people murdered.

In 2017, the last year for the numbers for the FBI till 2018 numbers are out, there were 10,982 gun murders.

So, for 93 people......they want to ban guns for millions of Americans who don't use their legal guns for crime.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

MORE gun violence in the UK???

OMG!

The UK has become such a dangerous place with all the gun violence! Clearly on track to become the worlds center of gun violence....surpassing even Somalia.

NO WAY I would ever go there. Maybe they need some gun control laws?

Why won't they do anything about the escalating and out of control gun violence in the UK?

Wouldn't the UK be better off just making it law that any criminal who wants ANY of your possessions, your home, your child etc....ENTITLED to them so that all the escalating gun violence wouldn't be necessary? Why is the UK determined to make criminals kill people just to get what they feel is theirs?

If the UK would just respect the criminals all would be fine.

 

[HenryBHough]

Gun control is completely ineffective.

British imagination is unfettered by such potentially inhibiting factors as mere relaity.

Ergo, the vic was offed by an imaginary gun.

 

[Vagabond63]

No....those mass shootings....all 12 of them in 2018.....were done by individuals who passed every gun law on the books, including federally mandated background checks.

So you had 12 mass shootings in the USA, how many did we have? ...NONE. Oh, please don't bother copy/pasting the "near misses" foiled by "dumb luck" drivel you normally do at this point. Our handgun ban and stricter enforcement of existing firearms laws makes it very difficult, if not impossible for our whack jobs to get the guns they need to carry out their attrocities, unlike over in your neck of the woods where any whack job can buy second hand guns at so called "gun fairs" or with their groceries.

of the 10,982 gun murders....how many were committed by this category of gun criminal....?

93.

in a country of over 320,000,000.

Clearly you value 93 innocent human lives far less than we do, so long as you can have your GUNZ! That's all that matters to you and your kind.

So the 150 million or so gun owners did not commit these crimes with their legal guns....

Another slice of pure BS from our favourite NRA schill. You have no way of knowing how many Americans own handguns so stop posting made up numbers.

 

[Vagabond63]

MORE gun violence in the UK???

OMG!

The UK has become such a dangerous place with all the gun violence! Clearly on track to become the worlds center of gun violence....surpassing even Somalia.

NO WAY I would ever go there. Maybe they need some gun control laws?

Why won't they do anything about the escalating and out of control gun violence in the UK?

Wouldn't the UK be better off just making it law that any criminal who for you, wants ANY of your possessions, your home, your child etc....ENTITLED to them so that all the escalating gun violence wouldn't be necessary? Why is the UK determined to make criminals kill people just to get what they feel is theirs?

If the UK would just respect the criminals all would be fine.

A bit of context for you, 26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

A bit of context for you, 26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

Just so you know.....you are wrong. First of all, the US is MUCH bigger than the UK with many times the population so your comparison is a farce from the start.

it's more like 6,000. The UK has become a VERY violent place. Guns are rebounding....but ONLY criminals are getting them.

Please research on the UK's well know suppression of information. Just do your research.

If you're not willing to see the entire picture then that's on you.

Here some other recent news showing just how violent the UK has become. So are you saying 1000 murders with guns is worse than 10,000 murders with knives???
I say murder is murder and dead is dead. And the UK exceeds the US in assaults, rapes and robberies. No wonder, people can't protect themselves in the UK.

Knife crime offences in the UK at record level in 2018, police crime data shows
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=2ahUKEwj63tr0-aDjAhXULc0KHaU6CqIQFjALegQIBBAB&url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48050426&usg=AOvVaw0EZz57oICjmmdI7-vZz7xS

Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by UK police rises by 19%
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj63tr0-aDjAhXULc0KHaU6CqIQFjAMegQIHRAB&url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559&usg=AOvVaw0Jz_P5FEROqJPCkstMXIj3

People from a country as violent as the UK have NO BUSINESS pointing fingers at other nations. Clean up your own backyard then get back to us.