Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops, study claims

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's both funny and ironic that this is occurring during under the most anti-gun leadership this country's ever had.

All 50 states now have a concealed carry law. Suck on it, anti-gun bitches, you lost.

Nonsense.

Cite the laws passed by Congress since 2009 that have been ruled to violate the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

Cite any measure signed into law by the president that has been ruled to violate the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

Yours is yet another ridiculous lie from the right.

 

[TooTall]

Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops study claims Fox News
Well seeing as how cops use their guns far more than civilians do and there are no definitely numbers for defensive gun use(a range of 100K to 2.5 million isn't a range at all, its just bull) there is no reason to think that cops using their guns wouldn't dominate those numbers.

That is some weak tea. As it equates coexsitence with causation. Iphone ownership is up by similar numbers in the same time period. By the logic of the 'Crime Prevention Center', that means that Iphones reduce crime.

Its a nonsense argument. Like blaming El-Nino on NBC's Friends. After all, they happened at the same time.

In reality the study was done by the Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun advocacy group run by John Lott. A Fox News contributor and (shocker) pro-gun advocate. The obvious problem with the argument is that crime reduction has occured regardless of concealed carry permits. Crime reduced in cities where they weren't issued. Crime reduced in cities where they were. There is no particular relationship.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

I haven't seen the crime stats for Chicago and New York City, but I believe they make it almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.

They went down too. Which is exactly the point. Even in cities that didn't issue concealed carry permits.....crime rates dropped comparably. In come cases, faster than the national average. If concealed carry permits were issued....crime went down. If concealed carry permits weren't issued.....crime went down.

Clearly the common denominator wasn't concealed carry permits.

Ahhhhhh..but you anti gun extremists missed the most important point...........Americans owning and carrying guns for self defense did not increase gun crime............did it? You guys bitched and cried that if law abiding, peaceful people owned guns, and even worse, carried guns in public.....that blood would run in the streets.....

And you were ******* wrong..........

More Americans own guns and more Americans are carrying guns...over 12.8 million now......and the gun murder rate is going down, not up. and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up..........

and 18 other studies show that concealed carry helps reduce the crime rate.....


So again...you were ******* wrong on all counts....

From the linked article:

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

Consequently you’re wrong again, as usual.

Some cynics are confused by facts, but common sense prevails.

 

[blunthead]

The people who do own guns now own more than ever, but they're a shrinking minority. Fewer people having guns will naturally lead to fewer people using guns.
I am sure that we have to reduce the quantity of gun owners to prevent more murders and shootings.

I don't believe that the number of people owning guns is shrinking. Do you have links to info on this? And how can anyone measure how many criminals have guns? How does one go about reducing the number of guns criminals have? Don't answer "with gun control"! Criminals love gun control, can't you see that?!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops, study claims"

In fact the study makes no claim that the two are linked, one having nothing to do with the other, as there is no proof that the increase in concealed carry permits has resulted in a decrease in crime.

And this is consistent with other studies and research: that the carrying of concealed weapons has nothing to do with an increase or decrease in crime, and that the use of concealed firearms in an act of self-defense is rare and statistically irrelevant.

This also goes to the idiocy of those who try to propagate the lie that the carrying of concealed handguns acts as a ‘deterrent’ to crime, as if they must somehow ‘justify’ carrying concealed firearms.

The fact is citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; whether carrying concealed firearms acts as a ‘deterrent’ to crime is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and in no way undermines the Second Amendment right.

Citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms because it is indeed their right to do so, separate and apart from crime statistics.

 

[TooTall]

"Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops, study claims"

In fact the study makes no claim that the two are linked, one having nothing to do with the other, as there is no proof that the increase in concealed carry permits has resulted in a decrease in crime.

And this is consistent with other studies and research: that the carrying of concealed weapons has nothing to do with an increase or decrease in crime, and that the use of concealed firearms in an act of self-defense is rare and statistically irrelevant.

This also goes to the idiocy of those who try to propagate the lie that the carrying of concealed handguns acts as a ‘deterrent’ to crime, as if they must somehow ‘justify’ carrying concealed firearms.

The fact is citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; whether carrying concealed firearms acts as a ‘deterrent’ to crime is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and in no way undermines the Second Amendment right.

Citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms because it is indeed their right to do so, separate and apart from crime statistics.

In denial again, eh!

 

[Skylar]

An anti gun extremist believes that law abiding citizens are the problem with gun murder....and focus their efforts in ways that limit or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, while at the same time pretending their measures are meant for criminals...since none of their measures actually effect criminals getting guns.

And when have I ever done this? Can you quote me arguing that law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns?

So far the only gun law that I've openly advocated would be background checks. Which even the current head of the NRA said he supported. Until he became head of the NRA. And which the majority of the country and even the majority of gun owners thinks is reasonable.

You keep accusing me of being an anti-gun extremist if I question anything you believe. Yet can't cite me doing anything you describe of an 'anti-gun extremist'. How do you reconcile these contradictions?

Either cite me doing what you claim an anti-gun extremist does. Or withdraw your accusation.

Here you go....the first 20.....plus the first link will give you 29 studies on concealed carry...18 say it lowers crime rates, 10 say no change and 1 says it increases the crime rate...

The page that lists the study is 2012-2013...in the link.....

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

And what do these studies show? If you're going to cite them as advocating your point, you'll need to get specific. John Lott's original 1997 study has run into HUGE problems with its methodology. With John's manipulation of data so egregious that his studies prompted the National Academy of Science to establish guidelines for gun violence research.

And since John Lott runs the organization that created the study in question, he's effectively citing himself.

As for the other studies, please be specific. Lets start with this study:

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)


What did Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen find specifically regarding the effect of concealed weapons law? If you're going to cite them as evidence, you'd better know what they found.

And how do you account for dramatic drops in violent crime where concealed carry permits were nearly impossible to get?

I gave you the studies, you read them. and Lott has been attacked by anti gunners for years and his methods have stood up to repeated attempts to criticize them...

So you have no idea what these studies show. What methodology was used. What they conclude. Or if they even claim causation. As remember, your OP article doesn't:

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

If you're going to cite a source, wouldn't you be asking all of these questions? You are literally refusing to look at your own sources. And have no idea what they say. Insisting instead that I'm responsible to the do the research that you refuse to do.

Laughing....um, no. I'm not. You're responsible for your claims. And your sources. How can you claim causation when the very study you're citing in the OP states that no cause and effect has been proven?

Oh, and can I take it from your complete abandonment of any of your 'anti-gun extremist' nonsense that you couldn't cite me saying anything you attributed to me? If you're gonna make an accusation, you damn well better be able to back it up. Or at least be man enough to admit you were wrong.

You do neither....instead trying to quietly slink away. Which is rather....gutless.

 

[Skylar]

Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops study claims Fox News
Well seeing as how cops use their guns far more than civilians do and there are no definitely numbers for defensive gun use(a range of 100K to 2.5 million isn't a range at all, its just bull) there is no reason to think that cops using their guns wouldn't dominate those numbers.

That is some weak tea. As it equates coexsitence with causation. Iphone ownership is up by similar numbers in the same time period. By the logic of the 'Crime Prevention Center', that means that Iphones reduce crime.

Its a nonsense argument. Like blaming El-Nino on NBC's Friends. After all, they happened at the same time.

In reality the study was done by the Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun advocacy group run by John Lott. A Fox News contributor and (shocker) pro-gun advocate. The obvious problem with the argument is that crime reduction has occured regardless of concealed carry permits. Crime reduced in cities where they weren't issued. Crime reduced in cities where they were. There is no particular relationship.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

I haven't seen the crime stats for Chicago and New York City, but I believe they make it almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.

They went down too. Which is exactly the point. Even in cities that didn't issue concealed carry permits.....crime rates dropped comparably. In come cases, faster than the national average. If concealed carry permits were issued....crime went down. If concealed carry permits weren't issued.....crime went down.

Clearly the common denominator wasn't concealed carry permits.

This data directly contradicts you.

"On July 9, 2013, after much litigation and political wrangling, Illinois became the last state in the country to allow carrying firearms in public. Prior to the 2013 legislative session, legislators in both chambers from both parties had presented, but failed to pass, a concealed carry law - resulting in Illinois being the only state that completely banned the practice.

Last winter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down the Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

The negotiations over concealed carry remained a focal point of the 2013 spring legislative session. Numerous versions of the bill were filed and debated. A law was eventually enacted after the General Assembly passed a bill on the final day of the regular spring session and overrode the Governor's amendatory veto during a special summer session. The Firearm Concealed Carry Act ("the Act") became effective on July 9, 2013, mere hours before the seventh circuit's deadline.'

The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law Illinois State Bar Association

"Chicago closed 2014 with what police said were “historic lows” in crime and murder numbers.

The year saw a drop of 3 percent in murders, marking the lowest murder rate since 1965, when there were 397, according to Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy."


Chicago Crime Reached Historic Low in 2014 Police NBC Chicago

Another link about Chicago crime


Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times

Directly contradicts me on what? The OP study admits to my entire argument.

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

Which is exactly my point.

Oh, and violent crime rates were already dropping in Illinois without concealed carry.

So if there is no concealed carry....crime goes down. If there is concealed carry....crime goes down. When your 'effect' exists whether or not your cause does, then your cause isn't.

 

[TooTall]

Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops study claims Fox News
Well seeing as how cops use their guns far more than civilians do and there are no definitely numbers for defensive gun use(a range of 100K to 2.5 million isn't a range at all, its just bull) there is no reason to think that cops using their guns wouldn't dominate those numbers.

That is some weak tea. As it equates coexsitence with causation. Iphone ownership is up by similar numbers in the same time period. By the logic of the 'Crime Prevention Center', that means that Iphones reduce crime.

Its a nonsense argument. Like blaming El-Nino on NBC's Friends. After all, they happened at the same time.

In reality the study was done by the Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun advocacy group run by John Lott. A Fox News contributor and (shocker) pro-gun advocate. The obvious problem with the argument is that crime reduction has occured regardless of concealed carry permits. Crime reduced in cities where they weren't issued. Crime reduced in cities where they were. There is no particular relationship.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

I haven't seen the crime stats for Chicago and New York City, but I believe they make it almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.

They went down too. Which is exactly the point. Even in cities that didn't issue concealed carry permits.....crime rates dropped comparably. In come cases, faster than the national average. If concealed carry permits were issued....crime went down. If concealed carry permits weren't issued.....crime went down.

Clearly the common denominator wasn't concealed carry permits.

This data directly contradicts you.

"On July 9, 2013, after much litigation and political wrangling, Illinois became the last state in the country to allow carrying firearms in public. Prior to the 2013 legislative session, legislators in both chambers from both parties had presented, but failed to pass, a concealed carry law - resulting in Illinois being the only state that completely banned the practice.

Last winter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down the Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

The negotiations over concealed carry remained a focal point of the 2013 spring legislative session. Numerous versions of the bill were filed and debated. A law was eventually enacted after the General Assembly passed a bill on the final day of the regular spring session and overrode the Governor's amendatory veto during a special summer session. The Firearm Concealed Carry Act ("the Act") became effective on July 9, 2013, mere hours before the seventh circuit's deadline.'

The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law Illinois State Bar Association

"Chicago closed 2014 with what police said were “historic lows” in crime and murder numbers.

The year saw a drop of 3 percent in murders, marking the lowest murder rate since 1965, when there were 397, according to Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy."


Chicago Crime Reached Historic Low in 2014 Police NBC Chicago

Another link about Chicago crime


Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times

Directly contradicts me on what? The OP study admits to my entire argument.

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

Which is exactly my point.

Oh, and violent crime rates were already dropping in Illinois without concealed carry.

So if there is no concealed carry....crime goes down. If there is concealed carry....crime goes down. When your 'effect' exists whether or not your cause does, then your cause isn't.

My article referred to Chicago after 2014 and you post a graph on Illinois that ends in 2012. Grasping at straws again.

 

[martybegan]

Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops study claims Fox News
Well seeing as how cops use their guns far more than civilians do and there are no definitely numbers for defensive gun use(a range of 100K to 2.5 million isn't a range at all, its just bull) there is no reason to think that cops using their guns wouldn't dominate those numbers.

That is some weak tea. As it equates coexsitence with causation. Iphone ownership is up by similar numbers in the same time period. By the logic of the 'Crime Prevention Center', that means that Iphones reduce crime.

Its a nonsense argument. Like blaming El-Nino on NBC's Friends. After all, they happened at the same time.

In reality the study was done by the Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun advocacy group run by John Lott. A Fox News contributor and (shocker) pro-gun advocate. The obvious problem with the argument is that crime reduction has occured regardless of concealed carry permits. Crime reduced in cities where they weren't issued. Crime reduced in cities where they were. There is no particular relationship.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

I haven't seen the crime stats for Chicago and New York City, but I believe they make it almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.

Yes, you have to give a "reason' to the NYPD, and the only reason they accept is you know someone at the NYPD or are rich enough to know politicians. They give some out to people like pharmacists, or people who deal with large amounts of money, but in reality its only the rich and retired PO's that get to CC.

 

[2aguy]

An anti gun extremist believes that law abiding citizens are the problem with gun murder....and focus their efforts in ways that limit or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, while at the same time pretending their measures are meant for criminals...since none of their measures actually effect criminals getting guns.

And when have I ever done this? Can you quote me arguing that law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns?

So far the only gun law that I've openly advocated would be background checks. Which even the current head of the NRA said he supported. Until he became head of the NRA. And which the majority of the country and even the majority of gun owners thinks is reasonable.

You keep accusing me of being an anti-gun extremist if I question anything you believe. Yet can't cite me doing anything you describe of an 'anti-gun extremist'. How do you reconcile these contradictions?

Either cite me doing what you claim an anti-gun extremist does. Or withdraw your accusation.

Here you go....the first 20.....plus the first link will give you 29 studies on concealed carry...18 say it lowers crime rates, 10 say no change and 1 says it increases the crime rate...

The page that lists the study is 2012-2013...in the link.....

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

And what do these studies show? If you're going to cite them as advocating your point, you'll need to get specific. John Lott's original 1997 study has run into HUGE problems with its methodology. With John's manipulation of data so egregious that his studies prompted the National Academy of Science to establish guidelines for gun violence research.

And since John Lott runs the organization that created the study in question, he's effectively citing himself.

As for the other studies, please be specific. Lets start with this study:

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)


What did Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen find specifically regarding the effect of concealed weapons law? If you're going to cite them as evidence, you'd better know what they found.

And how do you account for dramatic drops in violent crime where concealed carry permits were nearly impossible to get?

I gave you the studies, you read them. and Lott has been attacked by anti gunners for years and his methods have stood up to repeated attempts to criticize them...

So you have no idea what these studies show. What methodology was used. What they conclude. Or if they even claim causation. As remember, your OP article doesn't:

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

If you're going to cite a source, wouldn't you be asking all of these questions? You are literally refusing to look at your own sources. And have no idea what they say. Insisting instead that I'm responsible to the do the research that you refuse to do.

Laughing....um, no. I'm not. You're responsible for your claims. And your sources. How can you claim causation when the very study you're citing in the OP states that no cause and effect has been proven?

Oh, and can I take it from your complete abandonment of any of your 'anti-gun extremist' nonsense that you couldn't cite me saying anything you attributed to me? If you're gonna make an accusation, you damn well better be able to back it up. Or at least be man enough to admit you were wrong.

You do neither....instead trying to quietly slink away. Which is rather....gutless.

Read them yourself........I gave you the knowledge...I can't make you learn...

 

[2aguy]

The people who do own guns now own more than ever, but they're a shrinking minority. Fewer people having guns will naturally lead to fewer people using guns.
I am sure that we have to reduce the quantity of gun owners to prevent more murders and shootings.

I don't believe that the number of people owning guns is shrinking. Do you have links to info on this? And how can anyone measure how many criminals have guns? How does one go about reducing the number of guns criminals have? Don't answer "with gun control"! Criminals love gun control, can't you see that?!

They are using one phone poll to make the claim there are fewer gun owners, the General Social Survey......a poll done by a known anti gunner, who explained to John Lott that if he shows fewer people own guns then politicians won't be afraid to make new anti gun laws.....


and they think that today, more people will be willing to admit to strangers on the phone that they have guns in their home....does that make any sense in the times we live in?

 

[2aguy]

Concealed-carry handgun permits soar as murder rate drops study claims Fox News
Well seeing as how cops use their guns far more than civilians do and there are no definitely numbers for defensive gun use(a range of 100K to 2.5 million isn't a range at all, its just bull) there is no reason to think that cops using their guns wouldn't dominate those numbers.

That is some weak tea. As it equates coexsitence with causation. Iphone ownership is up by similar numbers in the same time period. By the logic of the 'Crime Prevention Center', that means that Iphones reduce crime.

Its a nonsense argument. Like blaming El-Nino on NBC's Friends. After all, they happened at the same time.

In reality the study was done by the Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun advocacy group run by John Lott. A Fox News contributor and (shocker) pro-gun advocate. The obvious problem with the argument is that crime reduction has occured regardless of concealed carry permits. Crime reduced in cities where they weren't issued. Crime reduced in cities where they were. There is no particular relationship.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the existence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

I haven't seen the crime stats for Chicago and New York City, but I believe they make it almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.

They went down too. Which is exactly the point. Even in cities that didn't issue concealed carry permits.....crime rates dropped comparably. In come cases, faster than the national average. If concealed carry permits were issued....crime went down. If concealed carry permits weren't issued.....crime went down.

Clearly the common denominator wasn't concealed carry permits.

This data directly contradicts you.

"On July 9, 2013, after much litigation and political wrangling, Illinois became the last state in the country to allow carrying firearms in public. Prior to the 2013 legislative session, legislators in both chambers from both parties had presented, but failed to pass, a concealed carry law - resulting in Illinois being the only state that completely banned the practice.

Last winter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down the Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

The negotiations over concealed carry remained a focal point of the 2013 spring legislative session. Numerous versions of the bill were filed and debated. A law was eventually enacted after the General Assembly passed a bill on the final day of the regular spring session and overrode the Governor's amendatory veto during a special summer session. The Firearm Concealed Carry Act ("the Act") became effective on July 9, 2013, mere hours before the seventh circuit's deadline.'

The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law Illinois State Bar Association

"Chicago closed 2014 with what police said were “historic lows” in crime and murder numbers.

The year saw a drop of 3 percent in murders, marking the lowest murder rate since 1965, when there were 397, according to Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy."


Chicago Crime Reached Historic Low in 2014 Police NBC Chicago

Another link about Chicago crime


Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times

Directly contradicts me on what? The OP study admits to my entire argument.

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

Which is exactly my point.

Oh, and violent crime rates were already dropping in Illinois without concealed carry.

So if there is no concealed carry....crime goes down. If there is concealed carry....crime goes down. When your 'effect' exists whether or not your cause does, then your cause isn't.

and again...studies actually show that concealed carry lowers the crime rate.....read them......you will see...........


Of the 29 studies I gave you 18 say it decreases violent crime, 10 show no change and only one showed an increase......

And the biggest point.........

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not raise gun murder rates or accidental gun deaths...showing that you anti gun extremists are wrong......completely wrong.....according to the FBI, and the CDC, which show the crime rate going down as more people own and carry guns.........

 

[2aguy]

An anti gun extremist believes that law abiding citizens are the problem with gun murder....and focus their efforts in ways that limit or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, while at the same time pretending their measures are meant for criminals...since none of their measures actually effect criminals getting guns.

And when have I ever done this? Can you quote me arguing that law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns?

So far the only gun law that I've openly advocated would be background checks. Which even the current head of the NRA said he supported. Until he became head of the NRA. And which the majority of the country and even the majority of gun owners thinks is reasonable.

You keep accusing me of being an anti-gun extremist if I question anything you believe. Yet can't cite me doing anything you describe of an 'anti-gun extremist'. How do you reconcile these contradictions?

Either cite me doing what you claim an anti-gun extremist does. Or withdraw your accusation.

Here you go....the first 20.....plus the first link will give you 29 studies on concealed carry...18 say it lowers crime rates, 10 say no change and 1 says it increases the crime rate...

The page that lists the study is 2012-2013...in the link.....

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

And what do these studies show? If you're going to cite them as advocating your point, you'll need to get specific. John Lott's original 1997 study has run into HUGE problems with its methodology. With John's manipulation of data so egregious that his studies prompted the National Academy of Science to establish guidelines for gun violence research.

And since John Lott runs the organization that created the study in question, he's effectively citing himself.

As for the other studies, please be specific. Lets start with this study:

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)


What did Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen find specifically regarding the effect of concealed weapons law? If you're going to cite them as evidence, you'd better know what they found.

And how do you account for dramatic drops in violent crime where concealed carry permits were nearly impossible to get?

I gave you the studies, you read them. and Lott has been attacked by anti gunners for years and his methods have stood up to repeated attempts to criticize them...

So you have no idea what these studies show. What methodology was used. What they conclude. Or if they even claim causation. As remember, your OP article doesn't:

“…a direct cause and effect cannot be proven…”

If you're going to cite a source, wouldn't you be asking all of these questions? You are literally refusing to look at your own sources. And have no idea what they say. Insisting instead that I'm responsible to the do the research that you refuse to do.

Laughing....um, no. I'm not. You're responsible for your claims. And your sources. How can you claim causation when the very study you're citing in the OP states that no cause and effect has been proven?

Oh, and can I take it from your complete abandonment of any of your 'anti-gun extremist' nonsense that you couldn't cite me saying anything you attributed to me? If you're gonna make an accusation, you damn well better be able to back it up. Or at least be man enough to admit you were wrong.

You do neither....instead trying to quietly slink away. Which is rather....gutless.

I have read the ones that can be found and the one not protected behind pay walls.......the list is there and is a great resource...try using it.....I list those things that can be posted, I can't always get things to post.......deal with it.