CDZ Not only responsible gun owners, but gun shop owners

[saveliberty]

Excuse me?

I think it's great that Laubscher may have helped avert yet another unlawful shooting. So kudos to him for that. Nonetheless, he was out of line.

Zhan visited The Gun Store [and] shop owner John Laubscher told Syracuse.com. [that] Zhan wanted an AR-15. Laubscher described Zhan as “on the edge” and said his lack of understanding about guns made him stand out. As a result of his concerns, Laubscher refused to sell Zhan a gun.

So now we have gun store owners, not clinical psychologists, determining the mental stability/status of potential customers. I don't mind requiring that would-be buyers of guns be subject to some sort of evaluation to establish that they are at least "sane" when they buy a firearm. I mind very much someone who's not qualified to make such an assessment making it and acting upon their non-professional opinion about such things.

Doing that is tantamount to vigilante psychoanalysis, which, as far as I'm concerned, is no more consionable than is vigilante law enforcement. Laubscher was right to report his observations to the police. No question on that. He "saw something" and so he "said something." That is the right thing to do.

Unilaterally concluding on another's mental state -- Laubscher used the clearly unspecific phrase "on the edge" to describe Zhan's mental state at the time -- absent training to do so and absent express is beyond the scope of what non-clinicians have any right to do.

“When we explained to him the limitations on AR’s that you can get in New York, he jumped right from that to a shotgun, and then his interest was in the highest capacity shotgun that we had." Zhan had a hunting license [and] expressed his lack of knowledge about the [AR-15] gun [he initially inquired about]. He told the shop owner he would take a gun safety course at Syracuse University to learn how to use the weapon.

“When was the last time you heard of a tactical shotgun class at SU?”

First:

I really don't know what SU teaches. I know a state university near me -- University of Maryland -- does (and has for some time) collaborate with the 4-H to teach shooting sports/skills.

• Our programs are valuable for helping young people develop self-confidence, personal discipline, responsibility, teamwork, self-esteem and sportsmanship. The discipline and self-control required for responsible firearms use carries over into many other aspects of life.
• Nearly two-thirds of the homes in the U.S. have firearms. Exposure to safety and responsible handling is vital to preventing accidents at home, at neighbors, or at a friend's home.

Indeed, the 4-H has similar partnerships with several universities, though I don't know how many overall or whether Syracuse is among them.

• Shooting Sports Activities and Events | 4-H Youth Development
• Shooting Sports | State 4H
• Davis County 4-H
• 2016 NYS 4-H Shooting Sports Dates (Cornell)

Second:

• Since when did expert knowledge about an item become a requirement for purchasing it?
• How much does one need to know about a firearm, firearm operation, or firearm safety to know not to point/aim it at people and to maintain one's firearms such that unauthorized persons cannot gain access to it?

Third:

While I am thrilled that Zhan may have been, it seems (based on what's reported in the article the OP references), prevented from carrying out an unlawful shooting, I'm not thrilled about the manner in which that possible outcome was achieved.

• Yes, I would welcome greater controls on access to guns. To obtain that, however, extant jurisprudence must be amended and revised. Until that happens, the current laws and jurist interpretations of them are what they are and must be adhered to, at least they must be by individuals not uniquely positioned and formally accorded limited discretion to not do so.
• It really doesn't matter to me who "saw something and said something." Doing that is everyone's responsibility, regardless of their position on gun rights/control.
  
  And people have the gall to talk about "snowflakes." Sheesh. One doesn't deserve an "atta boy" for doing what one is supposed to do in the first place; behavior of that nature when exhibited by adults isn't even noteworthy. Accolades, notoriety, etc. are rightly awarded for exceeding expectations, not merely meeting them.

Aside:

Whether Laubscher is prescient or just lucky is not clear, but either way, he isn't particularly rational. To wit:

I have a very uneasy feeling that this could have happen in our hometown, here in Syracuse. It could happen right anywhere, but the fact that it could happen right here is scary.
-- John Laubscher, Owner, The Gun Store, Nelson, NY

Well, duh! Of course, unlawful shootings can happen "right there." There guns there, there are people there, and even if there weren't people there, people have the means to with guns arrive there; consequently, "this" can happen there. That unlawful gun use can happen "right there" or anywhere is the immutable fact that gun control advocates have discerned and that gun rights advocates consistently (1) discount, (2) reject all material solution proposals to reduce the risk that it can happen anywhere, and (3) offer no solution ideas to attenuate the risk that it can happen anywhere.​

Syracuse University acted in the meantime to withdraw Zhan’s status as a student

Was the university's action taken independently of Laubscher's reports to the cops? I don't know, and the article is not clear on that point. It merely states that Syracuse U. acted contemporaneously. For all I know, Zhan may have done something (or not done something) that was both unrelated to his gun purchase attempts and that gave Syracuse U. administrators cause to expel him.

You are excused.

The gun store owner made a judgement call, it is perfectly legal. He has no requirement to sell a weapon to anyone.

I doubt any university teaches TACTICAL shotgun use to the public.

What is irrational about finding inconsistencies in a person's story about gun knowledge?

The article indicates police had a search warrant, that would have been shown to the apartment complex manager. A lot of those are university owned or operated. Police probably also contacted the school for information on his behavior at school, much as they did with his friends. Are you suggesting it is my fault the article didn't answer all your questions.

 

[saveliberty]

If you are going to tell me most of these male white kids were on mental health meds and used legally purchased guns, you are also going to have to give me that these guns came from gun shops. I offer this gun shop owner as the model for reducing mass shootings, along with the friends, police and university.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Excuse me?

I think it's great that Laubscher may have helped avert yet another unlawful shooting. So kudos to him for that. Nonetheless, he was out of line.

Zhan visited The Gun Store [and] shop owner John Laubscher told Syracuse.com. [that] Zhan wanted an AR-15. Laubscher described Zhan as “on the edge” and said his lack of understanding about guns made him stand out. As a result of his concerns, Laubscher refused to sell Zhan a gun.

So now we have gun store owners, not clinical psychologists, determining the mental stability/status of potential customers. I don't mind requiring that would-be buyers of guns be subject to some sort of evaluation to establish that they are at least "sane" when they buy a firearm. I mind very much someone who's not qualified to make such an assessment making it and acting upon their non-professional opinion about such things.

Doing that is tantamount to vigilante psychoanalysis, which, as far as I'm concerned, is no more consionable than is vigilante law enforcement. Laubscher was right to report his observations to the police. No question on that. He "saw something" and so he "said something." That is the right thing to do.

Unilaterally concluding on another's mental state -- Laubscher used the clearly unspecific phrase "on the edge" to describe Zhan's mental state at the time -- absent training to do so and absent express is beyond the scope of what non-clinicians have any right to do.

“When we explained to him the limitations on AR’s that you can get in New York, he jumped right from that to a shotgun, and then his interest was in the highest capacity shotgun that we had." Zhan had a hunting license [and] expressed his lack of knowledge about the [AR-15] gun [he initially inquired about]. He told the shop owner he would take a gun safety course at Syracuse University to learn how to use the weapon.

“When was the last time you heard of a tactical shotgun class at SU?”

First:

I really don't know what SU teaches. I know a state university near me -- University of Maryland -- does (and has for some time) collaborate with the 4-H to teach shooting sports/skills.

• Our programs are valuable for helping young people develop self-confidence, personal discipline, responsibility, teamwork, self-esteem and sportsmanship. The discipline and self-control required for responsible firearms use carries over into many other aspects of life.
• Nearly two-thirds of the homes in the U.S. have firearms. Exposure to safety and responsible handling is vital to preventing accidents at home, at neighbors, or at a friend's home.

Indeed, the 4-H has similar partnerships with several universities, though I don't know how many overall or whether Syracuse is among them.

• Shooting Sports Activities and Events | 4-H Youth Development
• Shooting Sports | State 4H
• Davis County 4-H
• 2016 NYS 4-H Shooting Sports Dates (Cornell)

Second:

• Since when did expert knowledge about an item become a requirement for purchasing it?
• How much does one need to know about a firearm, firearm operation, or firearm safety to know not to point/aim it at people and to maintain one's firearms such that unauthorized persons cannot gain access to it?

Third:

While I am thrilled that Zhan may have been, it seems (based on what's reported in the article the OP references), prevented from carrying out an unlawful shooting, I'm not thrilled about the manner in which that possible outcome was achieved.

• Yes, I would welcome greater controls on access to guns. To obtain that, however, extant jurisprudence must be amended and revised. Until that happens, the current laws and jurist interpretations of them are what they are and must be adhered to, at least they must be by individuals not uniquely positioned and formally accorded limited discretion to not do so.
• It really doesn't matter to me who "saw something and said something." Doing that is everyone's responsibility, regardless of their position on gun rights/control.
  
  And people have the gall to talk about "snowflakes." Sheesh. One doesn't deserve an "atta boy" for doing what one is supposed to do in the first place; behavior of that nature when exhibited by adults isn't even noteworthy. Accolades, notoriety, etc. are rightly awarded for exceeding expectations, not merely meeting them.

Aside:

Whether Laubscher is prescient or just lucky is not clear, but either way, he isn't particularly rational. To wit:

I have a very uneasy feeling that this could have happen in our hometown, here in Syracuse. It could happen right anywhere, but the fact that it could happen right here is scary.
-- John Laubscher, Owner, The Gun Store, Nelson, NY

Well, duh! Of course, unlawful shootings can happen "right there." There guns there, there are people there, and even if there weren't people there, people have the means to with guns arrive there; consequently, "this" can happen there. That unlawful gun use can happen "right there" or anywhere is the immutable fact that gun control advocates have discerned and that gun rights advocates consistently (1) discount, (2) reject all material solution proposals to reduce the risk that it can happen anywhere, and (3) offer no solution ideas to attenuate the risk that it can happen anywhere.​

Syracuse University acted in the meantime to withdraw Zhan’s status as a student

Was the university's action taken independently of Laubscher's reports to the cops? I don't know, and the article is not clear on that point. It merely states that Syracuse U. acted contemporaneously. For all I know, Zhan may have done something (or not done something) that was both unrelated to his gun purchase attempts and that gave Syracuse U. administrators cause to expel him.

You are excused.

The gun store owner made a judgement call, it is perfectly legal. He has no requirement to sell a weapon to anyone.

I doubt any university teaches TACTICAL shotgun use to the public.

What is irrational about finding inconsistencies in a person's story about gun knowledge?

The article indicates police had a search warrant, that would have been shown to the apartment complex manager. A lot of those are university owned or operated. Police probably also contacted the school for information on his behavior at school, much as they did with his friends. Are you suggesting it is my fault the article didn't answer all your questions.

What is irrational about finding inconsistencies in a person's story about gun knowledge?

Nothing provided someone attests to having any gun knowledge to begin with.

. Are you suggesting it is my fault the article didn't answer all your questions.

No.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

One thing that should be addressed......why can a non-citizen buy a gun here?

 

[saveliberty]

One thing that should be addressed......why can a non-citizen buy a gun here?

That and how did he get a visa?

 

[2aguy]

The common thread here was reporting, follow up and action.

Agree. And notice how when all he could get was a crippled AR, he went right to the next weapons that would give his result he wanted. That's what happens when liberals want to ban a type of gun. Criminals will go to the next available weapon. If there are no guns, something just as deadly will be used.

They know this, don't think they don't......they ban the one, then the next one and on and on ....

But that tactic has changed...they are now going after the AR-15 civilian rifle because they know it is no different from any other semi auto rifle. They know if they can ban the AR-15 civilian rifle based on how it operates, as a semi auto.....they can then come back and demand all other semi autos get banned as well...

This is not conjecture, we heard them yell this at the CNN Town Hall, the D.C. March......and now Deerfield, Illinois banned all semi auto weapons, rifles, pistols and shotguns.....and oregon is trying to do the same....

You may hate Trump, you may hate Republicans...but right now they are the only ones who can appoint and approve pro 2nd Amendment Judges and Justices to the federal courts.....if the democrats win the House, they will impeach Trump, and the Senate democrats will use that as an excuse to steam roll Never Trump Republican Senators and Squish Republican Senators into not voting on any of Trump's nominees.....in particular any vacancies on the Supreme Court.........which would allow the next democrat President to appoint those Justices....ending the 2nd Amendment.

Also......if a democrat becomes President, they will do their best to end the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun makers from "lawfare," ....law suits designed to bankrupt gun makers who have done nothing wrong. This act only allows gun makers to be sued when they produce defective products or actually break the law......the democrats want the ability to have victims of shootings sue them into non existence.....this happens if the democrats get back into power....

So you can hate Trump, you can hate republicans but if you want to put actual Judges and justices on the bench, you better vote for Trump and Repbulicans in November.

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

 

[2aguy]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

School shootings are also down from the 1990s....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

While correlation does not equate to causality, observing the very correlation you describe is precisely why gun control advocates have been pushing for a curtailment in the access to the weapons of choice used to commit mass shootings. Like you, they don't know why mass shooters commit their dastardly deeds, but they know that they'd be less deadly and injurious at doing so were fewer of them to obtain semi-automatic firearms. Quite simply, it's a matter of the quantity of lead that can be fired in a given period of time by an "average" individual.

But for the sake of argument, what would you propose as an attenuator to the incidence of mass shooting deaths and injuries were it discovered that there is/are no uniquely identifiable impetus to individuals undertaking a mass shooting?

• If there are no distinctive causes other than "s/he flipped out or got pissed off," one must come up with some other way to reduce the incidence of death and injury wrought by mass shooters or would be mass shooters.
• If there are distinctive causes that can be mitigated, well, of course, everyone would pursue courses of action that reduce the incidence of the causal factors.

In the interim, however, what would you have a society do? Nothing? Something(s), and if so what? Orchestrate vigilantism?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

This fails as a confusing correlation with causation fallacy.

There is no evidence in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms has the effect of reducing gun crime and violence:

“The study published in the Journal of Criminology looked at the connection between crime rates and concealed handgun permits for each county in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas.

Researchers used two sources of data from 1998 to 2010: concealed handgun license information and arrest data from Uniform Crime Reports, which the FBI compiles nationwide to gauge arrests for serious crimes including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson.

Overall, they found no connection between allowing concealed weapons and crime rates, which are trending downward nationwide.”

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Crime rates have indeed been decreasing, but for reasons other than the carrying of concealed firearms.

There is a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

 

[saveliberty]

While correlation does not equate to causality, observing the very correlation you describe is precisely why gun control advocates have been pushing for a curtailment in the access to the weapons of choice used to commit mass shootings. Like you, they don't know why mass shooters commit their dastardly deeds, but they know that they'd be less deadly and injurious at doing so were fewer of them to obtain semi-automatic firearms. Quite simply, it's a matter of the quantity of lead that can be fired in a given period of time by an "average" individual.

But for the sake of argument, what would you propose as an attenuator to the incidence of mass shooting deaths and injuries were it discovered that there is/are no uniquely identifiable impetus to individuals undertaking a mass shooting?

• If there are no distinctive causes other than "s/he flipped out or got pissed off," one must come up with some other way to reduce the incidence of death and injury wrought by mass shooters or would be mass shooters.
• If there are distinctive causes that can be mitigated, well, of course, everyone would pursue courses of action that reduce the incidence of the causal factors.

In the interim, however, what would you have a society do? Nothing? Something(s), and if so what? Orchestrate vigilantism?

A stronger data base of mentally ill people to cross check if they have recently purchased a firearm. You really don't know why mass murderers kill? Really?

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

This fails as a confusing correlation with causation fallacy.

There is no evidence in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms has the effect of reducing gun crime and violence:

“The study published in the Journal of Criminology looked at the connection between crime rates and concealed handgun permits for each county in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas.

Researchers used two sources of data from 1998 to 2010: concealed handgun license information and arrest data from Uniform Crime Reports, which the FBI compiles nationwide to gauge arrests for serious crimes including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson.

Overall, they found no connection between allowing concealed weapons and crime rates, which are trending downward nationwide.”

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Crime rates have indeed been decreasing, but for reasons other than the carrying of concealed firearms.

There is a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

Well, if you combine the evidence I gave with say Chicago where the murder rate goes up with fewer guns in the city, I don't think it is hard to see at all.

 

[usmbguest5318]

While correlation does not equate to causality, observing the very correlation you describe is precisely why gun control advocates have been pushing for a curtailment in the access to the weapons of choice used to commit mass shootings. Like you, they don't know why mass shooters commit their dastardly deeds, but they know that they'd be less deadly and injurious at doing so were fewer of them to obtain semi-automatic firearms. Quite simply, it's a matter of the quantity of lead that can be fired in a given period of time by an "average" individual.

But for the sake of argument, what would you propose as an attenuator to the incidence of mass shooting deaths and injuries were it discovered that there is/are no uniquely identifiable impetus to individuals undertaking a mass shooting?

• If there are no distinctive causes other than "s/he flipped out or got pissed off," one must come up with some other way to reduce the incidence of death and injury wrought by mass shooters or would be mass shooters.
• If there are distinctive causes that can be mitigated, well, of course, everyone would pursue courses of action that reduce the incidence of the causal factors.

In the interim, however, what would you have a society do? Nothing? Something(s), and if so what? Orchestrate vigilantism?

A stronger data base of mentally ill people to cross check if they have recently purchased a firearm. You really don't know why mass murderers kill? Really?

You really don't know why mass murderers kill? Really?

Know in a policy-actionable way why mass shooters do what they do? No, I do not. You don't either, but you apparently think you do. I suppose too you may think it appropriate to implement a series of one-off policies to account for each specific hypothesized reason posited for past mass shooters.

As for mass murderers, well, they are a larger classification of which mass shooters are but a subset. All mass shooters are mass murderers, but not all mass murderers are mass shooters.

 

[2aguy]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

While correlation does not equate to causality, observing the very correlation you describe is precisely why gun control advocates have been pushing for a curtailment in the access to the weapons of choice used to commit mass shootings. Like you, they don't know why mass shooters commit their dastardly deeds, but they know that they'd be less deadly and injurious at doing so were fewer of them to obtain semi-automatic firearms. Quite simply, it's a matter of the quantity of lead that can be fired in a given period of time by an "average" individual.

But for the sake of argument, what would you propose as an attenuator to the incidence of mass shooting deaths and injuries were it discovered that there is/are no uniquely identifiable impetus to individuals undertaking a mass shooting?

• If there are no distinctive causes other than "s/he flipped out or got pissed off," one must come up with some other way to reduce the incidence of death and injury wrought by mass shooters or would be mass shooters.
• If there are distinctive causes that can be mitigated, well, of course, everyone would pursue courses of action that reduce the incidence of the causal factors.

In the interim, however, what would you have a society do? Nothing? Something(s), and if so what? Orchestrate vigilantism?

Notice that Xelor is now calling for banning all semi automatic weapons.....

Notice that mass public shootings are the smallest number of deaths by criminals with guns, while criminals who are released from prison by democrat policies are the ones murdering the most people....


The weapon of choice? You mean pistols?

No....what makes mass shooters deadly are democrat gun free zones.....it is known from actual mass public shooters that have been captured and those who die and leave notes that they target gun free zones... If we end democrat gun free zones, then these shooters would have to pick different targets.

They would simply use lever action rifles, pump action shotguns or bolt action rifles, and since they are shooting people in a democrat gun free zone where it takes 5 minutes for people with guns to arrive, cops, the death toll would still be high.

The Vegas shooter could have shot just as many people with a lever action rifle or a bolt action rifle firing from a concealed and fortified position into a crowd of over 22, 000 people.

And then, you would also have to explain how a muslim terrorist, using a rental Truck murdered more people in one 5 minute period, the same 5 minute average of our mass shootings, than each and every mass shooting over 35 years.....he murdered 86 people, more than any of our mass shooters with any gun, in 35 years of mass shootings.

IF these guys switch to truck rather than guns, the casualty rates will be much higher.

You refuse to acknowledge the one thing that can stop this particular criminal.....getting rid of democrat gun free zones....because that goes against your desire to ban and confiscate guns.

Here.....this research shows that training and arming school staff would save lives....want to address this?

Arming teachers: Science or shot in the dark?



For the Purdue project, students pored over FBI data from past mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the 2012 Newtown, Conn., mass shooting that ended with 20 children and six adults dead. They studied police response time in relation to casualties, said the institute's director, J. Eric Dietz, Indiana's first director of Homeland Security. Appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, Dietz reorganized the state's public safety planning and response while serving as director until 2008.

In their study, the Purdue students created four scenarios and ran them through the computer models that followed an active shooter in a school. It's available at www.researchgate.net/.

They learned what could seem obvious: if a police officer or other armed school official confronts the shooter, fewer casualties are likely to occur. Dietz said the gun debate is so polarizing, his students sought to use science to inform people in the middle of the debate.

"What we found was profound," said Dietz. He said a single resource officer "or even an armed teacher in a defensive position between attacker and students can reduce the number of victims by up to 70 percent."

Dietz and his students have been presenting their findings at seminars across the country. They're using models now to study stadiums and sporting events.

"My students weren't supporting a certain agenda item. We tried to take a very objective look," said Dietz.

"In all cases, some presence of weapons was an advantage," he said. "Essentially, our model shows what President Trump said after the Florida shooting – arm more people. That's what we predict from the science we built."

 

[2aguy]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

This fails as a confusing correlation with causation fallacy.

There is no evidence in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms has the effect of reducing gun crime and violence:

“The study published in the Journal of Criminology looked at the connection between crime rates and concealed handgun permits for each county in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas.

Researchers used two sources of data from 1998 to 2010: concealed handgun license information and arrest data from Uniform Crime Reports, which the FBI compiles nationwide to gauge arrests for serious crimes including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson.

Overall, they found no connection between allowing concealed weapons and crime rates, which are trending downward nationwide.”

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Crime rates have indeed been decreasing, but for reasons other than the carrying of concealed firearms.

There is a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

This is reality....you can deny it but it is the truth, the fact and the reality that as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun crime rate went down...

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.

 

[2aguy]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

This fails as a confusing correlation with causation fallacy.

There is no evidence in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms has the effect of reducing gun crime and violence:

“The study published in the Journal of Criminology looked at the connection between crime rates and concealed handgun permits for each county in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas.

Researchers used two sources of data from 1998 to 2010: concealed handgun license information and arrest data from Uniform Crime Reports, which the FBI compiles nationwide to gauge arrests for serious crimes including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson.

Overall, they found no connection between allowing concealed weapons and crime rates, which are trending downward nationwide.”

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Crime rates have indeed been decreasing, but for reasons other than the carrying of concealed firearms.

There is a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

Here...you missed these papers that show concealed carry does help to lower the crime rate...

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

 

[2aguy]

Interesting that as the number of gun carrying Americans went up, voilent crime went down, murder went down and gun crimes too.

What went up was mass murders, so a rational person would look for another reason this happened, such as drugs, our youth culture and religious influences.

While correlation does not equate to causality, observing the very correlation you describe is precisely why gun control advocates have been pushing for a curtailment in the access to the weapons of choice used to commit mass shootings. Like you, they don't know why mass shooters commit their dastardly deeds, but they know that they'd be less deadly and injurious at doing so were fewer of them to obtain semi-automatic firearms. Quite simply, it's a matter of the quantity of lead that can be fired in a given period of time by an "average" individual.

But for the sake of argument, what would you propose as an attenuator to the incidence of mass shooting deaths and injuries were it discovered that there is/are no uniquely identifiable impetus to individuals undertaking a mass shooting?

• If there are no distinctive causes other than "s/he flipped out or got pissed off," one must come up with some other way to reduce the incidence of death and injury wrought by mass shooters or would be mass shooters.
• If there are distinctive causes that can be mitigated, well, of course, everyone would pursue courses of action that reduce the incidence of the causal factors.

In the interim, however, what would you have a society do? Nothing? Something(s), and if so what? Orchestrate vigilantism?

Mass shooters are extremely rare.....extremely rare......

Here is a list with deaths by year for mass shootings...notice that the Nice, France Truck attack killed more people in one attack than the entire number killed by mass shooters each year for 35 years, except for 2017.....and the rental truck still murdered more people than each mass shooting...

Then....you have to actually acknowledge that people using semi automatic weapons, mostly pistols, but also rifles and even a few AR-15 civilian rifles, use those rifles 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminals, including some mass shooters in democrat gun free zones....

So if you are serious, then you can't even begin to argue that for the few deaths each year by mass shooters, the victims of those 1,500,000 violent criminal attacks should be disarmed...making them victims, more victims, than from mass shooters...

Keeping in mind that the biggest problem with mass shooters is that people like you take guns away from law abiding gun owners in these democrat gun free zones.....and if we ended democrat gun free zones, you would severely limit the attacks by mass shooters...

But since your goal is to ban guns, ending mass shootings isn't what you care about.

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(Lawn Mower Accidents Rise This Time of Year | MU News Bureau)


2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760