4 years of concealed carry guns in Chicago, not one CCW citizen arrested for illegal gun use...

[Taz]

I know you are playing dumb.....but we don't have to play with you......

the gun control laws in Chicago only effect law abiding gun owners. They do not effect criminals who ignore the law and are willing to face the punishment for getting caught using a gun illegally.

The law abiding gun owners are not using their guns to commit rapes, robberies and murders.... They can have all the guns they want and the gun crime rate is not going to go up....as the United States over the last 20 years has shown...as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%.

Now in Britain, they actually banned and confiscated guns, even more extreme gun control than in Chicago...what happened? Their gun crime rate in London just last year was up 42%..... their homicide rate was up 44%...... their violent crime rate across England and Wales is up in some cases 95%....

It doesn't matter what the gun laws say. You keep going on about how everyone around the world should arm themselves to be safer. Chicago isn't safer despite all the guns. Or are you a gun-grabber, and want to take some people's guns away in Chicago?

Our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control....

No...our homicide rate is higher because our criminals are willing to commit murder more often... the homicide rate in Britain went up 44% last year....after they banned guns...

As more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....

It went down after background checks and gun control was passed.

Criminals don't go through background checks, and the shooters in democrat cities are not getting federal background checks for their illegal guns......gun control hasn't stopped them and it hasn't stopped the criminals in Britain from getting guns...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Background checks are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. You just want to grab some peoples' guns like all the other guns grabbers.

 

[Taz]

Our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control....

No...our homicide rate is higher because our criminals are willing to commit murder more often... the homicide rate in Britain went up 44% last year....after they banned guns...

As more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....

So if more guns are the solution, why isn't Chicago safe?

Again, because the democrats who have been in control of Chicago for the last 31 years keep releasing violent gun criminals over and over again despite their multiple convictions for gun crimes.....

And until they get about 5% of the Chicago population carrying guns, they don't have enough good guys with guns to make the criminals stop attacking innocent people...

Your level of dumb is amazing.

Wow...did you take hours to come up with that post?

You should teach him how to copy&paste non-stop.

 

[Taz]

Our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control....

No...our homicide rate is higher because our criminals are willing to commit murder more often... the homicide rate in Britain went up 44% last year....after they banned guns...

As more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....

It went down after background checks and gun control was passed.

Criminals don't go through background checks, and the shooters in democrat cities are not getting federal background checks for their illegal guns......gun control hasn't stopped them and it hasn't stopped the criminals in Britain from getting guns...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Sure and America got a lot older as a nation, cleaned up lead based paint and made active shooter drills commonplace in our schools.


Feel better little gunnie?

The democrats keep our schools unsafe by keeping them gun free zones....since we know that mass shooters target gun free zones.....but thanks for playing, you dumb ass.

Didn't the armed guard at one school go hide in the bushes outside?

 

[2aguy]

No...our homicide rate is higher because our criminals are willing to commit murder more often... the homicide rate in Britain went up 44% last year....after they banned guns...

As more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....

It went down after background checks and gun control was passed.

Criminals don't go through background checks, and the shooters in democrat cities are not getting federal background checks for their illegal guns......gun control hasn't stopped them and it hasn't stopped the criminals in Britain from getting guns...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Sure and America got a lot older as a nation, cleaned up lead based paint and made active shooter drills commonplace in our schools.


Feel better little gunnie?

The democrats keep our schools unsafe by keeping them gun free zones....since we know that mass shooters target gun free zones.....but thanks for playing, you dumb ass.

Didn't the armed guard at one school go hide in the bushes outside?

Yes.....they had 1 armed guard for 12 separate buildings, and over 3,200 staff and students.....it was a gun free zone...

at that same school teachers put their bodies in the way to protect students...had some of them been armed, and had there not been a gun free zone, the mass shooters would not have attacked the schools.....

Had the teachers who put their bodies in front of their students had their own guns, with training, the 17 lives would have been saved...

Again, mass shooters target gun free zones...

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't matter what the gun laws say. You keep going on about how everyone around the world should arm themselves to be safer. Chicago isn't safer despite all the guns. Or are you a gun-grabber, and want to take some people's guns away in Chicago?

Our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control....

No...our homicide rate is higher because our criminals are willing to commit murder more often... the homicide rate in Britain went up 44% last year....after they banned guns...

As more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....

It went down after background checks and gun control was passed.

Criminals don't go through background checks, and the shooters in democrat cities are not getting federal background checks for their illegal guns......gun control hasn't stopped them and it hasn't stopped the criminals in Britain from getting guns...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Background checks are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. You just want to grab some peoples' guns like all the other guns grabbers.

I am not a supporter of background checks.... I will live with background checks that we have now, but not for any checks on private sales....in fact, we need to make background checks instant, using technology...and free...so they are not unConstitutional...

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't matter what the gun laws say. You keep going on about how everyone around the world should arm themselves to be safer. Chicago isn't safer despite all the guns. Or are you a gun-grabber, and want to take some people's guns away in Chicago?

Our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control....

No...our homicide rate is higher because our criminals are willing to commit murder more often... the homicide rate in Britain went up 44% last year....after they banned guns...

As more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....

So if more guns are the solution, why isn't Chicago safe?

Again, because the democrats who have been in control of Chicago for the last 31 years keep releasing violent gun criminals over and over again despite their multiple convictions for gun crimes.....

And until they get about 5% of the Chicago population carrying guns, they don't have enough good guys with guns to make the criminals stop attacking innocent people...

So Chicago will be safe with even more guns.

Yep..... if you had done any research you would see that as more of a cities population gets legal gun ownership rates up, the crime rates go down...

 

[2aguy]

John Lott tallking with Dan and Amy about Chicago's 4 years of concealed carry...

On Chicago's WIND to discuss Illinois' experience with permitted concealed handguns - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[Daryl Hunt]

John Lott tallking with Dan and Amy about Chicago's 4 years of concealed carry...

On Chicago's WIND to discuss Illinois' experience with permitted concealed handguns - Crime Prevention Research Center

YOu don't have a point here. You are against registering or background checks and yet you give concrete evidence that CCW Licensing (registering people) is safe. But also, it's shown that it has had absolutely no affect in the violent gun crime either up or down either. Are you saying that more people should be licensed to carry or that everyone should be able to carry without license? Which one is it? Personally, I like the idea of more people being licensed for CCW and that might have an affect on gun crimes. But since there are so few CCW holders there is no data to back that statement up. But there is data showing that more people carrying unlicensed does increase gun violence when it's clearly against the law to do so. Law Abiding Citizens won't illegally carry firearms if it's against the law. Otherwise, they aren't law abiding citizens. Hence, the Criminal Element is more supportive of not having to have a CCW to carry weapons even though carrying one is against the law if you don't. I don't wish to contribute more to the criminal element. If a Law Abiding Citizen feels the need to carry a weapon, he can spend the time in the classes and the shooting range and acquire the CCW. Simple as that. And he is still well within the law. And he has just became one of the Zero Problem weapons carrying people in the US as well.

Tell me, do you have a CCW? Or your States Equivalent?

 

[Skull Pilot]

John Lott tallking with Dan and Amy about Chicago's 4 years of concealed carry...

On Chicago's WIND to discuss Illinois' experience with permitted concealed handguns - Crime Prevention Research Center

YOu don't have a point here. You are against registering or background checks and yet you give concrete evidence that CCW Licensing (registering people) is safe. But also, it's shown that it has had absolutely no affect in the violent gun crime either up or down either. Are you saying that more people should be licensed to carry or that everyone should be able to carry without license? Which one is it? Personally, I like the idea of more people being licensed for CCW and that might have an affect on gun crimes. But since there are so few CCW holders there is no data to back that statement up. But there is data showing that more people carrying unlicensed does increase gun violence when it's clearly against the law to do so. Law Abiding Citizens won't illegally carry firearms if it's against the law. Otherwise, they aren't law abiding citizens. Hence, the Criminal Element is more supportive of not having to have a CCW to carry weapons even though carrying one is against the law if you don't. I don't wish to contribute more to the criminal element. If a Law Abiding Citizen feels the need to carry a weapon, he can spend the time in the classes and the shooting range and acquire the CCW. Simple as that. And he is still well within the law. And he has just became one of the Zero Problem weapons carrying people in the US as well.

Tell me, do you have a CCW? Or your States Equivalent?

Law abiding people carrying guns doesn't add to the crime or murder rate and it doesn't have to reduce the crime or murder rate.

Anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to carry without any additional permits.

 

[2aguy]

John Lott tallking with Dan and Amy about Chicago's 4 years of concealed carry...

On Chicago's WIND to discuss Illinois' experience with permitted concealed handguns - Crime Prevention Research Center

YOu don't have a point here. You are against registering or background checks and yet you give concrete evidence that CCW Licensing (registering people) is safe. But also, it's shown that it has had absolutely no affect in the violent gun crime either up or down either. Are you saying that more people should be licensed to carry or that everyone should be able to carry without license? Which one is it? Personally, I like the idea of more people being licensed for CCW and that might have an affect on gun crimes. But since there are so few CCW holders there is no data to back that statement up. But there is data showing that more people carrying unlicensed does increase gun violence when it's clearly against the law to do so. Law Abiding Citizens won't illegally carry firearms if it's against the law. Otherwise, they aren't law abiding citizens. Hence, the Criminal Element is more supportive of not having to have a CCW to carry weapons even though carrying one is against the law if you don't. I don't wish to contribute more to the criminal element. If a Law Abiding Citizen feels the need to carry a weapon, he can spend the time in the classes and the shooting range and acquire the CCW. Simple as that. And he is still well within the law. And he has just became one of the Zero Problem weapons carrying people in the US as well.

Tell me, do you have a CCW? Or your States Equivalent?

Registration? What good does that do, genius? The only reason the anti gunners want registration is to have the records they need when they can ban and confiscate guns.....

Law abiding citizens should be able to carry, open or concealed without a license....there is no need for one....criminals already carry illegally, and law abiding citizesn aren't using their guns for crime....


You are talking out of your ass again......

Papers on the effects of concealed carry....

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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

John Lott tallking with Dan and Amy about Chicago's 4 years of concealed carry...

On Chicago's WIND to discuss Illinois' experience with permitted concealed handguns - Crime Prevention Research Center

YOu don't have a point here. You are against registering or background checks and yet you give concrete evidence that CCW Licensing (registering people) is safe. But also, it's shown that it has had absolutely no affect in the violent gun crime either up or down either. Are you saying that more people should be licensed to carry or that everyone should be able to carry without license? Which one is it? Personally, I like the idea of more people being licensed for CCW and that might have an affect on gun crimes. But since there are so few CCW holders there is no data to back that statement up. But there is data showing that more people carrying unlicensed does increase gun violence when it's clearly against the law to do so. Law Abiding Citizens won't illegally carry firearms if it's against the law. Otherwise, they aren't law abiding citizens. Hence, the Criminal Element is more supportive of not having to have a CCW to carry weapons even though carrying one is against the law if you don't. I don't wish to contribute more to the criminal element. If a Law Abiding Citizen feels the need to carry a weapon, he can spend the time in the classes and the shooting range and acquire the CCW. Simple as that. And he is still well within the law. And he has just became one of the Zero Problem weapons carrying people in the US as well.

Tell me, do you have a CCW? Or your States Equivalent?

Registration? What good does that do, genius? The only reason the anti gunners want registration is to have the records they need when they can ban and confiscate guns.....

Law abiding citizens should be able to carry, open or concealed without a license....there is no need for one....criminals already carry illegally, and law abiding citizesn aren't using their guns for crime....


You are talking out of your ass again......

Papers on the effects of concealed carry....

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.

Not one original thought from you. All cut and paste.

Most of this is based on one book by John Lott and David Mustard. The problem is, it's all conjecture and opinion. Not based on real data. After his book came out, title "More Guns, Less Crime", their data was checked by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine who stated that there wasn't enough information from the data used for the book to draw any conclusion from.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine - Wikipedia

Then we have more on this. From The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research here is their response to the book.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/teret.htm
The study uses incorrect and discredited methodology. The results of any study are influenced by the type of statistical techniques used by the researchers. The technique used in most of Lott and Mustard's analyses has been deemed by criminologists and econometricians since the early 1970s to be inappropriate for this type of study. The validity of the statistical techniques chosen by Lott and Mustard depend on the assumption that data used in the study (such as crime rates in neighboring counties, and crime rates in consecutive years) are not related to each other. If, however, relationships exist, than false findings of statistical significance will occur.

There are tons of negative reviews of the Lott and Mustard book that pretty much say the same thing. Lott and Mustard have done the same thing you are doing. You take incomplete data and come to improper conclusions. As I stated, all of your references get their origins from the Lott and Mustard Book that has been largely discredited as false.