[Brett Bellmore]

The latest effort to dismiss "More Guns, Less Crime":

The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID431220_code030804570.pdf?abstractid=431220)
John J. Donohue
Stanford Law School

Cocky, ain't he? He's measuring his fish before he lands it, IMO; I'll be interested to see Lott's response.

[MicroBalrog]

Donohue. 'nuff said.

[Ironbarr]

The bottom line is that recent work by Kovandzic and Marvell confirms the growing consensus that the best evidence does not support the thesis that adoption of RTC laws reduces crime. Who are these people? Where is their "recent work"???

Well, at least he didn't cite Belisles.

-Andy

[whitebear]

Referenced on web page Criminology and Public Policy (http://www.criminologyandpublicpolicy.com/policyflash/PolicyFlash.php), Kovandzic and Marvell have published a study called "Right-to- Carry Concealed Handguns: Crime Control through Gun Decontrol?", in which they reveal that the 1987 passage of Florida's RTC law appears to have had no statistically significant effect on violent crime.

However, according to WWW.DISASTERCENTER.COM (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm), the Florida crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants is down in EVERY CATEGORY since the enactment of the 1987 concealed carry laws.

Interesting interpretation by Kovandzic and Marvell... while Florida's population increased by about 32%, the rates of all crimes decreased by percentages ranging from 7% to over 52% - but this is not statistically significant. Violent crimes decreased 20.73%, Property Crimes 34.71%, Murder 50.88%, Forcible Rape 11.95%, Robbery 44.20%, Aggravated Assault 7.11%, Burgulary 52.07%, Larceny 28.65% and Vehicle Theft 17.54%, yet these values are not statistically significant.

Lies, $#@%^$ Lies, and Statistics...

[Futo Inu]

There was never a first bullet.

A. Lott never said RTC reduces "crime". He said (correctly) that RTC reduces VIOLENT crime dramatically, while increasing property crime, thus leaving the overall crime rate about the same. Apparently, RTC laws cause thieves to engage in more non-confrontational thefts instead of robberies, etc. (substitution crimes), and caused general violent crime to decline dramatically, including rape, murder, and aggravated assault.

B. Law school journals and authors who write articles for them are NOT experts in statistics/regression and quantitative analysis. I don't see any respective statistics journals attacking Lott (they can't - his work is impeccable and unassailable).

[dandean316]

I don't care if it reduces crime, reduces voilent crime or makes the streets safer. I know carrying makes ME safer.

[geekWithA.45]

It doesn't matter which way the statistical wind blows, or who's got the tightest study this week.

The right to be armed is the foundation of all other rights, it is founded in my very right to exist.

[No4Mk1]

The right to be armed is the foundation of all other rights, it is founded in my very right to exist.

And that is the point. Interestingly, I have seen Lott speak in person, and he openly states that he is not interested in debating or discussing RKBA as a legal or constitutional issue. All he cares to discuss are the statistics of the matter.

In my opinion, if you get hung up on the statistics of the debate then you have lost the core of the issue.... This is true on any issue of liberty. Statistics are irrelevant when it comes to the natural rights of man. Either these rights exist, or they do not.

[Ironbarr]

Hear! Hear!

[morganm01]

Another good point that is made in TBAG (no pun intended) is that even if these counter (lies)arguments were true, the concealed carry laws do nothing to INCREASE violent crime, so why not allow them?

[AZRickD]

That is one of Lott's arguments. I paraphrase, "The opposition is left only to say that RTC laws do not reduce crime as much as the study says it does..."

Moreover, the Donohue and the rest would like to suggest that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms depends on the results of a cost-benefit analysis. They don't, no more than the right to free speech could be diminished because a study shows that comedians cause confusion in the electorate.

Donohue and the rest of the banners (guns, drugs, tobacco, etc) seem to believe in what some call the "Utilitarian theory" of rights. That is, if they can prove that some right does X% harm vs. Y% good, they get to remove that right from society. The Utilitarians being the control freaks that they are get to determine what ratio X and Y are. 2% harm could be too high for them.

Rick

[Leatherneck]

WOW! Great summation of the arguments in the last half-dozen or so posts. We need to get those combined into a poster or white paper on RKBA. Good job, guys.

TC
TFL Survivor

[MicroBalrog]

In my opinion, if you get hung up on the statistics of the debate then you have lost the core of the issue.... This is true on any issue of liberty. Statistics are irrelevant when it comes to the natural rights of man. Either these rights exist, or they do not.

You don't understand, do you?

The sheeple care nothing about your rights. The politicians don't.

No matter what the 2A says, as long as the cultural war on guns isn't won, you will continue losing your gun rights. The only way to win it is to prove that the pseudo-statistical assertion of the MMM/KKK is wrong. You must, as Harry Browne put it, be a salesman. You must sell the benefits of freedom. If you win the cultural war, then in 20 years you will have pro-gun Hollywierd actors and SCOTUS judges. But you must remember, that the battlefield is a cultural one. Simply stating "it's my right" won't cut it.