Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Here is an article LL that says what you refuse to accept.

The economics of crime: Analysis suggests concealed handguns deter criminals, BU prof says
By Ingrid Husisian
December 2001


When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.

That’s the socially controversial finding of Binghamton University economist Florenz Plassmann and his collaborator, who used the principles of supply and demand to analyze crime rates.

Plassmann’s premise was detailed in an article in the October 2001 issue of Journal of Law and Economics. The article, “Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crime? Only a Count Analysis Can Say,” was written by Plassmann and T. Nicolaus Tideman, who was Plassmann’s dissertation adviser at Virginia Tech.

Plassmann’s assertion isn’t the first of its ilk, but it is something of a surprise to him, he admits. In a 1997 book More Guns, Less Crime, economist John Lott similarly analyzed the relationship between the right to carry concealed handguns and the crime rate. Lott was the first to use economic principles to suggest that concealed weapons have a clear deterrent effect. If more people carry concealed handguns, crime decreases, his study showed.

Plassmann, an assistant professor of economics, says he was certain that a re-examination of Lott’s work would find Lott’s methodology questionable and his conclusions mistaken, he said.

“I believed guns would increase crime,” he said. “I had just finished a dissertation analyzing data similar to Lott’s. His data are ‘count data’ (non-negative integers), which means that you cannot have a negative number of murders, or 2.5 robberies. If you analyze such data with standard methods, you are likely to get erroneous estimates. Because Lott had ignored this, I thought that I had a valid reason not to trust his results.”

When Plassmann contacted Lott about his concerns, Lott turned his data over to Plassmann and encouraged him to re-examine the methodology and attempt to replicate the results.

“I did my own analysis,” Plassmann said. “To my surprise, it suggests that the right to carry concealed handguns does deter crime. Lott’s analysis has been criticized because his findings are not very stable, but our results are much more robust.

“To emphasize that a statistical analysis is valid only if the statistical model fits the data, we included a little play on words in the title of our article: Because crimes are ‘countable,’ you must examine them with a ‘count’ analysis, and not with standard methods,” he added.

Plassmann and Lott are now working together on related research. They are writing a paper that examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The concept of viewing crime through an economic lens actually stems from the work of Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Plassmann said.

“We can see crime as the outcome of supply and demand,” he noted. “If all potential victims are unarmed, crime is easy and, therefore, inexpensive. However, if potential victims are armed, crime becomes more difficult and expensive.”

From the “demand” perspective, when the cost of preventing crime becomes more expensive then the “demand” to commit it, the more likely society is to let another crime happen, Plassmann said.

As a researcher, Plassmann doesn’t advocate for or argue against carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.

“I think all this analysis can do is suggest that the theory ‘More guns will cause more crime’ is probably not correct in this simple form,” he said
A Publication of the Division of Research at Binghamton University
State University of New York
Contacts: Susan E. Barker, 777-2640 or sbarker@binghamton.edu
Ashok Subramanian, 777-6135, or ashoks@binghamton.edu

http://research.binghamton.edu/discovere/December2001/Top_story5.htm

There is nothing to refute in this article because this article does not say what you are saying Lilwolf, this article says two things:

Quote: When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.
..............
More guns will cause more crime is probably not correct in this simple form.

Very few people carry concealed handguns and their actions can only have a totally insignificant effect on the level of crime.

I have no idea who would claim that more guns would cause more crime, I see regularly anti gun control propaganda claiming wrongly that more guns result to less crime but I never seen a pro gun control argument put forward claiming that less guns would cause less crime. More and better gun control doesn't mean less crime either, it means less of the most heinous of all crimes, murder, when a murder rate is too high and more than often with guns.

:-D
:-D

[The Newb]

Quote: Very few people carry concealed handguns and their actions can only have a totally insignificant effect on the level of crime.

i do and look at this fact if you do not know who may or may not be carrying a gun do you really want to risk your life trying to commit a crime against that person?

also you are right now under most state laws allowed to use your gun to prevent a violent crime from happening to another person as a last resort so yes as the anti gun law people dwindle more people will carry without worry of being looked down apon will have a great impact on crime

[evil muppet]

No, what you have done is throw out some anecdotal evidence and then proudly proclaimed that you carried the day.

again with the DC and Richmond schpeel. You should really drop that before someone decides to really look at that and finds something that embarasses the hell out of you.

[Lucky Luke]

The Newb wrote: Quote: Very few people carry concealed handguns and their actions can only have a totally insignificant effect on the level of crime.

i do and look at this fact if you do not know who may or may not be carrying a gun do you really want to risk your life trying to commit a crime against that person?

also you are right now under most state laws allowed to use your gun to prevent a violent crime from happening to another person as a last resort so yes as the anti gun law people dwindle more people will carry without worry of being looked down apon will have a great impact on crime

It appears that in states and cities where carry concealed is very popular, the level of crimes is similar than in other states and cities where carry concealed is not. Most crimes have nothing to do with guns as they are property crimes and for the minority of crimes, the violent crimes to a person, they are committed by a criminal who either know the victim and know when to attack or either doesn't know the victim and makes sure than he/she has enough firepower to attack and won't hesitate to shoot first and to shoot to kill.

The only impact that one could imagine if the vast majority of people would decide to carry concealed is that the number of minor violent crimes to a person would greatly diminish but the number of the most violent crimes like murders would increase further like it did in the 80's and 90's when handguns became the trend in America.
However this would never happen as the number of gun owners in America is in constant decline.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

evil muppet wrote: No, what you have done is throw out some anecdotal evidence and then proudly proclaimed that you carried the day.

again with the DC and Richmond schpeel. You should really drop that before someone decides to really look at that and finds something that embarasses the hell out of you.

What anecdotal evidence are you on about Evil Muppet?

I found it interesting that you are one of those who still can't accept the fact that Richmond, Virginia has now for two years running a higher murder rate than Washington, DC.
You would be astonished to learn that the murder rate in Washington, DC is still going down while the murder rate of Richmond, Virginia is still going up.

I am certainly not embarrassed about those facts but are you Evil Muppet or are you going to keep on denying those facts?

:-D
:-D

[The Newb]

Quote: The only impact that one could imagine if the vast majority of people would decide to carry concealed is that the number of minor violent crimes to a person would greatly diminish but the number of the most violent crimes like murders would increase further like it did in the 80's and 90's when handguns became the trend in America.

really at the same time guns were demonized they should never have been it is the way of thinking that should be demonized the people that were victimized were the "law abiding" ones who were told guns were bad more criminals carried than "law abiding" people if guns were not demonized carry and conceal would take a different turn on crime

[Lucky Luke]

The Newb wrote: Quote: The only impact that one could imagine if the vast majority of people would decide to carry concealed is that the number of minor violent crimes to a person would greatly diminish but the number of the most violent crimes like murders would increase further like it did in the 80's and 90's when handguns became the trend in America.

really at the same time guns were demonized they should never have been it is the way of thinking that should be demonized the people that were victimized were the "law abiding" ones who were told guns were bad more criminals carried than "law abiding" people if guns were not demonized carry and conceal would take a different turn on crime

I don't see any victimisation here except for the people murdered at an insane rate. American gun lovers cannot only be law abiding citizens but can also be pro gun control laws in order to show that they do not agree that guns should be misused to such insane level.

The British gun lovers were the first ones to ask for tougher gun control laws after a massacre in Scotland because they wanted to make sure that they were not to be confused with some gun nutters.

Guns are not demonized in today's western culture, to the contrary there is a constant glorification of guns by the American media all over the world. Anyway I can't see how one or the other would change anything to carry and conceal taking a different turn on crime.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Here is an article LL that says what you refuse to accept.

The economics of crime: Analysis suggests concealed handguns deter criminals, BU prof says
By Ingrid Husisian
December 2001


When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.

That’s the socially controversial finding of Binghamton University economist Florenz Plassmann and his collaborator, who used the principles of supply and demand to analyze crime rates.

Plassmann’s premise was detailed in an article in the October 2001 issue of Journal of Law and Economics. The article, “Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crime? Only a Count Analysis Can Say,” was written by Plassmann and T. Nicolaus Tideman, who was Plassmann’s dissertation adviser at Virginia Tech.

Plassmann’s assertion isn’t the first of its ilk, but it is something of a surprise to him, he admits. In a 1997 book More Guns, Less Crime, economist John Lott similarly analyzed the relationship between the right to carry concealed handguns and the crime rate. Lott was the first to use economic principles to suggest that concealed weapons have a clear deterrent effect. If more people carry concealed handguns, crime decreases, his study showed.

Plassmann, an assistant professor of economics, says he was certain that a re-examination of Lott’s work would find Lott’s methodology questionable and his conclusions mistaken, he said.

“I believed guns would increase crime,” he said. “I had just finished a dissertation analyzing data similar to Lott’s. His data are ‘count data’ (non-negative integers), which means that you cannot have a negative number of murders, or 2.5 robberies. If you analyze such data with standard methods, you are likely to get erroneous estimates. Because Lott had ignored this, I thought that I had a valid reason not to trust his results.”

When Plassmann contacted Lott about his concerns, Lott turned his data over to Plassmann and encouraged him to re-examine the methodology and attempt to replicate the results.

“I did my own analysis,” Plassmann said. “To my surprise, it suggests that the right to carry concealed handguns does deter crime. Lott’s analysis has been criticized because his findings are not very stable, but our results are much more robust.

“To emphasize that a statistical analysis is valid only if the statistical model fits the data, we included a little play on words in the title of our article: Because crimes are ‘countable,’ you must examine them with a ‘count’ analysis, and not with standard methods,” he added.

Plassmann and Lott are now working together on related research. They are writing a paper that examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The concept of viewing crime through an economic lens actually stems from the work of Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Plassmann said.

“We can see crime as the outcome of supply and demand,” he noted. “If all potential victims are unarmed, crime is easy and, therefore, inexpensive. However, if potential victims are armed, crime becomes more difficult and expensive.”

From the “demand” perspective, when the cost of preventing crime becomes more expensive then the “demand” to commit it, the more likely society is to let another crime happen, Plassmann said.

As a researcher, Plassmann doesn’t advocate for or argue against carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.

“I think all this analysis can do is suggest that the theory ‘More guns will cause more crime’ is probably not correct in this simple form,” he said
A Publication of the Division of Research at Binghamton University
State University of New York
Contacts: Susan E. Barker, 777-2640 or sbarker@binghamton.edu
Ashok Subramanian, 777-6135, or ashoks@binghamton.edu

http://research.binghamton.edu/discovere/December2001/Top_story5.htm

There is nothing to refute in this article because this article does not say what you are saying Lilwolf, this article says two things:

Quote: When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.
..............
More guns will cause more crime is probably not correct in this simple form.

Very few people carry concealed handguns and their actions can only have a totally insignificant effect on the level of crime.

I have no idea who would claim that more guns would cause more crime, I see regularly anti gun control propaganda claiming wrongly that more guns result to less crime but I never seen a pro gun control argument put forward claiming that less guns would cause less crime. More and better gun control doesn't mean less crime either, it means less of the most heinous of all crimes, murder, when a murder rate is too high and more than often with guns.

:-D
:-D


Then why are you so hell bent in your obsession to impose your version of gun control on us. It says right there in the highlights that you are wroong. You have said many times in various ways that guns cause crime. You have also said in various ways that more guns makes more crime. You also said in various ways that if people gave up guns then crime would go down. You are full of it. It is not working in various places LL. So what are you actually wanting to see?

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:

Then why are you so hell bent in your obsession to impose your version of gun control on us. It says right there in the highlights that you are wroong. You have said many times in various ways that guns cause crime. You have also said in various ways that more guns makes more crime. You also said in various ways that if people gave up guns then crime would go down. You are full of it. It is not working in various places LL. So what are you actually wanting to see?

The gun control version found in New York, DC or California is fine and very American Lilwolf, why not applying it all over? You are wrong Lilwolf.

I have never stated that guns cause crime, read my signature Lilwolf. You are wrong Lilwolf, again.

I have never stated that more guns makes more crime, read my posts Lilwolf. You are wrong Lilwolf, again.

I have never stated that if people gave up guns then crime would go down, Lilwolf you are now just making it up. You are wrong Lilwolf, again.

I am waiting to see if you can tell us why and how guns deter criminals when criminals in America are using guns like in no other western democratic modern countries.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Gun deter criminals and save lives and that is a fact. If a bad guy has no idea whether a person is packing a gun they are less likely to go for a victim. In other words they think about committing the crime. It is not 100% effective but nothing is. Professor John Lott offered the following evidence:

Given the horrific crimes committed with guns, such opposition is understandable. But much of the public policy debate on guns is driven by lopsided news coverage that mentions only the crimes committed with guns. Usually ignored are the over 2 million times each year that Americans use guns defensively. Dramatic stories of mothers who use guns to stop carjackers from kidnapping their children seldom even make the local news.

Police play an extremely important role in reducing crime, though they virtually always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. The question is what would-be victims should do when they must face a criminal by themselves. Passive behavior, particularly for women, is not the wisest course of action. The probability of serious injury from a criminal confrontation is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Allowing people to defend themselves also deters criminals from attacking in the first place.
Guns enable "bad guys" to kill more easily, but they also allow the innocent to defend themselves.
To provide a more systematic answer, I published a book on gun control that analyzed FBI crime statistics for all 3,054 American counties from 1977 to 1994 as well as extensive information on accidental gun deaths and suicides. The study examined states that changed from discretionary to objective concealed-handgun laws. Thirty-one states now have these "right-to-carry" rules.

The findings were dramatic. The more people who obtain permits over time, the more violent crime rates decline. After concealed handgun laws have been in effect for five years, murders declined by at least 15 percent, rapes by 9 percent and robberies by 11 percent. These are the drops over and above the recent national declines and after such things as changing arrest and conviction rates, demographics, and other gun-control laws have been accounted for. The reductions in violent crime are greatest in the most crime-prone, most urban areas. Women and blacks gained by far the most from this ability to protect themselves.

The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them or use them in self-defense. That these weapons are concealed keeps criminals uncertain as to whether potential victims will be able to defend themselves with lethal force.

What about the concern in DFL's ad about "allowing virtually anyone to carry a concealed gun"? The evidence in other states indicates that those willing to go through the permit process are extremely law-abiding. Permits are revoked for any reason very rarely, and most of these revocations have nothing to do with improper use of a firearm.

Concerns that permit holders would shoot others after traffic accidents or angry-drivers-cut-off-in-traffic shootings have proven unfounded. Despite millions of people now holding permits and some states having issued permits for as long as 60 years, only one permit holder has ever used a concealed handgun after a traffic accident, and that case involved self-defense.

No permit holders have ever shot at, let alone killed, a police officer; instead, permit holders have on occasion saved the lives of police officers who were being attacked by criminals. I found no evidence that concealed handgun laws caused either accidental gun deaths or suicides to increase.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/Lott5.html

[lilwolf]

Iwould venture to say that if a bad guy comes into this reality the life was just saved with a gun

[private_citizen]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Here is an article LL that says what you refuse to accept.

The economics of crime: Analysis suggests concealed handguns deter criminals, BU prof says
By Ingrid Husisian
December 2001


When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.

That’s the socially controversial finding of Binghamton University economist Florenz Plassmann and his collaborator, who used the principles of supply and demand to analyze crime rates.

Plassmann’s premise was detailed in an article in the October 2001 issue of Journal of Law and Economics. The article, “Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crime? Only a Count Analysis Can Say,” was written by Plassmann and T. Nicolaus Tideman, who was Plassmann’s dissertation adviser at Virginia Tech.

Plassmann’s assertion isn’t the first of its ilk, but it is something of a surprise to him, he admits. In a 1997 book More Guns, Less Crime, economist John Lott similarly analyzed the relationship between the right to carry concealed handguns and the crime rate. Lott was the first to use economic principles to suggest that concealed weapons have a clear deterrent effect. If more people carry concealed handguns, crime decreases, his study showed.

Plassmann, an assistant professor of economics, says he was certain that a re-examination of Lott’s work would find Lott’s methodology questionable and his conclusions mistaken, he said.

“I believed guns would increase crime,” he said. “I had just finished a dissertation analyzing data similar to Lott’s. His data are ‘count data’ (non-negative integers), which means that you cannot have a negative number of murders, or 2.5 robberies. If you analyze such data with standard methods, you are likely to get erroneous estimates. Because Lott had ignored this, I thought that I had a valid reason not to trust his results.”

When Plassmann contacted Lott about his concerns, Lott turned his data over to Plassmann and encouraged him to re-examine the methodology and attempt to replicate the results.

“I did my own analysis,” Plassmann said. “To my surprise, it suggests that the right to carry concealed handguns does deter crime. Lott’s analysis has been criticized because his findings are not very stable, but our results are much more robust.

“To emphasize that a statistical analysis is valid only if the statistical model fits the data, we included a little play on words in the title of our article: Because crimes are ‘countable,’ you must examine them with a ‘count’ analysis, and not with standard methods,” he added.

Plassmann and Lott are now working together on related research. They are writing a paper that examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The concept of viewing crime through an economic lens actually stems from the work of Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Plassmann said.

“We can see crime as the outcome of supply and demand,” he noted. “If all potential victims are unarmed, crime is easy and, therefore, inexpensive. However, if potential victims are armed, crime becomes more difficult and expensive.”

From the “demand” perspective, when the cost of preventing crime becomes more expensive then the “demand” to commit it, the more likely society is to let another crime happen, Plassmann said.

As a researcher, Plassmann doesn’t advocate for or argue against carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.

“I think all this analysis can do is suggest that the theory ‘More guns will cause more crime’ is probably not correct in this simple form,” he said
A Publication of the Division of Research at Binghamton University
State University of New York
Contacts: Susan E. Barker, 777-2640 or sbarker@binghamton.edu
Ashok Subramanian, 777-6135, or ashoks@binghamton.edu

http://research.binghamton.edu/discovere/December2001/Top_story5.htm

There is nothing to refute in this article because this article does not say what you are saying Lilwolf, this article says two things:

Quote: When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.
..............
More guns will cause more crime is probably not correct in this simple form.

Very few people carry concealed handguns and their actions can only have a totally insignificant effect on the level of crime.

I have no idea who would claim that more guns would cause more crime, I see regularly anti gun control propaganda claiming wrongly that more guns result to less crime but I never seen a pro gun control argument put forward claiming that less guns would cause less crime. More and better gun control doesn't mean less crime either, it means less of the most heinous of all crimes, murder, when a murder rate is too high and more than often with guns.

:-D
:-D

Having a .38 in my purse saved me LL...

[Lucky Luke]

private_citizen wrote:

Having a .38 in my purse saved me LL...

It is more likely to kill you.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote:

Having a .38 in my purse saved me LL...

It is more likely to kill you.

:-D
:-D


Obviously it did not and she is still alive. So how can that gun kill her LL. Is it one of those strange things that just come alive on their own and start killing?
Guns do not kill people...get a frigging reality check going LL.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote:

Having a .38 in my purse saved me LL...

It is more likely to kill you.

:-D
:-D


Obviously it did not and she is still alive. So how can that gun kill her LL. Is it one of those strange things that just come alive on their own and start killing?
Guns do not kill people...get a frigging reality check going LL.


Quote: a .38 in my purse saved me

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote:

Having a .38 in my purse saved me LL...

It is more likely to kill you.

:-D
:-D


Obviously it did not and she is still alive. So how can that gun kill her LL. Is it one of those strange things that just come alive on their own and start killing?
Guns do not kill people...get a frigging reality check going LL.


Quote: a .38 in my purse saved me

:-D
:-D


Spin it LL, that is all you can do with her choice of words....pure ignorant spin

[b.scheller]

First off, can we really state that any form of object can truly make that much difference? This is where the premise of fate must be questioned. If a person was not packing, would he than still arrive at the same situation that he ended up on? I believe in pure coincidences. A person may never even need a gun and they'll be killed. For goodness sakes, a person may be killed slipping off their stairs at home, getting hit by a bus or getting stabbed in the wrong neighbourhood. It doesn't matter whether they are carrying a gun or not, because if the situation arises it doesnt matter what you have, the results will be the same.

Weapons have not detered any criminal, ever. Punishments do not deter criminals either, this basic fact is proven in the great United States, where crime still occurs in Texas whether they have the electic chair, gassing, the needle or whatever other form of "killing" a criminal.

Whatever one blames criminal behaviour on. Criminals are largely not irrational beings, they may get irrational pleasure from stealing, killing or doing so many other terrible things, however they know what they do is wrong and from this they gain pleasure. Not just from the act but from the possibility of doing something illegal and getting away with it.

[wyldejackyl]

so as a person, you don't have the right to defend the sanctity of your own life and those around you with that force you deem necessary?

I don't give a sh!t who or what motivates a criminal. The second he intrudes on the safety of my life, especially with a firearm, he puts my life in jeopardy, and I'm at LIBERTY to defend it. I put that in all caps so people can see and remember that word. Liberty doesn't mean bending over for whomever because they feel like terrorizing you. I don't care what kind of childhood they had..if they can't exercise some personal responsibility for one, and threaten my life (two), they are going to be met with harsh resistance!

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: private_citizen wrote:

Having a .38 in my purse saved me LL...

It is more likely to kill you.

:-D
:-D


Obviously it did not and she is still alive. So how can that gun kill her LL. Is it one of those strange things that just come alive on their own and start killing?
Guns do not kill people...get a frigging reality check going LL.


Quote: a .38 in my purse saved me

:-D
:-D


Spin it LL, that is all you can do with her choice of words....pure ignorant spin

I choose to use the same kind of words than private_citizen did, your call.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

b.scheller wrote: First off, can we really state that any form of object can truly make that much difference? This is where the premise of fate must be questioned. If a person was not packing, would he than still arrive at the same situation that he ended up on? I believe in pure coincidences. A person may never even need a gun and they'll be killed. For goodness sakes, a person may be killed slipping off their stairs at home, getting hit by a bus or getting stabbed in the wrong neighbourhood. It doesn't matter whether they are carrying a gun or not, because if the situation arises it doesnt matter what you have, the results will be the same.

Weapons have not detered any criminal, ever. Punishments do not deter criminals either, this basic fact is proven in the great United States, where crime still occurs in Texas whether they have the electic chair, gassing, the needle or whatever other form of "killing" a criminal.

Whatever one blames criminal behaviour on. Criminals are largely not irrational beings, they may get irrational pleasure from stealing, killing or doing so many other terrible things, however they know what they do is wrong and from this they gain pleasure. Not just from the act but from the possibility of doing something illegal and getting away with it.


first off I quote you here:

Weapons have not detered any criminal, ever.


First off there are countlessthousands of reports that are from law enforcement agencies that would say you are wrong. The premise that a gun does not deter a criminal is wrong in that the thought in the back of the mind that a person is going to have a gun is usually enough to say I am going to get shot....I would say that is one example. Now if you wish to see thousands of stories that say opposite of you say so and every single gun owner on this site will bury you in legit and verifiable stories.

The rest I will agree on because if a criminal wants to do the crime he/she will anyway.

But in the end we all will still kepp our guns and the bunny huggers will lose.