Concealed Carry Permit holder kills armed robber.

[Nostra]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Likkmee]

Po bayby wud hongree. Boy gossa eats too !
Congratz to the man for the double tap. It works ! SEE ?

 

[Polishprince]

Always great to hear Good News out there.

I suspect the shooter was an owner or employee of the cell phone emporium.

If it was a customer, they would have been well advised to skedaddle instead of waiting for the cops. Chicago DA Kim Foxx is going to be really anxious to literally crucify them, particularly if the deceased is African American. After all, only blacks lives matter in Chicago.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Always great to hear Good News out there.

I suspect the shooter was an owner or employee of the cell phone emporium.

If it was a customer, they would have been well advised to skedaddle instead of waiting for the cops. Chicago DA Kim Foxx is going to be really anxious to literally crucify them, particularly if the deceased is African American. After all, only blacks lives matter in Chicago.

The story lacks a lot of details. But remember that a lot of these corner shop cell phone stores are not like a Verizon hub. They are mom and pop stores that are often owned and ran by minorities themselves. As for myself, anytime somebody pulls out a firearm, then I have to assume they are willing to use it, and that puts my life in jeopardy warranting my use of deadly force against them, even if I'm just a customer in the store.

 

[Polishprince]

Always great to hear Good News out there.

I suspect the shooter was an owner or employee of the cell phone emporium.

If it was a customer, they would have been well advised to skedaddle instead of waiting for the cops. Chicago DA Kim Foxx is going to be really anxious to literally crucify them, particularly if the deceased is African American. After all, only blacks lives matter in Chicago.

The story lacks a lot of details. But remember that a lot of these corner shop cell phone stores are not like a Verizon hub. They are mom and pop stores that are often owned and ran by minorities themselves. As for myself, anytime somebody pulls out a firearm, then I have to assume they are willing to use it, and that puts my life in jeopardy warranting my use of deadly force against them, even if I'm just a customer in the store.

You are right, of course. A customer would certainly be justified to shoot.

However, waiting to get judged by a corrupt DA who is thirsty for your blood probably isn't prudent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Supporters insist that allowing people to legally carry concealed handguns reduces crime, but that has not been the result in at least four states that have tried it, including Texas, according to a newly published academic study.

www.texastribune.org

 

[Nostra]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Supporters insist that allowing people to legally carry concealed handguns reduces crime, but that has not been the result in at least four states that have tried it, including Texas, according to a newly published academic study.

www.texastribune.org

Your link is using 10 year old data, Dummy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

The idea of carrying a firearm is not to reduce crime. I carry after sundown and the last thing on my mind is I'm going to help the police. I carry because I at least want some chance at saving my own life (or perhaps the life of another) by being armed. If somebody is trying to break into my car to rob or carjack me, me grabbing my gun and pointing it at their head will make them quickly change their mind.

 

[westwall]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Supporters insist that allowing people to legally carry concealed handguns reduces crime, but that has not been the result in at least four states that have tried it, including Texas, according to a newly published academic study.

www.texastribune.org

And you fail the cognizant human being test.

I'm glad to see the good guys won for once in chicago.

 

[2aguy]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Supporters insist that allowing people to legally carry concealed handguns reduces crime, but that has not been the result in at least four states that have tried it, including Texas, according to a newly published academic study.

www.texastribune.org

You are an idiot...

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.

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf
======
Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî

Florenz Plassmann*& John Whitley**

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 approximately $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most general specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-byyear basis shows large crime-reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county-level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesóbased on data up to 1997óactually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime-reducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in crime rates after 1997.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
========Mark Gius...

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study is to determine the relationship between concealed carry permits and state-level crime rates. Using pooled data for the period 2003–2014 and a least squares model with state dummy variables and a time trend, results of the present study suggest that the lagged value of per capita concealed carry permits had a statistically-significant and negative effect on the following crime rates: violent crime, rape, aggravated assault, and auto theft. For all other crimes examined, the number of active concealed carry permits had no statistically significant effects. These results somewhat corroborate the findings of Lott (2000).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2019.1646866
=============
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...05711143901/2009_Hinckley_Journal.pdf#page=63
CONCLUSION It is difficult to make a strong conclusion on the impact concealed carry permits have on crime because there are studies that show contradictory results. However, based on the thorough research conducted by John R. Lott (2003), the evidence from the case study in Dade County, and the research conducted by Kleck and Mertz (1995), it appears that benefits of allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outweigh the negatives that guns can bring upon a society. The concerns mentioned above against the policy are not substantiated by the evidence available. The evidence suggests that children are more likely to drown or die in a bicycle accident then they are to die from a loaded unlocked gun. In addition, private gun owners are far less likely to mistakenly kill someone then a police officer is (Lott Jr., 1998). Ultimately the policy appears to be effective in terms of crime reduction.
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
====

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.
====
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).

===


“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



Lott mustard..

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics

Taking apart ayre and donahue one....


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


Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

 

[Nostra]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Supporters insist that allowing people to legally carry concealed handguns reduces crime, but that has not been the result in at least four states that have tried it, including Texas, according to a newly published academic study.

www.texastribune.org

You are an idiot...

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.

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf
======
Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî

Florenz Plassmann*& John Whitley**

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 approximately $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most general specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-byyear basis shows large crime-reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county-level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesóbased on data up to 1997óactually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime-reducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in crime rates after 1997.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
========Mark Gius...

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study is to determine the relationship between concealed carry permits and state-level crime rates. Using pooled data for the period 2003–2014 and a least squares model with state dummy variables and a time trend, results of the present study suggest that the lagged value of per capita concealed carry permits had a statistically-significant and negative effect on the following crime rates: violent crime, rape, aggravated assault, and auto theft. For all other crimes examined, the number of active concealed carry permits had no statistically significant effects. These results somewhat corroborate the findings of Lott (2000).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2019.1646866
=============
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...05711143901/2009_Hinckley_Journal.pdf#page=63
CONCLUSION It is difficult to make a strong conclusion on the impact concealed carry permits have on crime because there are studies that show contradictory results. However, based on the thorough research conducted by John R. Lott (2003), the evidence from the case study in Dade County, and the research conducted by Kleck and Mertz (1995), it appears that benefits of allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outweigh the negatives that guns can bring upon a society. The concerns mentioned above against the policy are not substantiated by the evidence available. The evidence suggests that children are more likely to drown or die in a bicycle accident then they are to die from a loaded unlocked gun. In addition, private gun owners are far less likely to mistakenly kill someone then a police officer is (Lott Jr., 1998). Ultimately the policy appears to be effective in terms of crime reduction.
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
====

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.
====
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).

===


“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



Lott mustard..

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics

Taking apart ayre and donahue one....


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


Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

BAM!

 

[BertramN]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

Very impressive. That's one in a row.

But what are 2020's statistics on children finding the responsible gun owners' firearm and killing himself (herself), a sibling, or someone else?

We'll wait while you do the research, if you have the guts.


.

 

[2aguy]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

Very impressive. That's one in a row.

But what are 2020's statistics on children finding the responsible gun owners' firearm and killing himself (herself), a sibling, or someone else?

We'll wait while you do the research, if you have the guts.


.

You little shit stain...

600 million guns in private hands, over 19.4 million Americans carrying guns for self defense in public.....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year on average to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....according to the Centers for Disease Control research....

You dumbass......

Fatal Injury and Violence Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2018......Child accidental deaths....

Guns......54

Motor vehicle..... 2,456

Suffocation: 1,162

Drowning: 698

Poisoning: 66

Traffic: 2,456

Guns: 54

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Very impressive. That's one in a row.

But what are 2020's statistics on children finding the responsible gun owners' firearm and killing himself (herself), a sibling, or someone else?

We'll wait while you do the research, if you have the guts.

It's more than one in a row. In fact it happens all the time across the country. In most cases the CCW holder doesn't even have to fire a shot, but he or she stopped a crime from taking place, or scared off a person attacking another.

The problem is that these stories are local at best. This one didn't make it to the MSM, and none of them really do. If you live in the area, your local news might report on it, but only on a slow news day. The root word to news is "new" and since this happens all the time, it's really nothing new.

 

[Nostra]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

Very impressive. That's one in a row.

But what are 2020's statistics on children finding the responsible gun owners' firearm and killing himself (herself), a sibling, or someone else?

We'll wait while you do the research, if you have the guts.


.

If you want to post those numbers be my guest. I don’t jump thru hoops for single digit IQ idiots.

Once you fetch those, I will post the number of time people with guns prevent a crime.

It will be fun.

 

[Nostra]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

Very impressive. That's one in a row.

But what are 2020's statistics on children finding the responsible gun owners' firearm and killing himself (herself), a sibling, or someone else?

We'll wait while you do the research, if you have the guts.


.

You little shit stain...

600 million guns in private hands, over 19.4 million Americans carrying guns for self defense in public.....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year on average to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....according to the Centers for Disease Control research....

You dumbass......

Fatal Injury and Violence Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2018......Child accidental deaths....

Guns......54

Motor vehicle..... 2,456

Suffocation: 1,162

Drowning: 698

Poisoning: 66

Traffic: 2,456

Guns: 54

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Ha!
You owned his moronic ass before I could.

Well done.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Score one for the good guys. At least someone in Chicago is fighting crime.

BTW Snowflakes, he didn't shoot up all kinds of innocent bystanders in the process.

Chicago armed robbery thwarted as gun owner with concealed-carry permit kills suspect: report

A gun owner with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed an armed robbery suspect at a Chicago cell phone store on Saturday night, according to police.

www.foxnews.com

Leftists will call it murder.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But what are 2020's statistics on children finding the responsible gun owners' firearm and killing himself (herself), a sibling, or someone else?

What about them? Do you have a link or something?