Wrong, NRA—Right-to-Carry Laws Actually Increase Gun Violence
New study definitely debunks gun nuts' crazy theory that more guns make us safer.
20 COMMENTS20 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

November 17, 2014 |




A new study from researchers at Stanford University debunks the oft-cited fact that more guns leads to less crime. In fact, the researchers found, the opposite is the case: right-to-carry laws are associated with higher rates of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder.

The results of the study are imperfect. Lead author of the study and Stanford law professor John J. Donohue III said, “Trying to estimate the impact of right-to-carry laws has been a vexing task over the last two decades.” While they specifically found that right-to-carry laws had yielded 8 percent more instances of aggravated assault, that number isn’t set in stone because of a number of confounding factors (such as various drug epidemics). Regardless, Donohue says that 8 percent is a low guess–the reality could be much higher.

Still, the study’s findings are significant in that it pokes a hole in the gun lobby’s main argument. The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham provides context:

The notion stems from a paper published in 1997 by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who looked at county-level crime data from 1977 to 1992 and concluded that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Of course, the study of gun crime has advanced significantly since then ( no thanks to Congress). Some researchers have gone so far as to call Lott and Mustard’s original study ” completely discredited.”
One of the major critiques of the study came from the National Research Council, which in 2004 extended the data through the year 2000 and ultimately concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Or in other words, “More guns, less crime?

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, confirmed to the Huffington Post that the study accurately concluded that “right-to-carry laws increase firearm-related assaults,” although “the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.”

the essence of gun control rights lie in the balance of power of the state and the peoples...

for an equally devised power structure is necessary for any sustainable management system that peoples will not revolt against.

if management has weapons, than such power is balanced by the people having weapons.

to not have such, would be as all CEO's of corporations having large luxurious vehicles, but all employees mandated to own only bicycles.

how long will the employee's ride in the snow and rain to work on their bicycles as they watch the CEO's pass them in stretch Mercedes.

the debate as to guns or no guns, creating less crime or more crime, is nothing more than a narrow peephole to see out of, which hide the beginning principle of equal and fairness...

and if fair and equal does not exist, revolt or crime will always increase, no matter what utilities are available to the hands to inflict such with.

it seems in many ways it would be preferable to be shot many times over, rather than to be bludgeoned with a hammer, hacked with a machete, beaten with a ball bat, stabbed with a knife, plied with a screwdriver, mutilated with a chainsaw, and this story line truly has no ending...

and if there come to be no guns in the hands of any besides those in power, than the people are asked to believe that all in power are furry little cute bunnies who do no harm nor break any rules.

however, in the present political climate, gun ownership by the paupers will not win, period, ever.

it is not but a sheer impossibility, but a total conclusive one.

but that does not mean i cannot understand the legitimate concerns of many a millions, and their fear for their families self keeping, but as well, it can easily be understand the legitimate concerns of those in power, who see a populous more belligerent so less manageable each day.

but, since the illusion over time of government against people, or people against government, has become as reality to many in power and many of the ruled over, it is obvious a gradual increase of such mentality will continue to increase until we have a vortex, before it can be reversed, and the people in management and none management will again ALL just be seen as peoples.

until it does, i dare say, those thinking their guns shall win them anything against management are sadly mistaken.

sometimes the greatest conquest is surrender, and then to negotiate mutually satisfying new agreements.

it is a farce to think that surrender is for the weak, but rather, only the strongest can swallow their shallow pride long enough to see into true reality.

I heard it said by a policeman that the "Right to Free Speech" has resulted in more assault charges than all other factors combined.

Does that mean Free Speech should be banned, restricted, and controlled?

It should be noted that all or almost all of the instances where someone was about to be robbed or assaulted and pulled a gun, promptly ending the attempt, are not recorded.

without the right of the people to carry no other right matters

what option do the "people" have to protect the other rights if they
unarmed

NONE!!!!!!!!

if 10 people point a gun at one self, should self shoot back, or disarm these 10 with it's mentality and words...

at some point it has to be accepted, if one be dead, it self has no power, and can do nothing, so cannot advocate, protect, nor mediate for it's priceless loved one's at all.

then, truly living can begin.

I stopped reading at "research at Stanford".

What a joke. First, Stanford, the school where the graduates declare that GMO is the same as nature. Second, a declaration by a lawyer, as Ben Franklin so eloquently said: "God works wonders now and then; Behold a lawyer, an honest man.", and a law professor at that. If you know of any law school in this country or even in the world that actually teaches the law, let me know.

And this idiot, John J. Donohue III is a law professor and economist widely known for his writings on effect of legalized abortion on crime and for his criticism of John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime, is a real fruit cake. Perhaps he should take a real law course and actually learn about law, the common law, the law of nature.

And the gun lobbyist, being more right than the fruit cake is still in error; "Half a truth is often a great lie." -Benjamin Franklin. They still believe there can be compromise on an inalienable right.

But let's not forget John Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public Health, who would have guessed.

And as to the whole article, pure BS propagated as propaganda to get the unwashed masses to believe that which they are incapable of understanding, unalienable rights.

And it seems the OP is just eating it up, wishing all could be true.

All gun violence isn't bad.

Most citizens with gun permits are law abiding.

Few criminals have gun permits.

The statistics in the OP make no distinction between someone getting shot and and someone deserving to be shot.

Is shooting a carjacker, as he attempts to drag you or your family out of the car, gun violence?

Folks, a single study does not a fact make.

Have you been hiding under a rock or something? Just where is their free speech? In the "FREE SPEECH" zones? Not within earshot of one of Odumbo's goons?

And your example of the instances where there is no news of trespasses stopped because of one being armed, is that not a prime example that free speech is likewise restricted?

All violence is bad, period. There is a huge distinction between violence and force and violence is always bad. The distinction being that once violence has been initiated, it is one's right to use force to counter the violence and restore the peace. Other than to defend as an action to restore the peace, any use of force on another is violence.

Totally understandable, it got worse after that.

Ooh, I would love to hear the justification for that juicy little tidbit!

Not surprisingly, you missed the point. I'm sure others didn't.

Soooooo, according to you, the killing of bin Laden was bad.

The justification is a little thing called "reality".

The average gun owner, will kill less people with a gun,
than Ted Kennedy killed with his car.

all the cool sayings and statistical quotes in the world don't mean a damn thing, as only an argument good enough, that can't be beat all the way to the supreme court, is the only thing that actually matters in the creation of the true reality that shall exist.

actually NOT even SCOTUS has a say in this matter!