Man uses his concealed gun to save life of woman entering abortion clinic...likely there to kill her baby. Leftists cry.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hmmm, let's see, 2007 to 2021 is 14 years. 1335 / 14 is 95 and change on average per year. I see that you combined multiple years into a single number to make it look bigger, but when compared to virtually any other cause of death, it's a small amount. 95 out of 350 million by any measure is a small amount.

Don't buy those lying sites. They include people who were not under CCW laws when they killed somebody, it's just that they had a CCW.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You mean other than creepily follow him home?

The point was, Martin hadn't commited any crimes. I mean, I know you guys tried to claim he was because he had a screwdriver, but he had never been arrested for anything.

Unlike Zimmerman, who was arrested several times before this and has been arrested several times since.

Which is BS. Zimmerman had two domestic complaints that resulted in no charges or convictions because of no evidence. When he was a kid, he and a friend of his were drunk at a bar. An undercover officer had his friend pinned against a wall, and Zimmerman tried to push him away from his friend not knowing the guy was a cop.

You must think we are all a bunch of idiots here or something. I told you I'm a CCW holder, and I'm sure many here are. We all know that the state will not issue anybody a license who has been convicted of any crime involving violence. We also know that if a person commits such a crime after being granted a license, the state will revoke his or her CCW license.

Wow, if you are a grown ass man getting your ass kicked by a 17 year old child, you probably should be staying home and not running around your gated community pretending you are Batman.

Zimmerman was nearly 30 when it happened. It's not hard to imagine a lot of 17 year olds can take on a 30 year old guy, especially when they played football in school and the 30 year old not in good shape. Martin was almost 6' tall and weighed 160 lbs. Zimmerman was 5'7" and weighed 185 lbs, and not muscle either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Naw, he shot him because he was a racist cop wannabe who got in over his head.

No, he shot him because he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death as the law outlines. Martin attacked him--not the other way around. And don't tell me it was the other way around because I have the autopsy report right here in my Zimmerman folder where they determined Martin had no injuries outside two knuckles that were consistent with him hitting somebody or something.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I thought people never used guns for actual self defense.

This is a lie.

The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

No one has claimed that no crimes are stopped by those carrying concealed.

The fact is that such cases are rare and do not have an overall effect of reducing violent crime.

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

 

[woodwork201]

Unarmed Child?

Wow....do you really think people see that in your post and not think you are an idiot?

Martin was close to 6 feet tall you moron.....he was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him anymore.....he was on the glide path to criminal offender.....and he violently attacked Zimmerman who had done nothing to him....you idiot.

You mean other than creepily follow him home?

The point was, Martin hadn't commited any crimes. I mean, I know you guys tried to claim he was because he had a screwdriver, but he had never been arrested for anything.

Unlike Zimmerman, who was arrested several times before this and has been arrested several times since.

I keep waiting for the day when I have to face an anti-gun extremist here on U.S. message board who has actual facts, truth and reality when it comes to arguing about gun control and the 2nd Amendment......they never, never have anything close to truth, facts or reality when they try to make their points......scratch a little bit at their argument and it crumbles as nothing more than emotion...emotion used to stampede uninformed Americans into giving them the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Blah, blah, blah... "I don't like Kellerman, because kellerman doesn't say what I want". That's your level of fact arguing.

2aguy is right; you're just a liar. You've seen the videos of the injuries to Zimmerman before he killed Martin in self-defense. And Martin was not a child. He was a 17 year old young man with the strength and power of a man, not of a child. He was of an age of accountability where he was responsible for his own actions, knowing right from wrong, before he stalked Zimmerman, laid in wait, and attacked him, pounding his head on the sidewalk.

Wow, if you are a grown ass man getting your ass kicked by a 17 year old child, you probably should be staying home and not running around your gated community pretending you are Batman.

View attachment 504952

Zimmerman never touched or approached Martin. Martin laid in wait and jumped on Zimmerman. Last I heard, you don't get to break people's skull open on the sidewalk because they followed you - but, then, look at the Democratic response to crimes in the recent years; by their rules, Martin was having a peaceful discussion with Zimmerman.

 

[woodwork201]

I thought people never used guns for actual self defense.

This is a lie.

The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

No one has claimed that no crimes are stopped by those carrying concealed.

The fact is that such cases are rare and do not have an overall effect of reducing violent crime.

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

Like someone else said; the OP's story had an affect on one violent crime and saved the life of a woman. Hopefully, she comes out of it all with a deeper appreciation for the value of human life than she had when she got up that morning.

 

[bodecea]

There's a whole lot of irony in that story. Did she go ahead and kill the baby after the armed abortion protester saved her life?

If I have the only kidney that is a match to someone dying without one, am I legally required to give that kidney up?

 

[2aguy]

I thought people never used guns for actual self defense.

This is a lie.

The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

No one has claimed that no crimes are stopped by those carrying concealed.

The fact is that such cases are rare and do not have an overall effect of reducing violent crime.

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 have one...by an anti-gun researcher...

https://crimeresearch.org/2020/11/do-right-to-carry-laws-reduce-violent-crime/

A detailed discussion of the National Research Council report is available here. We have reservations for many research papers on both sides of this debate, so inclusion here doesn’t mean that we think that the estimates were done correctly, but to give you information on the number of peer-reviewed academic papers that find a benefit from right-to-carry laws.


For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper (the authors published an Erratum acknowledging errors in their piece here).
In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated.

Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.
In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”
UPDATED: Another recent paper by Charles D. Phillips, Obioma Nwaiwu, Szu-hsuan Lin, Rachel Edwards, Sara Imanpour, and Robert Ohsfeldt in the Journal of Criminology is discussed here.
The Siegel et al paper in the American Journal of Public Health, “Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States” is discussed here.
Another unpublished paper by Donohue is discussed here and here.
For those interested in seeing our debate with Scientific American over whether some of the studies listed below should be included in our list, please see the discussion available here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

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)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“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..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

“
“Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2019: 84-96.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

 

[2aguy]

I thought people never used guns for actual self defense.

This is a lie.

The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

No one has claimed that no crimes are stopped by those carrying concealed.

The fact is that such cases are rare and do not have an overall effect of reducing violent crime.

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 have one...by an anti-gun researcher...

UPDATE: Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center

A detailed discussion of the National Research Council report is available here. We have reservations for many research papers on both sides of this debate, so inclusion here doesn’t mean that we think that the estimates were done correctly, but to give you information on the number of peer-reviewed academic papers that find a benefit from right-to-carry laws.


For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper (the authors published an Erratum acknowledging errors in their piece here).
In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated.

Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.
In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”
UPDATED: Another recent paper by Charles D. Phillips, Obioma Nwaiwu, Szu-hsuan Lin, Rachel Edwards, Sara Imanpour, and Robert Ohsfeldt in the Journal of Criminology is discussed here.
The Siegel et al paper in the American Journal of Public Health, “Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States” is discussed here.
Another unpublished paper by Donohue is discussed here and here.
For those interested in seeing our debate with Scientific American over whether some of the studies listed below should be included in our list, please see the discussion available here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

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)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“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..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

“
“Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2019: 84-96.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

I thought people never used guns for actual self defense.

This is a lie.

The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

No one has claimed that no crimes are stopped by those carrying concealed.

The fact is that such cases are rare and do not have an overall effect of reducing violent crime.

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

Some of the papers with quotes....

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/static/53714acce4b0bb13e3c90e93/t/53c97327e4b00a460e54c128/1405711143901/2009_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: cemood@wm.edu 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.

The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[JoeB131]

He is an irrational nut job.....who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns...it used to be whenever we would talk guns he would automatically start talking about penises.........he has only emotion and hate for arguments...

Naw, man, pointing out a gun is a compensation for your inadequacies is just an observation.

The woman who was being shot at thinks it's a good thing.

Getting caught in a gun fight between your stalker ex-boyfriend and some religious nut who wants to take away your right to choose isn't a good thing.

 

[JoeB131]

If liberals didn't lie all the time, they'd have nothing to debate with. It's like what happened in my city with Tamir Rice. He was 5'9" and weighed nearly 200 lbs. The only picture the family released of him was when he was younger, weighed about 120 lbs, and was short.

Yes, mysteriously, there are no pictures of Tamir when he was 12. Not his school, not his friends. He was more elusive than Bigfoot. So people couldn't see what a scary 12 year old he was.

Oh, scary 12 year old. No wonder Officer Weepy shot him.

Ignore that cop was fired from another police department and four other agencies rejected him. Nope, that child playing with a toy was sooo scary.

Hmmm, let's see, 2007 to 2021 is 14 years. 1335 / 14 is 95 and change on average per year. I see that you combined multiple years into a single number to make it look bigger, but when compared to virtually any other cause of death, it's a small amount. 95 out of 350 million by any measure is a small amount.

One is too many. The notion that letting nuts walk around with guns is a good thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Which is BS. Zimmerman had two domestic complaints that resulted in no charges or convictions because of no evidence. When he was a kid, he and a friend of his were drunk at a bar. An undercover officer had his friend pinned against a wall, and Zimmerman tried to push him away from his friend not knowing the guy was a cop.

Wow, beating up women and fighting with cops. Sounds like a model citizen, just the kind we want running around a gated community playing Batman.

You must think we are all a bunch of idiots here or something. I told you I'm a CCW holder, and I'm sure many here are. We all know that the state will not issue anybody a license who has been convicted of any crime involving violence. We also know that if a person commits such a crime after being granted a license, the state will revoke his or her CCW license.

Again, Ray, every one of your angry posts convince me you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

And my guess is much like every other gun nut who shoots up something, we'll ask, "How was that guy able to get a gun. Look at all the crazy stuff he posted on USMB!"

 

[hadit]

He is an irrational nut job.....who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns...it used to be whenever we would talk guns he would automatically start talking about penises.........he has only emotion and hate for arguments...

Naw, man, pointing out a gun is a compensation for your inadequacies is just an observation.

And when you're wrong, it's not an observation, it's a fabrication.

The woman who was being shot at thinks it's a good thing.

Getting caught in a gun fight between your stalker ex-boyfriend and some religious nut who wants to take away your right to choose isn't a good thing.

She walked away without harm. That is a good thing. You do realize, don't you, that you are trying to make the case that it would have been better for her to have no one there to stop the guy from killing her. That is your bottom line, and demonstrates why I've said multiple times that you don't really like women all that much.

 

[hadit]

If liberals didn't lie all the time, they'd have nothing to debate with. It's like what happened in my city with Tamir Rice. He was 5'9" and weighed nearly 200 lbs. The only picture the family released of him was when he was younger, weighed about 120 lbs, and was short.

Yes, mysteriously, there are no pictures of Tamir when he was 12. Not his school, not his friends. He was more elusive than Bigfoot. So people couldn't see what a scary 12 year old he was.

Oh, scary 12 year old. No wonder Officer Weepy shot him.

Ignore that cop was fired from another police department and four other agencies rejected him. Nope, that child playing with a toy was sooo scary.

Hmmm, let's see, 2007 to 2021 is 14 years. 1335 / 14 is 95 and change on average per year. I see that you combined multiple years into a single number to make it look bigger, but when compared to virtually any other cause of death, it's a small amount. 95 out of 350 million by any measure is a small amount.

One is too many. The notion that letting nuts walk around with guns is a good thing.

See, here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they are not nuts by giving proof of their identity, jumping through all the hoops and taking all the required training to obtain the permit. There are millions of them carrying safely every day.

Are you willing to force all motor vehicles to travel at less than 35 mph because "one is too many" deaths on the highways every year, or is your freedom to compensate for your shortcomings by driving fast in a loud car more important? See how that works?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, beating up women and fighting with cops. Sounds like a model citizen, just the kind we want running around a gated community playing Batman.

No evidence of beating up women, and the officer told the judge Zimmerman was just drunk and even laughed about it. It was reduced to some misdemeanor penalty of some kind.

Again, Ray, every one of your angry posts convince me you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

And my guess is much like every other gun nut who shoots up something, we'll ask, "How was that guy able to get a gun. Look at all the crazy stuff he posted on USMB!"

Because crazy stuff to you is anything you disagree with. Go back to the USSR. Here Americans are provided with the right to free speech and no retaliation by the government because of it. In fact it's written down in a document called the US Constitution, something I know you hate. That's why we only penalize people for their actions and not their words.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, mysteriously, there are no pictures of Tamir when he was 12. Not his school, not his friends. He was more elusive than Bigfoot. So people couldn't see what a scary 12 year old he was.

Oh, scary 12 year old. No wonder Officer Weepy shot him.

Ignore that cop was fired from another police department and four other agencies rejected him. Nope, that child playing with a toy was sooo scary.

Oh please. You've been fired from more jobs than officer Loehmann ever has.

The media doesn't want any pictures of what Martin or Rice looked like when they were shot, so they are not going out of their way to find them. It destroys their narrative, and that is for the sheep to think these were harmless little children who were shot dusting themselves off after getting out of the sandbox.

 

[JoeB131]

And when you're wrong, it's not an observation, it's a fabrication.

Naw, actually, you can kind of tell who the compensators are... the people who think that their gun makes up for their helplessness and inadequacies.

See, here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they are not nuts by giving proof of their identity, jumping through all the hoops and taking all the required training to obtain the permit. There are millions of them carrying safely every day.

Except for the 1300 or so who've killed people...

She walked away without harm. That is a good thing. You do realize, don't you, that you are trying to make the case that it would have been better for her to have no one there to stop the guy from killing her. That is your bottom line, and demonstrates why I've said multiple times that you don't really like women all that much.

Um, no, guy, in my ideal world, the stalker boyfriend wouldn't have had a gun, and the religious zealot in the crowd wouldn't have had a gun. Instead, you had a situation where innocent people COULD have been shot.

Are you willing to force all motor vehicles to travel at less than 35 mph because "one is too many" deaths on the highways every year, or is your freedom to compensate for your shortcomings by driving fast in a loud car more important? See how that works?

Uh, here's the thing. If we banned all cars... frankly, it would completely wreck our society. Our society is built around the ability to quickly travel across long distances, compared to 100 years ago, where people lived and worked within walking distance.

If we got rid of guns... it would actually IMPROVE our society. Less crime, less violence, less suicide..

 

[JoeB131]

No evidence of beating up women, and the officer told the judge Zimmerman was just drunk and even laughed about it. It was reduced to some misdemeanor penalty of some kind.

And you guys whine when most cases are cleared that way. Look, man, I know that Zimmerman is in your pantheons of guys who did what you don't have the balls to do... but he's a seriously messed up dude, who never should have been playing Batman while hopped up on meds... which he was.

Because crazy stuff to you is anything you disagree with. Go back to the USSR. Here Americans are provided with the right to free speech and no retaliation by the government because of it. In fact it's written down in a document called the US Constitution, something I know you hate. That's why we only penalize people for their actions and not their words.

Uh, no buddy, I promise you, if you committed a hate crime tomorrow, everything you posted here would be posted in big fonts to make you look crazy... and it wouldn't be much of an effort.

"He once compared black people to Racoons".

Oh please. You've been fired from more jobs than officer Loehmann ever has.

The media doesn't want any pictures of what Martin or Rice looked like when they were shot, so they are not going out of their way to find them. It destroys their narrative, and that is for the sheep to think these were harmless little children who were shot dusting themselves off after getting out of the sandbox.

Are you proporting that picture of a kid smoking is Rice? Because it isn't.

The reality is, if there was a scary picture of a 12 year old, it would ALL OVER FOX NEWS. But funny thing. It isn't.

 

[hadit]

And when you're wrong, it's not an observation, it's a fabrication.

Naw, actually, you can kind of tell who the compensators are... the people who think that their gun makes up for their helplessness and inadequacies.

Actually, in this case, your gun/penis obsession is easy to spot.

See, here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they are not nuts by giving proof of their identity, jumping through all the hoops and taking all the required training to obtain the permit. There are millions of them carrying safely every day.

Except for the 1300 or so who've killed people...

And as I pointed out, 95 and change per year is a very small number.

She walked away without harm. That is a good thing. You do realize, don't you, that you are trying to make the case that it would have been better for her to have no one there to stop the guy from killing her. That is your bottom line, and demonstrates why I've said multiple times that you don't really like women all that much.

Um, no, guy, in my ideal world, the stalker boyfriend wouldn't have had a gun, and the religious zealot in the crowd wouldn't have had a gun. Instead, you had a situation where innocent people COULD have been shot.

Your ideal world doesn't exist, and would be impossible to attain in America. So, like I said, you would prefer the woman become a statistic for your gun/penis obsession to use.

Are you willing to force all motor vehicles to travel at less than 35 mph because "one is too many" deaths on the highways every year, or is your freedom to compensate for your shortcomings by driving fast in a loud car more important? See how that works?

Uh, here's the thing. If we banned all cars... frankly, it would completely wreck our society. Our society is built around the ability to quickly travel across long distances, compared to 100 years ago, where people lived and worked within walking distance.

If we got rid of guns... it would actually IMPROVE our society. Less crime, less violence, less suicide..

Okay, so you are perfectly willing to put a price tag on human life, just like everyone else. In your case, you want to be able to drive your compensator fast and loud more than you want tens of thousands of lives saved. Just admit that's the price of a human life to you.

 

[hadit]

And when you're wrong, it's not an observation, it's a fabrication.

Naw, actually, you can kind of tell who the compensators are... the people who think that their gun makes up for their helplessness and inadequacies.

Actually, in this case, your gun/penis obsession is easy to spot.

See, here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they are not nuts by giving proof of their identity, jumping through all the hoops and taking all the required training to obtain the permit. There are millions of them carrying safely every day.

Except for the 1300 or so who've killed people...

And as I pointed out, 95 and change per year is a very small number.

She walked away without harm. That is a good thing. You do realize, don't you, that you are trying to make the case that it would have been better for her to have no one there to stop the guy from killing her. That is your bottom line, and demonstrates why I've said multiple times that you don't really like women all that much.

Um, no, guy, in my ideal world, the stalker boyfriend wouldn't have had a gun, and the religious zealot in the crowd wouldn't have had a gun. Instead, you had a situation where innocent people COULD have been shot.

Your ideal world doesn't exist, and would be impossible to attain in America. So, like I said, you would prefer the woman become a statistic for your gun/penis obsession to use.

Are you willing to force all motor vehicles to travel at less than 35 mph because "one is too many" deaths on the highways every year, or is your freedom to compensate for your shortcomings by driving fast in a loud car more important? See how that works?

Uh, here's the thing. If we banned all cars... frankly, it would completely wreck our society. Our society is built around the ability to quickly travel across long distances, compared to 100 years ago, where people lived and worked within walking distance.

If we got rid of guns... it would actually IMPROVE our society. Less crime, less violence, less suicide..

Okay, so you are perfectly willing to put a price tag on human life, just like everyone else. In your case, you want to be able to drive your compensator fast and loud more than you want tens of thousands of lives saved. Just admit that's the price of a human life to you.