Calling the people who write the studies "biased towards the brady bunch" is an ad hominem pure and simple. You can't toss aside several sources just because they are from Chicago.
That's something the Brady Campaign would do. And the "algorithm" is far from unproven. Neighborhood spillover effects are something that have been studied successfully for years (if that's what you're talking about... it's not really an algorithm they are using, it's a statistical model)...
What's the problem? If it gets crime out of my area, why should I care?
Because that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about whether or not shall-issue reduces crime. My hypothesis says "maybe, but it's hard to prove". This paper, by saying that it only moves crime around supports that. If the crime moves, people are still getting robbed, raped, and murdered, just in different locations. It's a sad moral system that puts value on human life based on geographic location.
I've provided sources to back up my points, I await the same from the other side other than discrediting the sources. Sad that the thread has come to that. And you don't need an account to read that abstract that gives the overview of the results. I can get more if needed, there is far from a lack of substance in the literature.
That isn't a fair comparison. They're using different data collection and reporting methods. I can find data to support the idea that it's cheaper to live on Mars, than in Manhattan; but that doesn't make it true.
The comparison is totally fair, you said that places with lax gun laws have lower crime rates and I've produced a result contrary to that. I could also produce a result that supports your conclusion, but that's not my point. My point is that crime is not as simple as "let people carry concealed handguns", there are tons more factors.
That data comes from the same place, the FBI's UCR. Here are the links to Anchorage and New York City, the numbers are the same:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ny.html
At least try to refute the central point or get data that does instead of simply trying to discredit my data and sources as "the brady bunch"... That's not how this works.
Good reply from FrankenMauser. I can only add this:
We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.
Ok, works for me.
The difference in my verbiage is minute but important. We do know that many people have successfully defended themselves with concealed handguns, and that's the stories we need to tell. We need to tell stories like OP's. Stories of the grandma that defends her home from the 3 street thugs. Stories of the young woman who kills the serial rapist after being attacked on the street. Stories of how guns turned the table on violence scumbags. It is hard to say that concealed guns reduce overall crime (and if it were, it doesn't pull on the heartstrings like these stories do). It is very easy to say that concealed guns have saved countless lives from victimhood.
