I'm Sure Everyone Knows This, But Here's a Reminder

[Pumpkin Row]

For everyone who forgot leftists are liars and/or have no idea what they're talking about. Or any combination of both.

 

[hazlnut]

 

[hazlnut]

 

[hazlnut]

 

[hazlnut]

 

[hazlnut]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

 

[g5000]

If you want to buy a gun without a background check, go to any small scale gun show. Not the big flashy ones.

Then you just need to find one of the old geezers. Old timers don't give a shit about background checks.

Buying a used one without a background check is a fucking breeze.

 

[hazlnut]

The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

John (the fraud) Lott debunked big time!!

 

[hazlnut]

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

 

[Pumpkin Row]

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

What you just quoted states that the crime rate does decrease, just not immediately. That makes sense, because getting cleared to carry a gun takes forever.

It's also obvious, because criminals don't like armed victims.

 

[2aguy]

Wow.....if those sales are in fact illegal....we can already arrest the felons buying the guns under existing law. In fact....we could have undercover police officers at gun shows selling guns, and then see if the buyers are felons, then we can arrest them. There is no gun show loophole. The gun stores at gun shows must do federal background checks...and hope that the Air Force puts in the criminal records of the buyers......

 

[2aguy]

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

And here you go....

http://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/13

In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent.

The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited inChapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135).


This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.

 

[2aguy]

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

And then, of course, you have all of these papers....

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..


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

 

[BULLDOG]

Wow.....if those sales are in fact illegal....we can already arrest the felons buying the guns under existing law. In fact....we could have undercover police officers at gun shows selling guns, and then see if the buyers are felons, then we can arrest them. There is no gun show loophole. The gun stores at gun shows must do federal background checks...and hope that the Air Force puts in the criminal records of the buyers......

You understand that gun stores aren't the only ones selling at gun shows, don't you?

 

[Dale Smith]

Wow.....if those sales are in fact illegal....we can already arrest the felons buying the guns under existing law. In fact....we could have undercover police officers at gun shows selling guns, and then see if the buyers are felons, then we can arrest them. There is no gun show loophole. The gun stores at gun shows must do federal background checks...and hope that the Air Force puts in the criminal records of the buyers......

You understand that gun stores aren't the only ones selling at gun shows, don't you?

And pharmacies are not the only ones selling opium.........

 

[Dale Smith]

If you want to buy a gun without a background check, go to any small scale gun show. Not the big flashy ones.

Then you just need to find one of the old geezers. Old timers don't give a shit about background checks.

Buying a used one without a background check is a fucking breeze.

Your beloved corporate "gubermint" sells guns to Mexican drug cartels and they do no background checks at all......LOL!

 

[2aguy]

Wow.....if those sales are in fact illegal....we can already arrest the felons buying the guns under existing law. In fact....we could have undercover police officers at gun shows selling guns, and then see if the buyers are felons, then we can arrest them. There is no gun show loophole. The gun stores at gun shows must do federal background checks...and hope that the Air Force puts in the criminal records of the buyers......

You understand that gun stores aren't the only ones selling at gun shows, don't you?

Yep....and it isn't a loophole since private sellers don't have to do background checks when they sell their private guns.....and again, if a felon buys a gun from a private seller, we can already arrest him and throw him in jail....we already laws that cover that....

 

[BULLDOG]

Wow.....if those sales are in fact illegal....we can already arrest the felons buying the guns under existing law. In fact....we could have undercover police officers at gun shows selling guns, and then see if the buyers are felons, then we can arrest them. There is no gun show loophole. The gun stores at gun shows must do federal background checks...and hope that the Air Force puts in the criminal records of the buyers......

You understand that gun stores aren't the only ones selling at gun shows, don't you?

And pharmacies are not the only ones selling opium.........

Has nothing to do with my post. However, public sales of opium without authorization are not legal.

 

[PredFan]

Thanks for proving that gun control laws won’t stop criminals. Welcome to sanity leftists! What took you so long?