DOES THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS DETER COUNTABLE CRIMES?
State University of New York at Binghamton
T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
ABSTRACT (Fee for full text, University of Chicago Publications, not available for download)
An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations. First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates. Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis. In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies. We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.
© 2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2186/2001/4402-0019 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/issues/v44nS2/012201/brief/012201.abstract.html#fn1
Defensive use of guns underreported
New book explores media's failure to cover positive firearm stories
Posted: July 5, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
... The media conditions many to oppose guns because reporting of incidents when firearms are used negatively is so much more prevalent than coverage of when guns protect lives and property, which is estimated by researchers to be more than 2 million times a year - most never involving the firing of shots ... ... Many of the national morning and evening network news shows in 2001 had "about 190,000 words of reporting on gun-crimes stories," he said, "but during that entire year, there was no mention of using guns [for protection] or self-defense." ...
... "when you ban guns it's going to be the most law-abiding people who obey these rules and not the criminals. The problem you face is that if you disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals, you're going to see increases in violent crime rather than drops." http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33410
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
'Preserve freedom and liberty'
Author, NRA chief LaPierre defends 2nd Amendment gun rights
... LaPierre, in his book, also discusses total gun bans in other Western countries that have caused crime to skyrocket. He says statistics show that, for example, after England banned most private firearms ownership (after requiring them to register their weapons a few years earlier), robberies went up dramatically.
"Since then, crime has gone up 50 percent in Britain," he said."You're six times more likely to be robbed in London than you are even in New York City."
The same is true in Australia, he said. "Crime has gone up across the board, from home-invasion robberies to muggings."
As a result, criminal violence and a criminal gun culture are 50 times more prevalent than they were in the early 20th century, when there were no antigun laws, and no laws against the use of reasonable force against violent criminals ...... Peter Hitchens has just come out with a major new book, A Brief History of Crime: The Decline of Order, Justice, and Liberty in England. Hitchens, a columnist for the Sunday Mail, argues that British governments have helped cause the tremendous increase in crime over past decades by refusing to punish criminals strictly, and by making excuses for criminals. As crime has soared, the government has responded by cracking down on the law-abiding population and on civil liberties. The right to silence has been abolished, the right to jury trial has been restricted, surveillance cameras are pervasive, and wiretaps and e-mail intercepts are skyrocketing. Hitchens devotes a chapter to the failed campaign against guns, explaining how the deprivation of the means of self-defense causes more crime.
GOA Blasts Ignorant and Elitist Views Presented on Fox Cable News
For Immediate Release
October 17 2002
Contact: Andrew Said
(Springfield, VA) -- GOA today blasted the ignorant and elitist views presented by Louis Palumbo of the Elite Groupe, Ltd. Palumbo appeared on Fox Cable News today with Eric Shawn.
"Palumbo just doesn't know what he's talking about," said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt. "He thinks that only the police can defend people against criminals, but the facts just don't support his case."
Palumbo said that because citizens are "not trained or experienced," the best that they can do is to be the "eyes and ears" for the police until the Beltway sniper is caught.
"What arrogance," Pratt said. "The fact is, armed citizens kill almost three times as many criminals as do the police every year. And according to the Clinton Justice Department in 1997, armed citizens defend themselves more than 4,000 times a day. In most of these self-defense cases, the gun is only brandished and a shot is never fired.
Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda
Has the gun control issue really disappeared?
Some think that Democrats, chastised by the loss of the presidency of 2000 and the loss of the Senate in 2002, have learned the risk of supporting gun control the hard way. Some even argue that there is a more fundamental change in Democratic beliefs on gun control.
Yet, as Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi recently said,Democrats will wait and revisit the guns "when the issue is ripe."
U.N. vs. Guns
An international gun-control fight.
July 11, 2003, 11:50 a.m.
By John R. Lott Jr.
The U.S. government often makes American gun owners feel besieged. For example, over the last decade it is simply impossible to find one study by either the U.S. Justice Department or the Treasury that measures the benefits from people owning guns. While this has been done by both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Clinton administration surely set new standards for misleading attacks on gun ownership with its studies and public-service ads.
But if you think that is bad, the Clinton administration pales in comparison to the United Nations' attitude on gun ownership. This week the U.N. conference to "Prevent, combat, and eradicate the Illicit Trade in small arms and Light Weapons in All Aspects," which concludes today, puts these views in straightforward terms: Governments have the "right" to guns for "self defense and security needs." On the other hand, not one acceptable reason for individuals owning guns is mentioned ...
... Research by Jeff Miron at Boston University, examining homicide rates across 44 countries, found that countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. News reports in Britain showed how crimes with guns have risen 40 percent in the four years after handguns were banned in 1997.Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but almost always arrive on the scene after the crime occurs. What would the U.N. recommend that victims do when they face criminals by themselves? Passive behavior is much more likely to result in serious injury or death than using a gun to defend oneself.
Gee, I guess I don't agree with Timber after all. As I noted before, this is not about guns. It's about something else. (And too many of the quote sources are hacks in this issue.)