How to spin a study...

[Terror]

Study Shows Concealed Carry Has No Effect On Crime
(AP) MADISON A study to be released today says concealed weapons laws in other states have not affected crime rates.

A Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study found crime neither increased or decreased in states with concealed carry laws.

Study author David Dodenhoff he also found that if a crime is committed, the criminal is less likely to be successful if the victim produces a weapon.

He says a criminal is more likely to move on to another victim if he suspects someone is carrying a weapon.

State legislators have twice passed concealed carry laws in the past four years. Governor Doyle has vetoed both. Doyle recently criticized Republicans for wasting time and energy passing concealed carry legislation they knew he would veto.

Link to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute  Report PDF

It's funny how "if a crime is committed, the criminal is less likely to be successful if the victim produces a weapon." doesn't effect crime, or "a criminal is more likely to move on to another victim if he suspects someone is carrying a weapon." doesn't effect crime.  

The conclusion of the study says it all:

Gun policy is notoriously difficult to discuss calmly and rationally. Why? Because among their other uses—for
sport; as collectibles; and for personal, home, and business security—guns are also used by criminals as instruments
of violence. When used maliciously or carelessly, guns can inflict great emotional and physical harm—even death.
They can evoke uncomfortable emotions, such as fear and worry. And when things go bad with a gun, they can go very
bad; for example, the accidental shooting of a child, as rare as it is, makes a devastating and indelible impression.
Faced with these aspects of gun ownership and use, some people arrive at a simple formulation: “guns are bad.”
The logical extension of this is that gun ownership and use should be severely restricted. Naturally, this upsets the
tens of millions of Americans who own firearms, use them responsibly, and have never had an incident or an accident.
The “guns are bad” formulation does not describe their experience; they are offended by suggestions that their
freedom to own and use firearms should be constrained.
Pitted against each other in this way, both sides find it difficult to look objectively at evidence that does not support
their position. At times, too, advocates for one side or the other rely on data and analysis that are suspect, sometimes
highly suspect. This does not facilitate trust, dialogue, or compromise between the two sides.
All of this makes it unlikely that shall-issue opponents like Governor Jim Doyle, the Milwaukee Journal-
Sentinel, and assorted Wisconsin law enforcement organizations will ever admit that that they are (mostly) wrong
about the impact of concealed weapons laws. Yet, as demonstrated in the preceding pages:
• there is no evidence that the proposed concealed weapon training requirements in Wisconsin were inadequate;
• there is no evidence that passage of shall-issue legislation would result in an increase in crime; and
• there is no evidence that self-defensive gun use is either rare or ineffective.
With that, the case against shall-issue legislation collapses.
But what about the case for such legislation? If that case hinges on a reduction in crime in the wake of passage,
there is not much of an argument there, either. Looking at both the econometric evidence and the actual experience
of shall-issue states, there is little reason to believe that concealed weapons permitting will have a measurable crimereducing effect.
But if the case hinges on the right of Wisconsinites to defend themselves, using firearms if they choose, that case
is unassailable. In fact, the Wisconsin Constitution explicitly guarantees that right: “The people have the right to keep
and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”83 State law ought to allow for
the fullest expression of this right (or any other), as long as that expression does not produce unacceptable costs or
consequences. According to the analysis in this paper, the undesirable consequences of extending firearms freedom
to encompass concealed weapons would be trivial. Lawmakers should, therefore, trust Wisconsin gun-owners to
make appropriate choices about their personal security—including the bearing of concealed weapons—consistent
with their constitutional rights.

Terror

[Kaw1000]

In Ohio the only way you can shoot a person is if your life is threatened..so if someone robs your you can't shoot them ..if you are in a bank and the bank gets robbed your can't shoot the robber...if you see someone getting mugged you can't shoot them....so whats the use for conceled carry??
   Now if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them.....but I would do that without a concelled carry permit!

[Mustaine]

yawn

we (I live in WI) have been dealing with the MORAN doyle for way too long now. retard is the best i can describe him.

[Terror]

Originally posted by Kaw1000
In Ohio the only way you can shoot a person is if your life is threatened..so if someone robs your you can't shoot them ..if you are in a bank and the bank gets robbed your can't shoot the robber...if you see someone getting mugged you can't shoot them....so whats the use for conceled carry??
   Now if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them.....but I would do that without a concelled carry permit!

Usually the measurement for defending yourself is "fear of death or bodily harm".  So a robbery (ie mugging) you could pretty easily be in fear of bodily harm, even if the perpetrator is unarmed.  Fists and feet can be extremely hazardous weapons.  And in the report, just producing the weapon usually ends the confrontation.  If the perps suspect you are armed, usually they won't even initiate the confrontation.  Sounds like CCW is worthwhile to me.....

Terror

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Terror
It's funny how "if a crime is committed, the criminal is less likely to be successful if the victim produces a weapon." doesn't effect crime, or "a criminal is more likely to move on to another victim if he suspects someone is carrying a weapon." doesn't effect crime.  

Terror

Lets say I'm a gangsta, and I shoot and rob 12 people a year (1 a month).  Now lets say that the state I live in passes a concealed carry law.  

So I go for my monthly gangbangin', but the fool I go to bust a cap in pulls out a gat.  

So I leave him alone and go find someone else to rob and kill.  The fact that the first guy had a concealed weapon didn't affect the crime rate at all.

Had I seen the gun first and decided not to rob that guy, then the fact that I moved on to another victim didn't affect the crime rate at all.  I still robbed and killed one guy this month.

You understand the language now?

[indy007]

We're still allowed to defend ourselves. We have room if y'all would like to join us down here.

[Octavius]

Not enough cheese, Indy.

[indy007]

Originally posted by Octavius
Not enough cheese, Indy.

You gotta go to the bigger signature grocery stores. They've usually got a great cheese selection in a seperate refrigerated shelf set. It's stocked next to the italian meats (mmmm proscuitto). Found an awesome german butter cheese last week. Had it with gobagoo, & liked it so much I shredded the rest and added it to the pot of chili.

Damn you Octavious, now I'm hungry as hell, but food poisoned from bad seafood last night ...think I just discovered I may be allergic to salmon... *&!@# it's so tasty though

[john9001]

Originally posted by Urchin
Lets say I'm a gangsta, and I shoot and rob 12 people a year (1 a month).  Now lets say that the state I live in passes a concealed carry law.  

So I go for my monthly gangbangin', but the fool I go to bust a cap in pulls out a gat.  

So I leave him alone and go find someone else to rob and kill.  The fact that the first guy had a concealed weapon didn't affect the crime rate at all.

Had I seen the gun first and decided not to rob that guy, then the fact that I moved on to another victim didn't affect the crime rate at all.  I still robbed and killed one guy this month.

You understand the language now?

so, how do you know the next victim you attack will be unarmed or will kill you with that terrible GUN they carry?

criminals hate armed victims, messes up the cash flow.

[indy007]

Had I seen the gun first and decided not to rob that guy, then the fact that I moved on to another victim didn't affect the crime rate at all. I still robbed and killed one guy this month.

Take it a step further though. What happens if all citizens are armed? Then, there are no easy victims. Messes up your cash flow when it's too dangerous to do your "job". How do you make your job easier? Disarm everybody. Then, it's back to the good cashflow.

Penn & Teller nailed it in my opinion...

Most violent crimes are committed by men.
Most violent crimes are committed against women.
Therefore, give every woman in the nation a gun (a pink one specifically). They can keep it, give it away, do whatever... but all of a sudden it's a 50/50 proposition whether or not Janey's got a gun.

...that... and chicks with guns are sexy

[Hangtime]

LOL.. showed that episode to my liberal gun hating ex-wife and decidedly (now) pro-gun daughter.

Indignant dosent even come close to how she reacted to the 'pinky'. Best part was my daughter. Seems she found mom's secrect stash of pictures from her college days. She was dating a guy that lived on a ranch out in the SF valley. There was a picture of 'Mom', in a bikini; with a six gun and holster and cowboy hat. After the show was over, she went and got and showed it to me.

Sexy, indeed.

Between the torrent of expetive delteteds pouring outta my ex's pie hole, my kid laughing her bellybutton off and my adroit 'keep away' moves with the picture as possession of the evidence came into doubt..

...well, suffice to say; that was a very memorable Penn & Teller expose.

 to all Mom's with Guns.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by indy007
Take it a step further though. What happens if all citizens are armed? Then, there are no easy victims. Messes up your cash flow when it's too dangerous to do your "job". How do you make your job easier? Disarm everybody. Then, it's back to the good cashflow.

 

Oh, I am not arguing that if EVERYONE had a gun that crime would drop.  That seems self evident.  

But how many people are packin', even in states where it is legal?  I'd venture a guess and say its probably less than 5%.  

So just passing a concealed carry law wouldn't have much of an effect on crime... it is the armed population that has the effect, not the law.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Urchin
Oh, I am not arguing that if EVERYONE had a gun that crime would drop.  That seems self evident.  

But how many people are packin', even in states where it is legal?  I'd venture a guess and say its probably less than 5%.  

So just passing a concealed carry law wouldn't have much of an effect on crime... it is the armed population that has the effect, not the law.

Correct but IF they made it easier for a law abiding citizen to acquire...
I'd bet that the % would jump up fast.


Bronk

[Terror]

Originally posted by Urchin
Oh, I am not arguing that if EVERYONE had a gun that crime would drop.  That seems self evident.  

But how many people are packin', even in states where it is legal?  I'd venture a guess and say its probably less than 5%.  

So just passing a concealed carry law wouldn't have much of an effect on crime... it is the armed population that has the effect, not the law.

So, using your logic, if NO ONE has a gun, then crime would increase, correct?  So a law that allows the people to carry, even if a small percentage exercise the privledge, would potentially have a decreasing effect on crime.  Especially crime against the persons carrying the firearms.

Terror

[Urchin]

No, if NO ONE had a gun there would be no effect on the crime rate.  If I robbed and killed one person a month and nobody was armed, I'd rob and kill 12 people a month.  If a small proportion of people are armed, I'd still rob and kill 12 people a month.. there would be no effect on the overall crime rate.  

Granted, if I were one of the unarmed victims I'd wish I had been one of the armed guys  that got passed over, but the effect on the overall crime rate would be nil.