Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Terror on May 12, 2006, 11:06:29 AM
-
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 (http://www.wpri.org/) Report PDF (http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
(http://physics.ucsd.edu/~awinbow/texas-flag.jpg)
We're still allowed to defend ourselves. We have room if y'all would like to join us down here. :aok
-
Not enough cheese, Indy. :(
-
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 :(
-
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.
-
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 :aok
-
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.
:aok to all Mom's with Guns.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Nice hypothetical situations. I saw the results for real in my home town.
The city had been dumping on the local department for several years refusing to fund wages to a living level. More than half of the married Officers qualified for food stamps and the average monthly wage was rather low, about $500 to $650 for street Officers and the Department was losing about 30% of their personnel every 5 years. Time was about 1973-74.
The wage negotiations stalled and a strike was called. At the time of the strike the gun stores recorded a record sale of weapons. While the strike was going on with supervisors doing patrol and all civilians still in place, calls for service dropped to almost nothing. Even though there was the usual number of calls for collisions and other minor situations, burglary and robbery calls dropped to almost zero after the paper announced the run on guns. It was one of the most peacefull 3 week periods in quite a while.
In dealing personally with the folks who do commit those crimes it was fairly obvious that they are cowards to an extreme looking to find the weak and helpless. The best deal for them is to burglarize a house with no one home rendering no threat to their security or health. Unless they feel in control they are not willing to risk being caught or stopped. Looking at a population where there is a significant number of guns creates a risk factor for those who are willing to personally confront the victim. The experiance shown is that the risk factor is a definate impediment to those who want to prey on the rest of society.
Should EVERYONE be armed, of course not. There are those who are not suited for that level of responsibility or have shown themselves to be unable to control themselves. Of the vast majority who are not irresponsible and are qualified to do so, they should have the option to carry if they wish, based on training and qualification for the permit. In other words a "shall issue" situation with completion of the training and recurrancy training. A significant part of the training should also contain not just when and how to shoot, but more importantly when NOT to shoot.
-
Originally posted by 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.
If you were a bad guy and had a 1 in 20 chance (5%) that your victim you be armed, would you think twice before attacking? At what point do you think a criminal would have serious second thoughts about committing his crime? 1 in 5 (20%), 1 in 2 (50%).
I guess my point is: If you do not enact a CCW type law, there will never be a point that a criminal has second thoughts about committing a crime. At least with the CCW capability, criminals will start having second thoughts about committing crime due to fear that the intended victim may be able to defend themselves with extreme force. Having second thoughts does not mean a criminal will not attempt to carry out the crime, but it just may in some cases. And if he does attempt it, he just may be stopped from committing the crime by a CCW holder.
Terror
-
Urchin... in your example... you would probly move to an area that had no concealled carry laws... And that would be fine with me. If you were a "gangsta" you would probly be the most threat to your fellow "gangstas" in any case.
Studies show that even with very easy concealed carry laws that only about 10% of the population will carry concealled.. this is fine.
As mav points out... not everyone should. 10% is a meaningfull number to criminals tho... violent criminals. It means that they have a 1-10 chance of getting shot if they attack a person while they are alone... if they rob a resteraunt with 10 people in it....they know that someone is likely to be armed and... they don't know who.
If numbers of people carrying concealed had to be higher than 10% the sky marshall program would be worthless.
Most studies show that violent crime goes down with concealled carry but is replaced by "property" crime. that is also fine so far as I am concearned.
The main thing is that everyone should have the choice... the right to defend yourself is a human and inalienable right.
lazs
-
and urchin... if no one were armed in our present society... you may or may not rob or kill any more people but a lot of your cowardly friends might take up the profession.
There is no such thing as "unarmed" some people are extremely well armed with nothing but their bare hands. A group of thugs against one normal man or woman is much better armed than the victim... a club is better than a fist... a knife better yet... a car whatever.
firearms merely equalize the arms race for older or outnumbered or infirm or female human victims.
Do you believe that the rule of law should be survival of the strongest and most ruthless? The gun is the law.
criminals should not be allowed to have em. If you can't keep em out of the hands of criminals and you can't make criminals behave or..... most important..... If you can't guarentee my personal safety and that of everyone else...
then don't try to disarm me. I take that as a personal attack on my well being. So no.... I do not wish to be "reasonable" about it unless that means... you carry if you want and I will carry if I want.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Urchin... in your example... you would probly move to an area that had no concealled carry laws... And that would be fine with me. If you were a "gangsta" you would probly be the most threat to your fellow "gangstas" in any case.
Studies show that even with very easy concealed carry laws that only about 10% of the population will carry concealled.. this is fine.
As mav points out... not everyone should. 10% is a meaningfull number to criminals tho... violent criminals. It means that they have a 1-10 chance of getting shot if they attack a person while they are alone... if they rob a resteraunt with 10 people in it....they know that someone is likely to be armed and... they don't know who.
If numbers of people carrying concealed had to be higher than 10% the sky marshall program would be worthless.
Most studies show that violent crime goes down with concealled carry but is replaced by "property" crime. that is also fine so far as I am concearned.
The main thing is that everyone should have the choice... the right to defend yourself is a human and inalienable right.
lazs
Lazs, out of the 50 states in the union... only 2 have no sort of concealed carry laws. Hell, even Maryland has one, and Baltimore is a drug and crime infested sewer.
I actually don't disagree with anyone who thinks there is an inalieable right to bear arms. I agree completely - it is one of the only things that can keep the government (and by extension, the wealthy) at bay.
I was pointing out that the author of the study in question was not lying when he said that concealed carry *laws* have little to no effect on the crime rate, and pointed out why.
By the way, I did a (very) little bit of checking. Florida, which I believe is the latest state with a "shall issue" CCW law, has ~1.5% of the population making use of it (granted, I looked the numbers up on Wiki, but they are usually pretty accurate).
1.5% is not a very large percentage of the population. I am not a criminal, so I couldnt say if a 15/1000 chance of my victim being armed would deter me from crime, but I rather doubt it.
-
Urchin
you are wrong and i will explain why.
some time ago Florida was known for attacks on tourists, it was because rental cars were clearly marked as rental cars and bad guys know foreign tourists do not carry guns.
because of that the law was changed to make rentals look just like local cars, no bumper stickers or special tags.
after that happened attacks on tourists dropped to nothing because the bad guys didn't know who was a unarmed tourist and who was a armed Floridian.
a armed Floridian.
-
Your convincing empirical analysis has persuaded me that Urchin is wrong, john9001.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Your convincing empirical analysis has persuaded me that Urchin is wrong, john9001.
-- Todd/Leviathn
who are you going to believe, some so-called "expert" with a agenda or me, a brave and loyal virtual fighter pilot from AH? :)
-
Several studies show that overall crime changes little when concealed carry permits are issued (crooks will be crooks) but..
The number of violent crimes drops. property crime may and often does increase but violent crime drops. In the study in question several of the states studied had cc laws but had issued very few permits.
Florida is a good state to look at because it has so many permits issued and had such a high violent crime rate before a lot of permits were issued.
Florida had a real problem with a huge spike in violent crimes to about 1200-1300 a year per 100k for about 10 years... they enacated cc laws and issued permits and violent crime dropped to 800.
concealled carry works in slowing violent crime and allows people to take responsibility for their own safety.
http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html
-
I dont need a gun
I'm a ninja
-
so far as I am concerned.... You should not be forced to get one then.
lazs