Tomcat
Formerly Known As HITWTOM
From Fox news http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/
Guess what we have to look forward to?
Guess what we have to look forward to?
Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims
- Thread starter Tomcat
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
CCW is common sense violence prevention.
Mark K
Active Member
I think so too. Unfortunately I don't think cause-and-effect can be proven here...
AliasNeo07
Ultimate Member
Yeah I don't think so either. I personally agree that more CCW is a good thing, obviously. But just because murder rates drop as CCW increase doesn't mean the two are related as far as THIS study is concerned. Carbon emissions are up since 2007, does that mean that higher carbon emissions are related to lower murder rates? Obviously not.
Common sense tells me that the more people carrying guns, the less people are going to freely commit crimes. But this article doesn't prove that.
Also unproven is possible corollary to greatest number of incarcerated criminals, ie. the bad guys are in jail.
newq
101st Poptart Assault BSB
Damn if that isn't provocative. That is a whole different connection I failed to make.
Thanks!
jcrusselljr
Member
- Aug 28, 2011
- 82
When faced with the "blood in the streets" concern, I ask the person to name the states they can where CCW is legal. Their inability to do so usually helps to draw the conversation to a close. If someone were actually able to name them, the next question would be where is the blood in the streets in that state....
Bonus points if someone incorrectly names Baltimore, DC, or Chicago as examples of gun problems with blood in the streets.
Bonus points if someone incorrectly names Baltimore, DC, or Chicago as examples of gun problems with blood in the streets.
Actually, that is the only conclusion one can make given the studies that I have seen.
Major03
Ultimate Member
teratos...a correlation does not prove causality. Statistics 101.
As much as I would want that to be true in this case and as much as it appeals to common sense, gprimr1 is absolutely correct.
He also makes a great point about using the study to show that it did NOT cause a rise in violent crime. Here's the thing, even that is only anecdotal. Without a controlled study we can't definitively state that the violent crime wouldn't have actually been even less (personally, I highly doubt it...but my point is that it can't be proven).
However, one can also look at cities with stricter gun control and that show a rise or a plateau in violent crime to further bolster our argument. Just know that even though it adds credibility to the argument it is still just anecdotal.
I think of it like building a case with circumstantial evidence. It isn't cut and dried and incontestable...but if you build enough of it you can get a conviction.
I think when we as a community make statements that are accurate in regards to studies and evidence (even if that makes our arguments not as cut and dried as we'd like sometimes) that actually makes our arguments stronger. If we do that, then there is nothing to discredit and misdirection efforts are harder for the anti's to pull off.
As much as I would want that to be true in this case and as much as it appeals to common sense, gprimr1 is absolutely correct.
He also makes a great point about using the study to show that it did NOT cause a rise in violent crime. Here's the thing, even that is only anecdotal. Without a controlled study we can't definitively state that the violent crime wouldn't have actually been even less (personally, I highly doubt it...but my point is that it can't be proven).
However, one can also look at cities with stricter gun control and that show a rise or a plateau in violent crime to further bolster our argument. Just know that even though it adds credibility to the argument it is still just anecdotal.
I think of it like building a case with circumstantial evidence. It isn't cut and dried and incontestable...but if you build enough of it you can get a conviction.
I think when we as a community make statements that are accurate in regards to studies and evidence (even if that makes our arguments not as cut and dried as we'd like sometimes) that actually makes our arguments stronger. If we do that, then there is nothing to discredit and misdirection efforts are harder for the anti's to pull off.
Major03
Ultimate Member
teratos...belay my last. I think we're actually in agreement 
Re-read the thread and I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies. I was considering deleting my previous comments but I leave them in because it's a common trap that I've heard many pro 2A's fall into.
You're correct though...the study does show that increasing CCW does not produce a increase in violent crime, and that's it.
We should be careful as a community to not then take the next step in logic and say that increases in CCW produce decreases in violent crime, as that isn't supported (even though I believe it).
Re-read the thread and I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies. I was considering deleting my previous comments but I leave them in because it's a common trap that I've heard many pro 2A's fall into.
You're correct though...the study does show that increasing CCW does not produce a increase in violent crime, and that's it.
We should be careful as a community to not then take the next step in logic and say that increases in CCW produce decreases in violent crime, as that isn't supported (even though I believe it).
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Damn if that isn't provocative. That is a whole different connection I failed to make.
Thanks!
This is positive proof that ccw does not cause crime. It a major point. keep hitting it home -- Its in my written for sb281 as well and I am sure I am not alone.
Op force has been trying to confuses the issue by claiming that we need to prove CCW reduces crime.. thats crap they have the burden of proof to show that restricting ccw lowers crime -- they can't;
They have the burden of proof. Hold them to it.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
teratos...belay my last. I think we're actually in agreement
Re-read the thread and I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies. I was considering deleting my previous comments but I leave them in because it's a common trap that I've heard many pro 2A's fall into.
You're correct though...the study does show that increasing CCW does not produce a increase in violent crime, and that's it.
We should be careful as a community to not then take the next step in logic and say that increases in CCW produce decreases in violent crime, as that isn't supported (even though I believe it).
We do not have the burden of proof and should not fall into the trap of offering any. When the public safety argument is use to restrict a right -- an offer of proof is required. Their offer of proof negates any causal link -- we have no other duty -- not even to cure all the ills of society -- or " do something" That's what it means to be a right.
They have been shifting the burden for almost 85 years , because we let them.
Major03
Ultimate Member
Brooklyn, no argument here. Agree.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (3 Viewers)- Latest: BurkeM
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (7 Viewers)- Latest: miles71
