Over 16.9 million people now carry guns for self-defense...and our crime rates went down...

[itfitzme]

4Is violent crime lower in states with open carry?

Better, is violent crime lower in counties with open carry? There seems to be a huge affect from population density. Population density is significant in economic output and political attitudes. There a likely a number of factors that affect the issue. So far, I have yet to see anything definitive.

 

[2aguy]

And then we have this.....
=======

That's a nice story. And your actual scientific proof is what? You are looking for an F-statistic,, p-value and confidence interval that proves your conclusion to be statistically significant. Then you have, at least, proven a statistical correlation even if you haven't yet proven actual causality. Then you have something worth considering.

Stories and coincidence isn't correlation or causality. You can post fake news all day long. But at the end of the day, you've proven nothing except a predisposition and bias.

Causality is secondary to this thread......that is discussed in the other papers I listed....take that up with them.....the fact is that anti gunners use the argument that more people with more guns = more crime so we have to take guns away from people to lower the crime rate....that is a fact of their argument...and it is wrong.....21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality...

 

[itfitzme]

And then we have this.....
=======

That's a nice story. And your actual scientific proof is what? You are looking for an F-statistic,, p-value and confidence interval that proves your conclusion to be statistically significant. Then you have, at least, proven a statistical correlation even if you haven't yet proven actual causality. Then you have something worth considering.

Stories and coincidence isn't correlation or causality. You can post fake news all day long. But at the end of the day, you've proven nothing except a predisposition and bias.

Actual research shows you are wrong..

Then show this research and state the statistical proof. The study from your OP doesn't show what it claims. It even says it doesn't.

If you are one to post a bs study that actually, says it can't support it's own claims, why should anyone bother to look at anything you post. You've already proven your posts are of no value. You posts are a waste of time.

 

[itfitzme]

And then we have this.....
=======

That's a nice story. And your actual scientific proof is what? You are looking for an F-statistic,, p-value and confidence interval that proves your conclusion to be statistically significant. Then you have, at least, proven a statistical correlation even if you haven't yet proven actual causality. Then you have something worth considering.

Stories and coincidence isn't correlation or causality. You can post fake news all day long. But at the end of the day, you've proven nothing except a predisposition and bias.

Causality is secondary to this thread......that is discussed in the other papers I listed....take that up with them.....the fact is that anti gunners use the argument that more people with more guns = more crime so we have to take guns away from people to lower the crime rate....that is a fact of their argument...and it is wrong.....21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality...

Causality is the point. Your OP study claims to shown that murders went down because gun ownership went up. It doesn't, it's fake news. It's an opinion presented as scientific fact.

Great, your opinion is that gun laws don't reduce crime. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[2aguy]

And then we have this.....
=======

That's a nice story. And your actual scientific proof is what? You are looking for an F-statistic,, p-value and confidence interval that proves your conclusion to be statistically significant. Then you have, at least, proven a statistical correlation even if you haven't yet proven actual causality. Then you have something worth considering.

Stories and coincidence isn't correlation or causality. You can post fake news all day long. But at the end of the day, you've proven nothing except a predisposition and bias.

Actual research shows you are wrong..

Then show this research and state the statistical proof. The study from your OP doesn't show what it claims. It even says it doesn't.

If you are one to post a bs study that actually, says it can't support it's own claims, why should anyone bother to look at anything you post. You've already proven your posts are of no value. You posts are a waste of time.

The study shows the increase in Concealed carry permits, the other issues are side issues....if you want those studies you can get them

Here....dumb ass....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




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


Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

 

[2aguy]

And then we have this.....
=======

That's a nice story. And your actual scientific proof is what? You are looking for an F-statistic,, p-value and confidence interval that proves your conclusion to be statistically significant. Then you have, at least, proven a statistical correlation even if you haven't yet proven actual causality. Then you have something worth considering.

Stories and coincidence isn't correlation or causality. You can post fake news all day long. But at the end of the day, you've proven nothing except a predisposition and bias.

Causality is secondary to this thread......that is discussed in the other papers I listed....take that up with them.....the fact is that anti gunners use the argument that more people with more guns = more crime so we have to take guns away from people to lower the crime rate....that is a fact of their argument...and it is wrong.....21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality...

Causality is the point. Your OP study claims to shown that murders went down because gun ownership went up. It doesn't, it's fake news. It's an opinion presented as scientific fact.

Great, your opinion is that gun laws don't reduce crime. Thanks for your opinion.

I see where you went wrong...dipshit.......this is an article by David French commenting on the release of new data on how many new concealed carry permits there are in the U.S.......the issue you are bitching about is not the main focus of his article.....From the article in the first post....

On Thursday, John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center published a comprehensive survey of the growth in concealed-carry permits in the United States. The numbers are stunning — not just in their growth, but in their depth and consequence. Here’s a sampling. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the number of concealed-carry permit holders increased by a whopping 256 percent.

The numbers have increased across multiple demographics, with a higher percentage growth for women than men and for black citizens than white. In eleven states at least 10 percent of the adults possess carry permits. All told, 16.36 million Americans have carry permits, a number that understates the amount of people who carry weapons, since 14 states “have adopted constitutional carry in all or part of the state” — which means that no permit is required for citizens to carry a gun.

Read more at: America Is Changing — One Carry Permit at a Time

So...dipshit.....have the numbers of concealed carry permit holders increased? Care to show us that they haven't?

On the side note, dipshit....has gun crime decreased since concealed carry permit holding has increased? Yes or no? Dipshit?

As to causality......I listed several papers, there are more......many behind paywalls...knock yourself out......

 

[itfitzme]

Causality is secondary to this thread......that is discussed in the other papers I listed....take that up with them.....the fact is that anti gunners use the argument that more people with more guns = more crime so we have to take guns away from people to lower the crime rate....that is a fact of their argument...and it is wrong.....21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality...

Then you've over stated your point with your OP presenting a "study" that claims gun violence when down with increase gun ownership.

But you posted it.

And again, you dive into the wrong end with "21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality".

No, "21 years of actual experience has been inconclusive", just like your OP study says of their data.

You appear to be confusing "I don't know" with "I know it doesn't". They aren't the same thing. Inconclusive means "We don't know".

Why don't you just go with "Studies have been inconclusive" and show the inconclusive studies?. They tend to not get attention, including getting published. So, it's a difficult hoe to row and probably a more worthwhile pursuit. This falls under the category called meta-studies.

Posting more fake news to back up your OP fake news just shows your comments to have no credibitlity.

 

[2aguy]

Causality is secondary to this thread......that is discussed in the other papers I listed....take that up with them.....the fact is that anti gunners use the argument that more people with more guns = more crime so we have to take guns away from people to lower the crime rate....that is a fact of their argument...and it is wrong.....21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality...

Then you've over stated your point with your OP presenting a "study" that claims gun violence when down with increase gun ownership.

But you posted it.

And again, you dive into the wrong end with "21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality".

No, "21 years of actual experience has been inconclusive", just like your OP study says of their data.

You appear to be confusing "I don't know" with "I know it doesn't". They aren't the same thing. Inconclusive means "We don't know".

Why don't you just go with "Studies have been inconclusive" and show the inconclusive studies?. They tend to not get attention, including getting published. So, it's a difficult hoe to row and probably a more worthwhile pursuit. This falls under the category called meta-studies.

Posting more fake news to back up your OP fake news just shows your comments to have no credibitlity.

Moron........

Has gun murder gone down 42%?

Has gun crime gone down 75%?

Has violent crime gone down 72%?

Has the number of concealed carry permit holders gone up from around 4.7 million in the 1990s to 16.3 million in 2017?

Has the number of guns owned in this country gone from 200 million in the 1990s to close to 600 million in 2017?

The answer to these are all yes.....

The yes answer to these questions means that the entire premise of the anti gun movement is a lie...more guns do not = more gun crime, or violent crime........

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


Concealed carry permit number....
New Study: Over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in number of permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

actual study...

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2017 by John R. Lott :: SSRN

Voters’ perceptions of crime continue to conflict with reality

Official government crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23%, respectively, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which tallies serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,000 jurisdictions around the nation.

Another Justice Department agency, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, produces its own annual crime report, based on a survey of more than 90,000 households that counts crimes that aren’t reported to police in addition to those that are. BJS data show that violent crime and property crime rates fell 26% and 22%, respectively, between 2008 and 2015 (again, the most recent year available).

---------

These polling trends stand in sharp contrast to the long-term crime trends reported by the FBI and BJS. Both agencies have documented big decreases in violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when U.S. crime rates reached their peak.

The BJS data, for instance, show that violent and property crime levels in 2015 were 77% and 69% below their 1993 levels, respectively.



Bureau of Justice Statistics: As Gun Ownership Nearly Doubled, Violent Crime Fell 77 Percent

From the link in that article...

Violent Crime Is 16% Lower Than a Decade Ago, So Why Are Gun Sales So High?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, which uses a slightly different definition of violent crime (it doesn't collect murder statistics, but does include simple assault), says violent crime has plummeted 77% since 1993 with just 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, compared with 79.8 victimizations 23 years ago. It's clear we're living in a much safer world today than just a few years ago, let alone decades before:

Image source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2016.

Yet at the same time, more Americans than ever own a gun.

While the percentage of U.S. households with a gun in them has remained fairly constant since the 1990s at around 45%, the actual number of households has dramatically increased over time.

For example, there were 99 million households in 1995 but over 124 million in 2015, meaning there would have been around 44 million households with guns in them 20 years ago, but 55 million households today.

 

[2aguy]

Causality is secondary to this thread......that is discussed in the other papers I listed....take that up with them.....the fact is that anti gunners use the argument that more people with more guns = more crime so we have to take guns away from people to lower the crime rate....that is a fact of their argument...and it is wrong.....21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality...

Then you've over stated your point with your OP presenting a "study" that claims gun violence when down with increase gun ownership.

But you posted it.

And again, you dive into the wrong end with "21 years of actual experience shows their argument has no bearing in reality".

No, "21 years of actual experience has been inconclusive", just like your OP study says of their data.

You appear to be confusing "I don't know" with "I know it doesn't". They aren't the same thing. Inconclusive means "We don't know".

Why don't you just go with "Studies have been inconclusive" and show the inconclusive studies?. They tend to not get attention, including getting published. So, it's a difficult hoe to row and probably a more worthwhile pursuit. This falls under the category called meta-studies.

Posting more fake news to back up your OP fake news just shows your comments to have no credibitlity.

More on more guns do not equal more gun crime...

Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013 • AEI

The chart above was inspired by a similar one featured by Max Ehrenfreund in his recent Wonkblog post titled “We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.” In contrast to the widely embraced narrative, perpetuated by liberal politicians and the media, that gun violence in America is getting worse all the time, the data reveal that the exact opposite is true. According to data retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993 (see light blue line in chart). By 2013 (most recent year available), the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50% to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population.

Ehrenfreund says that “Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place. Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift.” He then points to factors explaining the decline in violent crime in general and gun homicides in particular, including more police officers on the beat making greater use of computers, a decline in alcohol consumption, less lead exposure, and an improving economy.

But there’s another possible reason for the decline in gun violence overlooked by Ehrenfreund – the significant increase in the number of guns in America , illustrated above by the dark blue line in the chart. Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States“), the number of privately owned firearms in US increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013. Adjusted for the US population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56% increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49% (see new chart above). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

 

[charwin95]

Crime rates have gone down in the past without increased gun possession..

But that isn't the argument you guys make...

You anti gunners tell us that if more people own more guns there will be more gun crime and there will be blood in the streets........

The actual stats show you are completely wrong.....

Law abiding people with guns do not cause violent crime, or gun crime.......the entire premise of your anti gun beliefs is shown to be a lie.....

Chicago has so much guns with so many people getting killed by guns. So you are wrong. That is correct more guns more crimes.
As I told you repeatedly------- You assumed that all gun owners are responsible citizens. Your only goal is to flood this country with more guns so you can make more money. Disgusting.

Do me a favor stop sending those nonsense link supporting your agenda.

 

[2aguy]

Crime rates have gone down in the past without increased gun possession..

But that isn't the argument you guys make...

You anti gunners tell us that if more people own more guns there will be more gun crime and there will be blood in the streets........

The actual stats show you are completely wrong.....

Law abiding people with guns do not cause violent crime, or gun crime.......the entire premise of your anti gun beliefs is shown to be a lie.....

Chicago has so much guns with so many people getting killed by guns. So you are wrong. That is correct more guns more crimes.
As I told you repeatedly------- You assumed that all gun owners are responsible citizens. Your only goal is to flood this country with more guns so you can make more money. Disgusting.

Do me a favor stop sending those nonsense link supporting your agenda.

No....wrong....L.A. and New York have the exact same gun laws as Chicago, and yes, their gang members can get out of state guns too....but Chicagos gun murder rate is higher than both of those cities combined....it is the nature of Chicago gangs that drives the gun murder rate, not access to guns....

And their light prison sentences for gun crime...they let repeat gun offenders out of prison in less than 2 years, and the democtrats have been fighting changing sentencing laws for years.....

 

[2aguy]

Crime rates have gone down in the past without increased gun possession..

But that isn't the argument you guys make...

You anti gunners tell us that if more people own more guns there will be more gun crime and there will be blood in the streets........

The actual stats show you are completely wrong.....

Law abiding people with guns do not cause violent crime, or gun crime.......the entire premise of your anti gun beliefs is shown to be a lie.....

Chicago has so much guns with so many people getting killed by guns. So you are wrong. That is correct more guns more crimes.
As I told you repeatedly------- You assumed that all gun owners are responsible citizens. Your only goal is to flood this country with more guns so you can make more money. Disgusting.

Do me a favor stop sending those nonsense link supporting your agenda.

They aren't nonsense, they are the truth....that is why you hate them, they show that everything you feel about guns is wrong.....it has no basis in facts, truth or reality...but you have an irrational fear....and like book burners who fear books, you want to get rid of that which makes you afraid......

 

[2aguy]

Crime rates have gone down in the past without increased gun possession..

But that isn't the argument you guys make...

You anti gunners tell us that if more people own more guns there will be more gun crime and there will be blood in the streets........

The actual stats show you are completely wrong.....

Law abiding people with guns do not cause violent crime, or gun crime.......the entire premise of your anti gun beliefs is shown to be a lie.....

Chicago has so much guns with so many people getting killed by guns. So you are wrong. That is correct more guns more crimes.
As I told you repeatedly------- You assumed that all gun owners are responsible citizens. Your only goal is to flood this country with more guns so you can make more money. Disgusting.

Do me a favor stop sending those nonsense link supporting your agenda.

Nothing you posted is true........the problem in Chicago isn't normal, law abiding people carrying guns......the problem is a 2,000 officer shortage in Chicago Police, an 80% reduction in stops by police, and a reluctance by police to address known gang members...added to that is a less than 3 year sentence, often sent to boot camps, for repeat, violent gun offenders........that is the problem...also, the gangs have too many aldermen in their pockets who vote against police getting the resources they need......

And the truth....more guns = less crime.......as 21 years show...and growing numbers of gun owners show....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


Concealed carry permit number....
New Study: Over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in number of permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

actual study...

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2017 by John R. Lott :: SSRN

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, noes, the thread has devolved into the nutters talkinga bout their guns.

 

[2aguy]

And a look at those congressmen who were victims of the bernie sanders supporter....

Will D.C. court’s decision on concealed guns be the tipping point?

At least four of the Congressmen who were shot at had concealed handgun permits from their home states. They are Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), and Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.). One aide also had a permit.

However, since it was illegal for them to carry in D.C. , and would be returning to the Capitol after practice, they could not legally have brought their guns.

Brooks and Loudermilk’s aide both believe that they could have quickly ended the attack.

The aide, who asked for anonymity, has gone through active shooter training and was just 15 to 20 yards away from the shooter. He believes that, from his vantage point behind a car, he could have shot Hodgkinson “probably 4 minutes” before Capitol police officer David Bailey was wounded.

Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson’s dissent in the case was concerned with the “special” nature of D.C. She described it as “a city full of high-level government officials, diplomats, monuments, parades, protests and demonstrations and, perhaps most pertinent, countless government buildings where citizens are almost universally prohibited from possessing firearms.”

But a ban isn’t going to stop terrorists or criminals from bringing guns into D.C. Out of all mass public shootings in the US since 1950 over 98 percentof attacks occurred in places where general citizens were banned from carrying guns. Gun-free zones actually encourage these attacks, because killers seek out defenseless victims.

Henderson’s dissent is also surprisingly poorly informed about the research on concealed handgun laws.

For example, she misstates the findings of a 2004 National Research Council report on concealed handguns, and ignores the overwhelming majority of academic research that shows that these laws reduce violent crime.

In fact out of all the research by criminologists, economists and law professors, no one has found any evidence that right-to-carry laws increase murder, rape or robbery.

The NRC report actually reached no conclusions about the impact on crime of any of the over one hundred prevention programs or laws that they evaluated.

That isn’t unusual, since virtually all National Research Council reports reach no conclusion other than that more government funding is needed for further research.

In fact, the NRC report found more support for right-to-carry laws than for any other type of policy. James Q. Wilson, considered by many to be the pre-eminent criminologist of his day and a member of the panel, dissented from the non-conclusion and pointed out that all of the committee’s own estimates showed that right-to-carry laws reduced murder rates.

 

[Markle]

Crime rates have gone down in the past without increased gun possession..

When, and over what period of time? Your source and link will be appreciated.

 

[Markle]

So why did crime go up in major cities?

What part did you miss?

They are cities run by far left Progressives with drastic gun laws. Instead of punishing the bad guys for using guns they believe that punishing law abiding citizens for demanding a way to protect themselves.

 

[Markle]

We already lock up 2 million people, and we still have a horrific crime rate compared to other industrialized countries.

That is not true. In fact, as you know, the violent crime rate in the United States is far lower than most of Western Europe along with Australia.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

 

[Markle]

and as I have said repeatedly we lock up the wrong people. Prison should be for violent pieces of shit. non-violent pieces of shit should get some sort of alternate sentencing

They do, it's called minimum security prison.

As you know well too, persons arrested for simple possession of drugs are offered Drug Court. It started in Miami Florida and is now offered in all fifty states.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

 

[Markle]

Chicago has so much guns with so many people getting killed by guns. So you are wrong. That is correct more guns more crimes.
As I told you repeatedly------- You assumed that all gun owners are responsible citizens. Your only goal is to flood this country with more guns so you can make more money. Disgusting.

Do me a favor stop sending those nonsense link supporting your agenda.

Is English a second language for you?

Chicago punishes law abiding gun owners as opposed to criminals. Do you think they go to gun stores, gun shows?

No one has said that all gun owners are responsible citizens. The vast majority of law abiding citizens who own guns are responsible citizens.

Simply look at the cities with the highest crime and murder rates to find those with the harshest gun laws and cities run by Progressives for decades.