In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

WASH:Concealed handgun laws don't curb crime

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited August 2003 in General Discussion
Concealed handgun laws don't curb crime



MIAMI, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- A new study finds no support to the notion that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime.

Proponents of right-to-carry laws argue that such laws reduce violent crime because criminals know that potential victims might be armed.

But a study published Thursday in Criminology & Public Policy by Thomas Kovandzic of the University of Alabama and Thomas Marvel of JUSTEC Research say that doesn't hold water.

In a study of Florida's right-to-carry law they found that in 12 years of existence few people have taken advantage of the law. Only 2.1 percent of the Florida adult population has bohered to get a license to carry a handgun.

They further speculate that the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be canceled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own.

Kovandzic and Marvell conclude "there may be numerous reasons for state policymakers to support RTC (right-to-carry) laws, but the belief that these laws reduce crime should not be one of them."

Commenting on the results of the study John J. Donohue of Stanford University called it "the final bullet in the body of the more guns, less crime hypothesis."
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030815-042057-6294r.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Comments

  • chappsynychappsyny Member Posts: 3,381 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Josey1
    ...the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be canceled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own...


    Since when do criminals bother to get CCW's? Conspicuously absent is any imperical data asside from the 2.1% figure. It's 12% here in NH. Sounds like a pretty good deterent to me.

    New Hampshire, USA - "Live Free or Die!!!"
  • kgnovumkgnovum Member Posts: 594 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • bigal125bigal125 Member Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Now, I don't know this for a fact but, it seems to me that they might have misplaced that decimal point a little too far to the left!

    JMHO, y'know...

    Big Al
  • snarlgardsnarlgard Member Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Josey1


    They further speculate that the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be canceled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own.

    And what state will let a criminal aquire a permit. NONE
    The way they want to write the laws will make us all criminal just for owning a gun.
    As for "potential criminals" just who decides who will in the future be a criminal and with what rational will they explain there non-exantant look into the future

    Lt. snarlgard RRG
    SMILE...MAKE EM WONDER WHAT YOUR UP TO[}:)]
    fcb9874f.jpg.thumb.jpgfc21ef6c.gif
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    A few holes in that argument there:

    1) The excessive us of the words "may" and "might." "Criminals MIGHT use CCL laws to acquire their own concealed weapons." Sure and I just MIGHT be the King of China. "Might" is not "is." People are confusing speculation for fact.

    2) Florida is not the best place to study. A lot of its adult population is elderly, a segment of the population not known for its gun owning habits.

    3)The study makes no mention of crime rates. They speculate a lot, but there are no hard numbers. Even if only 2.1% of the adult population got a CCL, what if violent crime dropped 4.2%? That's a 100% return on that particular investment.

    4) They made the mistake of assuming that correlation is causation... with the exception that their correlation of "only 2.1% of adults" supported their wholly-unsubstantiated causation "it doesn't reduce crime." (see #3 above)

    Al in all, sounds like another couple of professional intellectuals with an agenda. And since the evidence on hand wouldn't support their hypothesis, they chose to ignore it.
  • cpilericpileri Member Posts: 447 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I believe their statistics came from the oft cited PIDOOMA study.
    They use that one alot for their info.
    C-

    ___________________________
    God, Guts, and Guns: keeping America Strong for 200 years.
    (sig about Clinton's talk show changed, though I thought it was pretty creative without overt vulgarity)
  • mballaimballai Member Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    CCW is for protecting those who are attacked. Same with LE, it only goes into effect in response to crime. Both come into play under reactive circumstances. Of course, the nitwits who come up with studies like this never ask criminals where they would like to work. Do the math in cities like Chicago or Washington DC.



    Three Precious Metals: Gold, silver and lead
Sign In or Register to comment.