HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Concealed Carry Laws Don'...

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:48 AM

 

Concealed Carry Laws Don't Decrease Gun Violence -- But the NRA Continues to Say the Opposite

The NRA and its academic acolytes like John Lott have been tirelessly promoting the idea that guns protect us from crime, which is another way of saying that everyone should carry a gun, which is another way of saying that we should all buy more guns. And the proof that more guns equals less crime comes in the form of a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that over the past twenty years, violent crime, particularly gun crimes, have fallen by more than 50 percent. Since it's over the same two decades that every state has adopted some form of concealed carry weapons (CCW) law, the gun lobby argues that the reason we are a much safer country is because everyone's walking around with a gun. Now if we could get rid of those unhealthy gun-free zones, right?

Another, much more troublesome report was issued in January with data and conclusions that the NRA chooses to ignore. The report was based on a study of 6,300 patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center in Newark suffering from gunshot wounds between 2000 and 2011, a time when, according to the FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%, but since we're only talking about less than 60 dead bodies lying around, we'll leave that one alone.

Getting back to the gunshot wounds, the physicians who conducted the research found that the number of patients didn't significantly change, notwithstanding the alleged drop in gun violence everywhere else, and the severity of the wounds substantially increased. Despite the fact that Level 1 trauma centers utilize the most advanced life-saving skills imaginable, the mortality rate from gunshot wounds climbed from 9% to 14%, the number of spinal cord and brain injuries nearly doubled, and the incidence of multiple bullet wounds increased from 10% to nearly 25%.

The gun lobby could (and will) ignore these numbers were it not for the fact that the national picture for the trend gunshot wounds is roughly the same as what happened in Newark. According to the CDC, the rate of intentional gun injuries per 100,000 was 17.25 in 2000 and 17.83 in 2011, holding steady nationally just like the researchers in the case of Newark's University Hospital found over the same eleven years. That being the case, how does one reconcile those numbers with the BJS report that the NRA uses to bolster its claim of such a dramatic decrease in the criminal use of guns? The BJS report shows a decline in the gun homicide rate from 7 per 100,000 to less than 4 from 1993 to 2011, and a decline in nonfatal gun victimizations from above 7 per 1,000 persons to less than 2. So who's right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/concealed-carry-laws_b_5479055.html

38 replies, 2481 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Concealed Carry Laws Don't Decrease Gun Violence -- But the NRA Continues to Say the Opposite (Original post)
SecularMotion Jun 2014 OP
gejohnston Jun 2014 #1
jimmy the one Jun 2014 #3
gejohnston Jun 2014 #4
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2014 #6
Name removed Jun 2014 #38
DonP Jun 2014 #2
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2014 #5
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2014 #7
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #10
beevul Jun 2014 #13
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #14
beevul Jun 2014 #16
blueridge3210 Jun 2014 #18
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #20
hack89 Jun 2014 #26
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #29
hack89 Jun 2014 #30
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #31
hack89 Jun 2014 #32
beevul Jun 2014 #33
ileus Jun 2014 #8
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #11
Eleanors38 Jun 2014 #9
krispos42 Jun 2014 #12
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #15
blueridge3210 Jun 2014 #17
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #21
gejohnston Jun 2014 #22
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #25
gejohnston Jun 2014 #27
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #28
Jenoch Jun 2014 #36
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #37
blueridge3210 Jun 2014 #23
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #24
beevul Jun 2014 #19
krispos42 Jun 2014 #34
Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #35

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:14 AM

1. this study should have been ignored

Another, much more troublesome report was issued in January with data and conclusions that the NRA chooses to ignore. The report was based on a study of 6,300 patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center in Newark suffering from gunshot wounds between 2000 and 2011, a time when, according to the FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%, but since we're only talking about less than 60 dead bodies lying around, we'll leave that one alone.
The fact that the study focused only on one city in New Jersey invalidates the study. Why? New Jersey was one of the few states that did not liberalize concealed carry. Also, this is Newwark. We are talking gangs shooting each other, people not exactly inclined to a police station to fill out a form and asked to be fingerprinted, and innocents caught in the crossfire.

FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%
So, they are saying the FBI is wrong? Murder is a subset of violent crime. It is possible that rapes, armed robberies, etc dropped enough (since they are greater in number to begin with) to accommodate the 60 percent in murders and still have the lower rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:25 PM

3. try reading the entire article

Johnston: this study should have been ignored ... The fact that the study focused only on one city {Newark} in New Jersey invalidates the study. Why? New Jersey was one of the few states that did not liberalize concealed carry.

Did you bother to read the whole article, Johnston?

The gun lobby could (and will) ignore these numbers were it not for the fact that the national picture for the trend gunshot wounds is roughly the same as what happened in Newark.
According to the CDC, the rate of intentional gun injuries per 100,000 was 17.25 in 2000 and 17.83 in 2011, holding steady nationally just like the researchers in the case of Newark's University Hospital found over the same eleven years. That being the case, how does one reconcile those numbers with the BJS report that the NRA uses to bolster its claim of such a dramatic decrease in the criminal use of guns? The BJS report shows a decline in the gun homicide rate from 7 per 100,000 to less than 4 from 1993 to 2011, and a decline in nonfatal gun victimizations from above 7 per 1,000 persons to less than 2. So who's right?
They're both correct except that virtually the entire decline in gun violence occurred between 1993 and 2002, while since the latter date the gun violence rate, including both fatalities and injuries, has stabilized or slightly increased. This stabilization of the number of admissions for gun violence is exactly what was reported by the medical team at University Hospital in Newark, even while the severity and cost of injuries continues to climb.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/concealed-carry-laws_b_5479055.html

Also, gun ownership rates have fallen since the early 90's, in sync with the decline in murder rates & violent crime rates.
So it's more like 'LESS GUNS, LESS CRIME & MURDER RATES'

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to {GSS} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:50 PM

4. Yet according to the FBI, murders continue to decline

The NRA uses the FBI's numbers. Yes I read the entire article. I would like to read the entire study because I doubt Mike the "gun guy" is explaining it very ummm well. For example:

Getting back to the gunshot wounds, the physicians who conducted the research found that the number of patients didn't significantly change, notwithstanding the alleged drop in gun violence everywhere else, and the severity of the wounds substantially increased. Despite the fact that Level 1 trauma centers utilize the most advanced life-saving skills imaginable, the mortality rate from gunshot wounds climbed from 9% to 14%, the number of spinal cord and brain injuries nearly doubled, and the incidence of multiple bullet wounds increased from 10% to nearly 25%.
Which has what to do with the number of guns or concealed carry? While worthy of study, it doesn't support their overall thesis. It might actually undermine it.

I also would like to see the raw data from this study. MD's pretending to be criminologists while funded by Bloomberg, not something I'm going to take at face value.

Gallup has been asking do you have any guns since 1960. They report 51 percent in 1993, 34 percent in 1998, and 43 percent in 2012. There are a lot of possible reasons for that. Also, most murders and violent crimes, per capita and raw numbers, are in places where legal gun ownership is not common if possible.

So it's more like 'LESS GUNS, LESS CRIME & MURDER RATES'
it is more like cum hoc ergo propter hoc, assuming there is such a correlation. I seriously doubt there is since there are more guns, not fewer guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:41 PM

6. ...and so do aggravated assaults (which cover nonlethal gunshot wounds)

 

It's not the NRA that says this, but the FBI.

For those more inclined to believe doctors at one urban hospital and
a writer with an agenda:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #3)


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:20 AM

2. Must be back breaking work to discredit the FBI under Eric Holder

 

Funny how the gun control progressive's here seem to overlook who's running the FBI that they don't want to listen to.

You'd almost think their hatred of guns and gun owners over rides any political principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:49 PM

7. Holder is something of a Renaissance man- he simultaneously fought off NRA...

 

...attempts to oust him during Fast And Furious while at the same time
allowing them to manipulate crime statistics to show murder and aggravated assault rates declining drastically over the past twenty years or so.

Or so some of our more overheated posters would have us believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 12:12 PM

10. "You'd almost think their hatred of guns and gun owners over rides any political principles."?

I saw nothing that indicated a "hatred of guns and gun owners". Did I miss something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 07:01 PM

13. Oh, come now.

 

It is crystal clear that there exists a subset of the population that hates guns.

They've been around since before Clinton was President.

Can you really say with a strait face, that there is no overlap with that subset, and the subset that demands more and more gun control, and then truly expect anyone to believe it?

You'd have better luck trying to sell Arizona oceanfront property.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:14 PM

14. Of course it exists, but not in the OP or this thread.

When one side starts using words like hatred, then there is little room for discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:31 PM

16. Did someone say it existed in this thread?

 

Its pretty clear who Don was referring to, and when he said "here" It appears he was referring to "on DU".

"When one side starts using words like hatred, then there is little room for discussion."

But "second amendment absolutists" "gun nuts" Gun humpers" "ammosexuals" and the like, are just peachy, and leave plenty of room for discussion, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:36 PM

18. Of course

 

Because there is nothing controversial about those terms at all. Do I need a "sarcasm" tag?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:33 AM

20. Did you see any of those statements in this thread?

Or do we have to revert to insults in every thread to prove we are not interested in civilized discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:01 AM

26. Do you agree that there is no place on DU for those terms?

Why do we never see grabbers confronting those that use such terms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:17 AM

29. "grabbers" LOL

Do you ever read what you write?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #29)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:25 AM

30. So you see my point

Choice of words can derail meaningful conversation. I understand that cultural wars and not meaningful dialog motivate most anti-gun posters here but even you should understand how two faced it is to vilify gun owners on one hand and demand our cooperation on the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:36 AM

31. Why are you telling me this?

I don't use words like "grabbers" or "banners".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:18 PM

32. You enable those that use worse insults

Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

The day I see so call reasonable gun controllers confront Hoyt, Jpak and the host of others that use vile broadbrush slanders against legal gun owners is the day I will take them seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 02:03 PM

33. Yup.

 

If pro-gun posters are responsible every time theres a school shooting, or other gun crime, why aren't you responsible every time an anti-gunner insults demeans and vilifies us?

Sauce for the goose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:53 PM

8. Thanks for the info, but I'll continue to carry my PSD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 12:30 PM

11. Me too! In fact, I carry two.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:07 PM

9. Old argument, same response:

 

The RKBA ain't social policy, one way or t'other.
It is a choice Americans take or don't take as they see fit, under the Constitution. If the practice lowers the crime rate, fine. My decision is unaffected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 06:39 PM

12. Another steaming pile, I see



It's pretty simple... if the primary reason gunshot-related murder was down was that we had better medicine and faster response times (due to widespread cell phone coverage and usage), then the violent crime rate and the aggravated assault rate would stay roughly flat.

Same number of people shot, but fewer deaths (homicides) and more survivors (attempted homicides).

BUT, as we can CLEARLY see from the FBI stats (above), ALL crime indicators have been falling proportionally. The tracks are parallel, or nearly so; only one line (motor vehicle theft rate) crosses another (aggravated assault rate). Once.


With only a couple of percentage points of the population having CCW permits, and even fewer carrying on a regular basis (which, I believe, is your goal anyway), OF COURSE it's not going to have a noticeable impact on the crime levels, either raising or lowering them.


You fight hard to make owning guns, much less carrying concealed guns, a social issue, a reason to shame and shun a person, then act jaw-droppingly surprised when only a relative handful of people do so and it doesn't change anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:26 PM

15. It's not just about stats and "crime levels"

Lot more about inappropriate behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:35 PM

17. Who gets to determine

 

What is "inappropriate" behavior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:41 AM

21. Every one of us, when we examine our behavior.

Sometimes, as humans, we over-react to situations. Maybe we decide to carry concealed weapons everywhere we go out of unrealistic fear of our fellow humans. Carrying a weapon for sound reasons may well be appropriate. Carrying one, especially in an urban environment, just because it is a so-called right, is not. But that's for each individual to figure out for themselves.
It's called "reality testing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 01:23 AM

22. especially in an urban environment

why not in an urban environment? You are more likely to need it in the city than in rural areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:50 AM

25. Maybe, but it's not all about you

Much more chance of collateral damage in an urban environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:07 AM

27. when it comes to collateral damage,

perhaps cops should be expected to go to the range as often or more than the average "gun nut". At most a big city cop might go to the range twice a year and fire 40 rounds each time. I do at least 100 rounds every other week, and I don't carry. I went every week before I went into the military, when it was easier to get a CCW in Germany, Canada, and California than it was in Wyoming.
Statistically, cops shoot more innocents than CCW holders, and are held to a lower legal standard than a non LE. LAPD for example. Those cops probably still have their badges and guns, even though the violated department policy. Either one of us would be in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:16 AM

28. I've never supported cops carrying guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:27 PM

36. I am quite sure you could not find a cop in the U.S. that would agree with you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #36)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:35 PM

37. I doubt that. But I'm sure there are very few.

Columbo was not a real cop, I know.

Fortunately, the US is not the world.

BTW, my view on cops being armed or not isn't absolute. There are times when it is wise for them to be armed and I think they should have weapons available for such occasions. But the routine carry of sidearms is not IMO, good practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 07:33 AM

23. Our behavior or others behavior?

 

Most of the comments I've seen regarding public carry has been directed at the action of others. No, I'm not talking about this thread but on the subject in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:46 AM

24. We all have the right to comment on any behavior.

Whether that behavior is appropriate or not is ultimately up to the individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:15 PM

19. "inappropriate".

 

"Inappropriate" is one half of "arbitrary and capricious".

For the other half, see "second amendment absolutists" "gun nuts" Gun humpers" "ammosexuals" and the like.

I trust you can do the math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 03:55 PM

34. Which is a subjective term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:12 PM

35. Absolutely! Same as introspection.

It's your life. You decide what's appropriate or not and you live with the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread