need debate help - liberal friend discredits CCW stats

[Sven]

In a long running debate in another forum, a liberal friend discredits the stats showing lower crime in areas with CCW with the following:

...put briefly, there are many variables at play, and a statistically rigorous
analysis would control for the others before claiming to attribubte any
statistical significance to the presence (or lack thereof) of guns
specifically. and to claim causality would be even a step further than that
... that would be more or less impossible to demonstrate.

i didn't read those data/articles in any depth. maybe steve you can save me time and point out where, and if, such controls on other variables were
established. otherwise, there's really nothing there to discuss.

Could somebody help me show how these studies look at these controls? Help appreciated.

 

[RavenVT100]

Every time I get into a debate about CCW and crime, the subject of John Lott's credibility always comes up, and the anti-CCWers typically claim that anyone who would use John Lott's data in a debate deserves no respect whatsoever.

Being unfamiliar with any of Lott's books, I have never used any of his data in a debate, yet I am accused of doing so nonetheless whenever I bring up the issue of CCW and crime. I would be interested in more information pertaining to why people are saying that Lott has no credibility.

I don't know enough about the issues surrounding Lott to form a real opinion about it, but I am staunchly in the pro-CCW camp nevertheless.

 

[beerslurpy]

Most of the evidence is pretty thin since many of the states that implemented CCW did so in an environment that either already had low violent crime or had open carry.

In states with high violent crime and restrictive gun policies that went to CCW, the crime dropped from being significantly above the national average to being at or slightly below the average. This is what was observed in florida. In many of the mostly rural states where CCW was done, minimal changes were observed. It was always a downward trend, but usually a very small one.

The states/cities that have historically been the highest crime areas still have restrictive firearms policies in place and thus no CCW data can be had from them. Make DC a concealed carry area and see what happens. I bet you get a 40 percent drop in the murder rate in the first year. Lawful homicides (self defnese shootings) will probably rise a bit at first, but criminals will mostly just stop plying their trade.

 

[jefnvk]

If this isn't for a serious debate (just an argument between friends/co-workers/family/whatever) do what I do. Simply start questioning the credibility of every piece of anti-gun 'facts' that they quote. Simple fact is that neither of you are probably going to be swayed to the other's side by this simple conversation. Maybe though, it will show them how stupid their argument is, if you start to frustrate them the way they do to you.

Worst that'll happen is the conversation will end, and you'll have that load off your mind. (again, this is for informal arguments)

 

[Standing Wolf]

...put briefly, there are many variables at play, and a statistically rigorous analysis would control for the others before claiming to attribubte any statistical significance to the presence (or lack thereof) of guns specifically.

Your friend is right: there are many, many, many variables at work, which makes it impossible or nearly impossible for us to claim CCW drives down violent crime rates.

That saidâ„¢, there's no indication whatever CCW drives violent crime rates up, and some indication it may help drive them down. At this point, it's time to trot out the line, "If it saves just one life..."

Ultimately, CCW is about our civil rights, not the benefit of reducing violent crime rates.

 

[migoi]

Why be on the defensive?

Make the other person prove that ordinary, law-abiding citizens being able to carry concealed have been detrimental to their communities. My actions should only be restricted when they prove to be a detriment to others.

You could also hand your antagonist a copy of Mr. Lott's book and have them show you exactly which parts they think are poorly documented or controlled for.

migoi

 

[Sven]

Well... here is more of the thinking I come across - to help you guys understand where they are coming from. In regards to the shooting death at the heavy metal show this month, one friend said, in more colorful language "screw guns!" in the thread.

Obviously, the GUN didn't kill the guy, but my friends contend that because guns were made only to kill, they should be banned. A quote:

i think even you can admit that cars are more useful
then guns and accidents happen. these murders of
these people were made possible by a gun. had the
deranged fan been wielding a knife. i don't think it
would have been the slaughter this was.

So all citizens should hand in their guns?

 

[Graystar]

The best argument is simply that CCW has nothing to do about reducing crime, and everything to do with an individual defending himself at the moment he’s faced with a violent attack. That is the primary purpose of CCW.

Crime is affected by many factors, with the economy being one of the most important. Studies have been inconclusive. DC, which bans guns, has the highest violent crime rate. Florida, which has CCW, has the second highest violent crime rate. The only thing that can be said for certain is that neither banning guns nor CCW have a real effect on crime rates.

So concentrate your argument on the defense of the individual. Even if a city had nearly no crime to speak of, a person still has the right to defend his life against a violent attacker.

 

[RavenVT100]

Ah, Graystar, but when you bring up the "defense of an individual" tack the opposition will invariably gravitate towards the "fact" that martial arts are all an individual will ever need, and that if you put a gun into the hands of a woman, she will be disarmed and be shot by her own handgun. The conversaion has taken this direction so many different times with so many different people (at least with me) that I can basically predict when it's going to happen next.

 

[Telperion]

I prefer to avoid utilitarian arguments and would rather concentrate on the deontological thesis that we have a human right and moral duty to protect ourselves and loved ones. However, most antis do not understand either of these points; it's like you're speaking a different language to them.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

but my friends contend that because guns were made only to kill, they should be banned.

The last time I checked killing in the defense of yourself or others was still legal in this country. The best tool for the job has been and always will be a firearm until a phaser is invented. If guns were only made to kill and killing is always bad then why do police carry guns and the libs find it perfectly acceptable? Do they just wish to contract out their killin'?? :banghead:

 

[Sven]

I prefer to focus on things that can be debated somewhat objectively. I just found this site again:

http://www.gunfacts.info/index.html

Full of great FACTs. I prefer to let facts speak for themselves. From the facts embedded in our Country's founding documents, to crime statistics. This material is great - check out the chapter on CCW - very well presented.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Texas supplies the most detailed information regarding conviction numbers for both CHL holders and non-CHL. The stats can be found here.

If your anti-CCW penpal says, "Well, there would be 00.40% fewer crimes if Texas would repeal its concealed carry law!" ask her how many people apply for a license to commit a crime.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I have a good idea... I m in central kansas,,, we have no right to carry in kansas. Alternatively misourri has a right to carry, and concealed weapons permits. ONE BRIDGE, we can drive across it and park,,, on a friday night, or saturday night,,,,, KC has some GREAT night life,,, kc mo or kc ks, does he want to party in kansas, or in missouri,,,,, the same town,,, on opposite sides of the river, the crime rate is drastically different.
Send the sheep to party with me, and they can check out the difference betweenthe sheep, the sheep dogs, and the wolves, and decide for themselves

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

If there's an "incident" is it reported? Is it supposed to be?

How many prevented crimes are recorded?

I can see people not wanting to be involved with the police even with an attempted mugging, etc. But there's gotta be a number of people who would report it to do their bit to prevent something bad from happening to someone else.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Imho....

I think we're somewhat stuck - it's hard to prove why something didn't happen....

The anti's have the slight advantage of being able to lie and get away with it because the media and the sheeple prefer to think that banning a thing will solve the problem.

If your friend doesn't trust John Lott, you might want to check out the following, and some of the articles linked from it:

Ohioans for Concealed Carry Commentary

Even though he's part of the commentary, you need to look at the two Federal-level reports involved.

Press coverage has been limited....

 

[Graystar]

Ah, Graystar, but when you bring up the "defense of an individual" tack the opposition will invariably gravitate towards the "fact" that martial arts are all an individual will ever need, and that if you put a gun into the hands of a woman, she will be disarmed and be shot by her own handgun.

And that's when you slap them with data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which shows that self-defense with a gun is far more effective than without (1 in 5 injured defending with a gun, 1 in 2 injured defending without a gun) and is even better than complying with the offender (1 in 4 injured while complying.)

They can theorize all they want but they can’t argue with the federal government’s findings. And the NCVS is a yearly survey and considered a major crime indicator, like the FBI's UCR.

 

[goon]

This won't answer your question, but...

Run this scenario by him.

You get home early and walk into your house just as some guy is about to rape your wife. Do you want to have a cell phone in your hand or a SIG?

I did a search once and I found the average police response time to range very widely, but the closest estimate I could come up with was about 4 minutes. This is just about best case scenario.
An evil person can do alot of harm to someone you love in 4 minutes.
As for me, I'll choose the gun in the hand over the cop on the phone every time.

(No offense to any LEO's on here. It's just that you guys can't be everywhere all the time.)

Sometimes it comes down to more than numbers.

 

[RavenVT100]

And that's when you slap them with data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which shows that self-defense with a gun is far more effective than without (1 in 5 injured defending with a gun, 1 in 2 injured defending without a gun) and is even better than complying with the offender (1 in 4 injured while complying.)

Good call.

 

[mbs357]

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."
A saying my dad likes to say in these conversations.*
Take a look a Britain and DC. What are their stats on gun crime?

*Edit for wording.

 

[Art Eatman]

Anecdotal, but supportive of information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement: After Florida's CHL law went into effect, a CHL taxi driver shot a would-be bandit. Attempted robberies of taxis declined dramatically.

About that time, robberies of tourists leaving airports in rental cars increased (Florida tags indicate if a car is a rental) and robberies at Interstate rest areas increased. Questioning of suspects revealed that the possibility of encountering a CHL person in an attempted robbery scared the crooks. Tourists would be far less likely to be armed and thus were easier targets.

And, there was a steep decline in the violent crime rate, steeper than the national decline, very soon after the Florida CHL law was passed. This was publicized in the Tallahassee "Democrat", based on information from the FDLE.

As for gun control as any effective measure against crime, the work of Wright, Rossi and Daly in their 1985 work "Under The Gun" is a stand-alone reference. All that they have done later, as have Kleck and Lott, is use more recent and better data and on a more national level to support that seminal work.

Art

 

[Warren]

Gun control philosophy of living:

Be incompetent (refuse to learn how to use a certain tool),

Be ignorant, (refuse to learn the difference between certain types of tools and how they can help you)

Be afraid (that others are out there just waiting to hurt you),

Be dependent (becuase you cannot do anything to save your life or the lives of your loved ones).

Compared to:

Being skilled
Having knowledge
Owning the night
Being self-reliant

Ask him what type of person he wants to be.

The first type of person is what politicians need to stay in office, the other type frightens politicians who then try to make them into the first type.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

As much as the statistics support RKBA, it's not about statistics.

If YOU are attacked, do you want a gun or an empty hand?

Oh -- you're a pacifist?

O.K. then, if your DAUGHTER is attacked, do you want her to have a gun or an empty hand?

Your Liberal friend wants you to eliminate all other variables in statistics that show CCW reduces crime. Does your friend feel the same way about "evidence" of global warming or "evidence" that U.S. presence in Iraq causes terrorism?

 

[morganm01]

TURN THE DEBATE TOWARDS HIM HAVING TO PROVE THAT CCW INCREASES CRIME.

If he can't do that...you win. After all, if it doesn;t increase crime...why disallow it?

 

[antsi]

Well, yes, the idiot does have a point. If you wanted to have a strict well controlled experimental design, you would have to use random assignment or some other scheme that is utterly impossible in the context of CCW laws.

I love how the liberals will hold pro-gun statistics to an impossibly high standard, dismissing all but the most hard-core rigorous evidence. And then, when an anti-gun mouthpiece spouts off some kind of apocryphal nonsense like "5 out of 10 police officers on duty every day get killed with assault weapons," they just lap it up uncritically and accept it as gospel fact.

If he's going to nitpick the progun stats, you can nitpick the anti stats on much stronger grounds. Hold him to the same standard he's holding you to, and he won't have a leg to stand on.

If he will not accept any statistics except the most rigorously controlled research methodology, then those are the ground rules and he won't be able to go spouting off about British or Japanese crime rates or the % of suicides in gunowner homes, or any of those oft-quoted made-up numbers. And if he says he favors gun control for whatever reason or whatever effect, you can shoot right back at him, unless he presents rigorously controlled research evidence to prove the effects he's speculating, then he's just spouting off and again, "there's really nothing to discuss."