New Data Shows Lower Crime Rate as Concealed Carry Increases

[opsspec1991]

New Data Shows Lower Crime Rate as Concealed Carry Increases
.
By: Andrew West
.
We have all heard the old adage that the most effective response to a bad guy with a gun happens to be a good guy with a gun.
.
There have been a number of famous cases of exactly this scenario playing out in our modern world, with viral videos and daily news stories to back it up. More alarming, however, is just how easy it is to find examples of a lack of firearms and increased violent crime. Incidents such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and any weekend in Chicago will serve to remind us of just how unfortunately ineffective those “gun free zone” signs truly are.
.
Now, we have yet another bit of data to examine in the ever-present argument regarding guns and crime, and this one is a doozy.
.
“A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows during the time period 2007 to 2015, the percentage of adults with carry permits rose 190% and violent crime fell by 18%.
.
“The cut-off year is 2015 because it is ‘the last full year that crime data is available.’
.
“According to CPRC, from 2007 to 2015 the ‘murder rates fell from 5.6 [per 100,000] to 4.9 per 100,000. This represents a 12.5% drop.’ At the same time, ‘overall violent crime fell by 18 percent.’ And again, these drops are coinciding with a 190% increase in ‘the percentage of adults with permits.’
.
“This news comes in the same report in which the CPRC showed that the number of concealed carry permit holders ‘grew by a record 1.83 million’ in 2016. This beats the previous record of 1.73 million, set in 2015, and means ‘6.53% of American adults have permits.’ Moreover, ‘outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.’”
.
Once again, the evidence suggests that the United States is a much safer place when the 2nd Amendment remains unmolested by liberal lawmakers.
.
While this is common sense to many, the American political left has continued to implement their own bizarre gun rights infringements throughout the nation. How failed experiments in New York City and Chicago have somehow been unable to convince the left of their erroneous handgun stance is beyond comprehension.
.
Read More: Link Removed
.
My Thoughts:
.
As if everyone who has a CCW didn’t know these statistics, but it’s nice to see they are confirmed, so all of the anti-gun pukes can kiss my *****.

 

[badchad250]

Imagine that the criminals dont like people being able to defend themselves.....lmfao and lets us know for sure what we thought all along there sissies who like to pray on the old and weak... And also dont care for "fair fights"!!!!

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

 

[WanderingSol07]

I am pro gun advocate, I think everyone but bad guys should carry. I also work at a university (43 years) and have seen my share of 'bad' data. I visited the web page for the "Crime Prevention Research Center" and did not figure out where they get their data. I have looked at the FBI crime statistics and the CDC cause of death statistics. Here is what I have found:

On the fbi.gov site I found the table "Offenses Involving Weapon Use", "Offense Category" by "Type of Weapon/Force Involved, 2014". For all firearms it lists the number of homicides to be 2,443.

From the cdc.gov site I found the "National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 65 No. 4", "Table 18. Number of deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for injury deaths, by mechanism and intent of death: United States, 2014". In this table I found the number of firearm homicides to be 11,008.

So for two institutions I would trust to have an unbiased report they differ from each other by a factor of 5.

Not to say anyone is doing anything bad, wrong, or incomplete. As the FBI responded to me about the differences it is all in the methodology used to gather the information. The CDC requires a copy of all death certificates in the U.S. to be sent to them. The FBI says reporting by all police agencies is voluntary.

I suggest everyone take any statistics with doubt until you know how the information was gathered and the reputation of the organization disseminating the information.

In any case, my experiences lead me to believe that lawful gun carrying citizens are by far the most lawful and friendly people one can meet. Many positive experiences, no negative ones.

 

[BluesStringer]

I am pro gun advocate, I think everyone but bad guys should carry. I also work at a university (43 years) and have seen my share of 'bad' data. I visited the web page for the "Crime Prevention Research Center" and did not figure out where they get their data. I have looked at the FBI crime statistics and the CDC cause of death statistics. Here is what I have found:

On the fbi.gov site I found the table "Offenses Involving Weapon Use", "Offense Category" by "Type of Weapon/Force Involved, 2014". For all firearms it lists the number of homicides to be 2,443.

From the cdc.gov site I found the "National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 65 No. 4", "Table 18. Number of deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for injury deaths, by mechanism and intent of death: United States, 2014". In this table I found the number of firearm homicides to be 11,008.

So for two institutions I would trust to have an unbiased report they differ from each other by a factor of 5.

Not to say anyone is doing anything bad, wrong, or incomplete. As the FBI responded to me about the differences it is all in the methodology used to gather the information. The CDC requires a copy of all death certificates in the U.S. to be sent to them. The FBI says reporting by all police agencies is voluntary.

I suggest everyone take any statistics with doubt until you know how the information was gathered and the reputation of the organization disseminating the information.

In any case, my experiences lead me to believe that lawful gun carrying citizens are by far the most lawful and friendly people one can meet. Many positive experiences, no negative ones.

The CPRC is owned and operated by John Lott, an economist who has parlayed his economics education into statistical studies. While economics and statistics may not be identical, they overlap widely. My point being that Lott's methodology can be trusted as coming from someone highly educated in the study of numbers, but "highly educated" is not a synonym for "always right." His research has always been heavily challenged from (mostly) the left, anti-2A, anti-gun point of view, and some mistakes have been admitted to by Lott over the years. If asked about the apparent discrepancies you have found in his research, I'd be willing to bet my next pay check that he could/would explain them away effectively. At the very least, he could/would explain his methodology, and I'd also bet that he already has been thusly challenged and likewise already explained himself.

Drawing conclusive statistics about anything having to do with the numbers of guns, or of gun owners in America is impossible. Nobody knows what the base-line starting point is in either category. Every statistic asserted by Lott, the CDC, ATF, you name it, is based on estimates and assumptions that may not have any basis in fact whatsoever. It's the nature of the beast. If one is going to get into the gun-issues-statistics game, they necessarily know ahead of time that they will spend inordinate amounts of energy defending their findings. Lott is one of the more accessible and articulate researchers willing to engage in such defenses of his work. As such, finding instances where he does engage in debate about his methodology is exceedingly easy (YouTube, news shows, blogs etc.).

Bottom line, you're never going to find a definitive answer to the question of why there are such wide variances between any line-item of study having to do with guns. You have to read and/or listen to the researchers' own defenses of their methodology and decide for yourself which of them seem the most accurate to you. Or, alternatively, reject them all as not being relevant to the political equations their research is geared towards resolving. Lott is pro-gun. CDC, not so much. If you perceive partisan agenda in either or both of their findings, does it do any good in trying to justify or define for yourself what the Second Amendment really means? Or what specific rights it was intended to protect from government overreach? Does it matter what the true statistics are if you're clear in your own mind that rights are not dependent at all on statistics? None of it matters to me, though if I had to pick someone whose research I found more reliable than the rest, my pick would be John Lott and his blog, Link Removed.

Your own best employment of the powers of discernment God gave you is as close as you're ever going to get to definitive answers concerning any issue having to do with guns in America.

Blues

 

[Ringo]

Study: Concealed Permit Holders Among the Most Law-Abiding of Law-Abiding Citizens​

 

[badchad250]

Did i forget to mention im pro2a all the way.......by the way me and the wife both ccw legally.....im also all for constitutional carry... I believe like the old saying goes an armed society is a polite society...

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

 

[Ringo]

NYT Readers Get Upset When a Black Woman Gets a Gun - Breitbart​

 

[BluesStringer]

NYT Readers Get Upset When a Black Woman Gets a Gun - Breitbart​

I really don't like the basis Hawkins chose for that piece, and this is what I posted in the Comments Section to voice my objections.

I'm beyond happy to have Ms. Okafor carrying and campaigning for the right side of Second Amendment issues. Hopefully, she understands that she is really only campaigning for government abiding by restrictions placed upon it by the wider Constitution - all of them. In other words, I hope she's gone full-bore constitutional originalist and left the liberal/Democrat plantation in her rear view mirror. For me, this has exactly zero to do with her race. She either gets it, or she doesn't. She either has joined the constitutional liberty movement, or she hasn't, and for me, this is all that matters, politically-speaking, for every single reader here, every citizen, every Congress-critter, every judge and SCOTUS Justice, and every President. To the extent that any of them fail to support and campaign for every person's liberties, I don't need to hear about 'em, especially not as an "Oh look! A black woman who owns and carries a gun!" kind of proposition. I don't care what leftists think or do. They can't influence my thinking because I know what the Constitution says, and adherence to it is my only political demand of anybody advocating or working under its auspices.

Unless Ms. Okafor has adapted her political thinking to comport with the Constitution in full, this is a non-story for me, because a black woman engaging in any action or behavior is no more of a story for me than a white woman engaging in the same action(s) or behavior(s). If Ms. Okafor is really "on our side," "we" didn't win a black woman, "we" won a supporter of constitutional liberty, period. Couching this in racial terms plays directly into the liberal play-book of dividing us all down identity-politics lines.


​

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

Study: Concealed Permit Holders Among the Most Law-Abiding of Law-Abiding Citizens​

Where does Ringo really stand on this issue? He has made it clear that just because he links to an article that it is not because he agrees with it.

When you post a link to anything, without comment either for or against, the assumption is that you support/agree with the viewpoint you linked.

Your assumption is not correct as to fact, in form, use, or manner.

 

[XD40scinNC]

NYT Readers Get Upset When a Black Woman Gets a Gun - Breitbart​

Where does Ringo really stand on this issue? What are his feelings on blacks or women getting a gun? He has made it clear that just because he links to an article that it is not because he agrees with it.

When you post a link to anything, without comment either for or against, the assumption is that you support/agree with the viewpoint you linked.

Your assumption is not correct as to fact, in form, use, or manner.