Crime Rate & Concealed Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, yes. The dreaded universal crime rates. Well, to throw the curve ball, Detroit has one of, if not, the highest crime rate in America. Yet Michigan is a shall issue state. Supports your case, right? Not so fast. Doesn't exactly show in the stats that many law abiding citizens made a mass exodus to the suburbs. So the overall crime rate may be higher, but it doesn't make sense. Just because the crime rate is sky high in Detroit due to all the hooligans are left behind there doesn't mean CCW permits don't reduce crime. A higher concentration of CCW and law abiding gunowners in most well ran highly populated towns in the metro area provides significant evidence that CCW can "cause" safer places to live. Also, UCR, as another member argued, doesn't take into account for potential crime that's thwarted necessarily. It only uses stats that are REPORTED. UCR is a complete joke.

The whole point missed here is there's not nearly enough active concealed carry users out there to provide proof it can "cause" a reduction in crime. One day, if we have significantly sized cities that has permits issued to 30-40%, this argument will not only be conjecture, it will prove that it provides a safer environment.

Got it. If the data don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the data.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way: I would take a platoon sergeant's word before some general at ICOR on how the actual battle is going in his own trenches. You cling to the UCR as hard, conclusive data. I'll keep my common sense.
 
Double Naught,
You're constructing a strawman argument by saying that CCWer's believe CCW laws are passed to prevent crime. I've lived in Texas for 35 years. I was here when the law was passed. I don't recall any of the proponents of CCW saying anything about reducing crime. So your premise is false from the beginning.

I do remember in 1995 the Luby's massacre in Killeen TX. where a man killed 20+ folks in cold blood. I also remember the anti gun crowd screaming like stuck pigs that there would be blood running in the streets of Texas. "It'll be like the Wild West days, OMG the humanity. Well, guess, didn't happen.

Your statistics are of no use trying to connect CCW with the rise in the crime rate because there was never a connection in the first place.
 
CCW sure doesn't increase crime. Look at D.C. One of the higher crime rates and no CCW at all. Your sample list of cities with populations over 1,000,000 was weak too because other than the 3 cities you listed, there are only 8 more cities in the country with a population that big. Also San Antonio has a relatively low rate compared to alot of major cities.
 
Crime and conceal carry?

I really don't know all the facts to your original question/post? Folks make some good points so far regarding this question.

However, the only fact I'm concerned about, is that my conceal carry should hopefully help (in the event that a crime is committed against me and/or my family).
 
Texas has a high crime rate; but what about violent crime? Most of Dallas's crime problem is theft from motor vehicles, which is pretty common around here; but it isn't the type of crime you would expect CCW to deter.

In fact, without getting into the merits of the Lott study, if I remember Lott correctly, I believe he suggests that their is a substitution factor and that criminals may choose less confrontational crimes as a substitute in his study.
 
Crime rate & concealed carry

I for one well know that you can take the statistacs and make them do whatever you want them to do, the noumbers game! I'm not saying that happened here!!! I try very heard to talk of things that I know to be true and not what I hear from any second or third parties, now with that said, one thing I know to be true Is that most criminals are very big cowards, not all but most, whach out for the nut job!!! They go after the weak and try very heard to stay away from the strong! Case In point, I grew up In New York City, "Washington Hights"
My father had a butcher shop there from about 1946 till I think 1978 or so and we had a lot of stores around us, on our street going South was next a hardwear store, a shoe maker , a Deli, a dry goods store and a book store and then a candy store and so on, My point In all the years that we had that store we were never held up, or even an attemped made to hold us up! The same with the shoe maker, all the other stores on that block and across the street were all held up at gun point from time to time. I worked in my Dad's store every weekend for well over 25 years.
Why were we and the shoemaker left out of the holdups? Think about who is always working with a knife and or clever In hand and the shoe maker always had a knife or hammer in hand!!! "Most criminals are cowards" they go for the weak and not the strong! There is another story that I heard of from I think GA. about 10 or 15 years ago??? Two towns close to each other,lets just say town "A" and town "B" town "A" had an anti gun Mayer, and town "B" had a pro gun Mayer, I think this story was in The American rifel Man or Guns and Ammo 10-15 years ago??? Town "A" tolds all the people that there would be a ban on guns In that town and as town "B" heard of this they went 180 and stated that all good standing people In that town should have a gun in the house hold by law? Well guess just what happened to the crime rate in each of them towns, now it was not over night, but the crime rate In town "A" went up by about 3-4 times and town "B" the crime rate went down by just about the same!!! for you people that like to go digging things like this up, go at it, I'm going from memory here about the times and the States and also which magazines I saw the stories In and when!!! If any of you find the stories I'm talking about, please post them back here.
Semper FI to all, Hank D. Please note, I'm not a very good speller/my weak point.:confused:
 
Well then, go look at it for yourself and crunch the data and see if things have indeed changed or not.
Click to expand...
And thus the problem with so many people, particularly those in the gun world. Way too many folks who want to argue the facts based on what they think, or based on a bumper sticker cliche they found, or based on something they read about what someone posted talking about what someone said about what they read. Not many folks want to take the time and effort to actually read the research, to study the information, to look at the analysis, and so on. Nobody goes to look at the data, nobody crunches the data themselves, many can't find the data, more can't crunch it, and even more could care less what the data shows and what the facts are if it disagrees with what they think. Then they get mad because you tell them to go read some of the material. Sad.
 
CCW sure doesn't increase crime. Look at D.C. One of the higher crime rates and no CCW at all.
Click to expand...
Apparently doesn't do much to reduce it, either. New Orleans and Baton Rouge both are CCW towns and have some of the highest violent crime rates in the U.S.
 
I have two good books for anyone that wants to look into the stats, Book #1 more Guns less crime, #2-The bias ageinst guns, both by a once anti gunner John R. Lott Jr. Semper FI to all, Hank D.:cool:
 
Of course, to truly know if something like CCW has any effect on crime it would have to be introduced in significant numbers very quickly, to an area that previously had no legal carry method. Otherwise, there is simply no way of isolating the effect of CCW. Things like entire societies are simply too complicated with far too many variables to be able to identify solid causal relationships over an extended period of time.

For example, New Orleans has CCW but we have NO WAY of knowing if the crime rate would be higher or lower or indifferent without it. DC could actually be a good testing ground. If they are forced to allow concealed carry in the near future and they issue thousands of permits in a short time then we may be able to identify a positive correlation.

You simply cannot take a snippet of time from a complex equation and identify the effects of any variable you choose.

XYZ city has CCW and low crime. Is there a correlation? Maybe it's because it's a Bible belt city and they have more devout Christians. Maybe they've got a judicial system that's tough on crime. Maybe it's low unemployment. Maybe it's because they're not on a major highway that serves as a drug route. Maybe it's a combination of all those things and more.
There is simply NO WAY to tell.
 
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...

Fine. Show cause and effect and I will gladly capitulate. I want to believe guns should reduce crime as well and no matter how many times I look at the data, the changes in crime rates so often attributed to guns don't show a direct correlation.

Concealed carry doesn't seem to change crime trends in any way.

Along similar lines, the many political types will tell you that putting more police officers on the streets reduces crime. Death penalty advocates used to argue that the death penalty reduced crime, but that doesn't pan out either, nor does heavier prison penalties.

My point here is that lots of people/groups/causes want to take credit when crime rates drop and will show some sort of correlation, but none show causation. All have excuses for why crime rates may go up in spite of the championing of their pet causes.
 
Concealed carry doesn't seem to change crime trends in any way.
Click to expand...

Of course not........when it's a small fraction of the population that actually has a CCW permit and practices their right. That's why all the "stats" that come out may or may not support your claim.

Give me 5 active CCW holders in a crowd of 5,000 strangers and they aren't going to hold a candle to cause a drop in crime. Give me 2,500 CCW holders in the same crowd and it's a whole 'nuther ball game. UCR stats don't do anything for this, do they? It's that darn common sense thing....

Can't comment much on your claim of heavier prison penalties and the death penalty not panning out without going off-topic. All I have to say is the former hasn't been further from the truth, i.e. child rapists getting 60 days probation (thanks judge Edward Cashman of Vermont) and the latter hasn't worked when the convicted is getting three hots and a cot knowing it won't happen anyway by looking at the odds. The strongest chain is it's weakest link and if you don't have all cylinders firing the way it should, it's a failure from the get go and the theory is the scapegoat.

And thus the problem with so many people, particularly those in the gun world. Way too many folks who want to argue the facts based on what they think, or based on a bumper sticker cliche they found, or based on something they read about what someone posted talking about what someone said about what they read. Not many folks want to take the time and effort to actually read the research, to study the information, to look at the analysis, and so on. Nobody goes to look at the data, nobody crunches the data themselves, many can't find the data, more can't crunch it, and even more could care less what the data shows and what the facts are if it disagrees with what they think. Then they get mad because you tell them to go read some of the material. Sad.
Click to expand...

What's equally sad is others that cling to "stats" but don't provide anything more than vague references.

Let's get down to an individual level. Does anyone think they are probably NOT increasing their odds of keeping them from being a statistic if one is carrying concealed? Not me. If this is the case, then why wouldn't it work at a mass level? It would work at an even better rate if there were significant numbers amongst us. Until then, the UCR or whatever stat you want to throw at trying to debunk the theory isn't worth a grain of salt. All it's showing, AT BEST, is a very small percentage of actual active CCW holders isn't enough to provide ANY conclusion.
 
What's equally sad is others that cling to "stats" but don't provide anything more than vague references.
Click to expand...
That sort of proves my point. Often it is only when one looks at those "vague references" that one can understand the stats in context. Much like peetzakilla said, most concepts in the social realm are complicated with many variables, and with concepts like that a one-line explanation of "why" just doesn't work. I think that is what Spy is saying here. The little one-liners, such as "Look how much CCW has reduced crime" are sort of feel-good, but they aren't accurate when you look at them in depth. To understand the reduction in crime and the role CCW has played in it requires a lot of reading/research about a number of different things that have gone on in society in the last 20 years.
 
Concealed carry doesn't seem to change crime trends in any way.
Click to expand...
Of course not........when it's a small fraction of the population that actually has a CCW permit and practices their right.
Click to expand...

And yet pro-gun people claim this on a regular basis, even some in this thread. They believe that it is a fact that concealed carry laws drive the crime rate down when there is no data to support such a "fact." John Lott is cited as a sort of guru of the claim.

They also like to cite states like Texas those form Texas where crime dropped the very year the CHL program came online, as if bad guys magically got a clue and stopped committing crime because of a new law and without consider the data in the greater context of things like trends already in progress.

Give me 5 active CCW holders in a crowd of 5,000 strangers and they aren't going to hold a candle to cause a drop in crime. Give me 2,500 CCW holders in the same crowd and it's a whole 'nuther ball game. UCR stats don't do anything for this, do they? It's that darn common sense thing....
Click to expand...
And yet folks want to believe otherwise. I don't know why, but they do. See... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245415&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219168&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime&page=2 http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108935&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime

And how can you argue with this logic that concealed carry reduces crime?
Mod: What empirical evidence is there that concealed weapons reduce crime.
Lott: Not 1 study shows increases in violent crime with increases in CCW. No one has found a significant downside to issuing more CW permits. The size of the drop in crime varies with the number of permits.
Click to expand...
from http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90759&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime

So obviously, if concealed carry doesn't increase violent crime, then it must reduce it? What???:rolleyes:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52916&highlight=concealed+carry+lowers+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358300&highlight=ccw+reduces+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131943&highlight=ccw+reduces+crime
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100562&highlight=ccw+reduces+crime

We all want something magical to happen
 
DoubleNaught,

Here is a link that starts a 13 part YouTube video of a debate from I2QUS. The title: Resolved; Guns Reduce Crime. On our side is Gary Kleck, John Lott, Stephen Halbrooke(NRA Lawyer) and on the other side; Paul Helmke (Brady Campaign), John Donohue(whose paper Glenn cited), and Gil Kerlikowski the Chief of Police of Seattle. It takes on a lot of these issues. I found it fascinating. I really like Kleck and Halbrooke. Takes awhile to watch but well worth it and not quite as dry as reading a thesis!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DraTc7h1LPg&feature=PlayList&p=A2F6A07F296DAFA6&index=0&playnext=1
 
And yet folks want to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

So that makes it fact, then?

Find a town that will participate in an experiment supporting my claim and I'm willing to put a Buffalo Nickel down for a bet.

This is my last post since this is going nowhere. It's obvious by reading the links you've provided that your mind is already made up and won't concede to my point of common sense. I wouldn't take up a criminal profession. You'd probably be caught on the wrong side of a gun in short order. Criminals usually weigh in probables before commiting to a crime. This simple issue touches base with all the unknowns that stats just aren't covering. This is my whole point. It may have been a whopping 20 years give or take that shall issue has been restored. But it's only been in recent years that the majority of states changed to shall issue. Even then, I still assert CCW holders are in the extreme minority and are severely outnumbered. Uh-oh, there's that probability factor again...

I'm still going to listen to the Platoon Sergeant...
 
Of course, to truly know if something like CCW has any effect on crime it would have to be introduced in significant numbers very quickly, to an area that previously had no legal carry method.
Click to expand...

Altho it is very different from any one city's population or particular criminal motives(bank robbery and such not being likely)...the recent example of National Park carry...where it was banned for years, then allowed for a few months, and then not allowed...might be an indicator.

My guess would be it was totally...unchanged.
 
Takes awhile to watch but well worth it and not quite as dry as reading a thesis!
Click to expand...
And that is the problem with these little YouTube clips, most TV debates, etc. They don't get into the details that are so important, the discussions tend to be question oriented instead of information oriented, and just don't give anywhere near as good a picture of the research as studying the actual material. Sort of interesting how the academics, like Glenn, keep telling people to read books and journal articles and such, while others want to watch a video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top