BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BBS wrote:I'd remove "Gun Free Zones," which essentially advertise "bring your gun here if you wish to shoot a bunch of people."
Metsfanmax wrote:Another study points out that, in general, it has been difficult to establish a clear link between CCW permits and crime rates, and took the approach of comparing crime rates between those with concealed carry permits and those without. They found that concealed carry permit holders committed far fewer crimes, but the nature of their crimes tended to be more serious (e.g. sexual assault, murder as compared to burglaries, etc.). They argue that there is a small
increased risk of crime rates when we expand the settings where people can carry concealed weapons. So I implore you to actually consider the data.
I'll even quote from the study itself, since it's behind a paywall:
Our research may shed some light on another major issue in the CHL debate. The drive of the National Rifle Association and other organizations is to reduce the number of settings where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited. Legislative bodies in many states have already approved, or are considering, legislation to reduce the scope of these prohibitions. These proposals include allowing concealed carry by students and faculty in college classrooms, by faculty in public schools, in national parks, in state parks, and in churches. The foundation for these proposals is straightforward; advocates of these changes argue that the presence of legally armed civilians in these new settings will decrease the likelihood or consequences of crime-especially the occurrence of those rare events involving multiple victims of gun violence.
Our results imply that opening these settings to CHL holders carrying handguns may increase gun-related offenses in those previously gun-free zones. As the numbers in Table 1 indicate, these increases will not be dramatic; our results imply that the increase in the number of gun offenses or amount of gun violence committed by CHL holders in these new settings will be low. Nonetheless, policymakers should balance this likelihood against the likelihood that CHL holders will encounter and can positively affect the calamitous situations that often lead to the demand that carry restrictions be reduced.
"gun-related offenses" = what exactly?
If it's "waving a gun around like an asshole for no good reason," then I don't view that as costly. If anything, I'd be glad the crazy person was allowed to make an ass of himself, so that he can be corrected--through various means, violent (imprisonment) or non-violent (fine, public shaming). It allows for trial-and-error, which is necessary but not allowed by prohibitions.
They have separate categories for "weapon offenses" and other, more serious crimes (robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, intentional killing, etc.). The results that indicate that CCW permit holders tend to "break bad" specifically focuses on the most serious crimes such as intentional killing and sexual assault.
If the main concern is to mitigate the risk of violent crime from potential perpetrators seeking to do some damage in the least protected places, then I'd lift that prohibition.
of course, complementary goods decrease the chance of crime (e.g. private police--as on university campuses, more efficient justice system in particular ares, etc.). I wonder how the study controlled for all those relevant variables...
The study in this case wasn't focusing specifically on the effects of expanding zones where concealed carry was permitted; that argument was more of an afterthought to the main analysis. I presented a couple of other links that do actually look at case studies comparing campuses that did and did not allow concealed carry. But the sample size may be too small to obtain any strong conclusions at present.
They argue that there is a small increased risk of crime rates when we expand the settings where people can carry concealed weapons. So I implore you to actually consider the data.
So, if CHL holders are allowed to expand into a new area, they expect some chance of crime increasing? If we ignore circumstances of time and place and the variance at which people behave in those different places at different times, then I'd believe that.
Yes, it's just that simple argument. The premise of expanding concealed carry into college campuses, etc., is that these people generally do not commit crimes with their weapons, but they indicate that this is less true than people generally think. What they admit is that they do not intend to try and balance that against the possible positive effects a concealed carry weapon might do in the event of a spree shooting; that is no longer a science question but a policy question.
