Latest research on right to carry laws and violent crime

The more guns=less crimes argument always seemed (to me) to ignore two things in particular. One are the much lower crime and murder rates in countries where very few people (sometimes not even the police) have and carry guns. The other is basic human nature. If a large number of people have lethal force in their hands, at least a few of them will likely use it (and to hell with the consequences) when they get really angry or frightened. Not to mention asshats like Zimmerman who appear to be looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

And more guns=more gun related accidents too. People are what they are and very, very few are 100% attentive, aware of where their gun is, and careful with it every moment of every day.

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that the "right to bear arms" isn't coupled with "the responsibility inherent to bearing arms." And, of course, the issue that the technology of firearms in 1790 was single-shot muzzle-loading muskets, for the most part. AND, that the Amendment says "arms", not "firearms".

Then there's that whole "well-regulated militia" thing, which was a huge part of the context in which the Amendment was drafted, and kind of gets forgotten in today's I-got-the-right-to-pack-heat-wherever-I-damn-well-please atmosphere.

The guy in Florida who killed the kid on the street over a dispute about loud rap music, and recently got sentenced to life in prison, is a product of the latter kind of thinking. If the "arms" he carried happened to be a knife or a sword, no one would have died. But a modern firearm? Quick, easy, not personally messy. Welcome, Mr. Death.

caw

blacbird said:

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that the "right to bear arms" isn't coupled with "the responsibility inherent to bearing arms."

Click to expand...

Quoted for fucking truth.

To me, I'm OK with people owning weapons, however I think the bar to getting one should be high, and that they should require real liability on the part of the owner. It's kinda messed up that getting a driver's license and owning a car requires formal training and insurance, when owning a weapon doesn't.

Hell if it was up to me, guns would be just like vehicles. The bigger and more powerful they get then you need "endorsements" on your gun license. Want to own an assault rife, or a pistol? You need a gun equivalent of a CDL license and a 20 or 30 hours of training for each endorsement.

blacbird said:

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that the "right to bear arms" isn't coupled with "the responsibility inherent to bearing arms."

Click to expand...

I agree.

And, of course, the issue that the technology of firearms in 1790 was single-shot muzzle-loading muskets, for the most part.

Click to expand...

Right, I don't think the 2nd amendment should necessarily accommodate anything and everything. Updated technology should always be relevant to 2nd amendment jurisprudence, imo.

AND, that the Amendment says "arms", not "firearms".

Click to expand...

I don't know, this seems pretty sophistic to me. Of all the judges who have been most sympathetic to gun regulation, have any of them ever bothered to split that particular hair? Seems pretty reasonable to just accept that the word "arms" encompasses firearms, especially given that there are so many better arguments one can make regarding the 2nd.

Michael Wolfe said:

Right, I don't think the 2nd amendment should necessarily accommodate anything and everything. Updated technology should always be relevant to 2nd amendment jurisprudence, imo.

Click to expand...

Applied to the First, that's a great argument for regulating the Internet. Applied to the Fourth, that's a great argument for searching cell phones.

Cell phones don't kill people. People kill people.

Don said:

Applied to the First, that's a great argument for regulating the Internet. Applied to the Fourth, that's a great argument for searching cell phones.

Click to expand...

I knew you would say that.

But just to be clear, I'm not saying newer types of weapons need to be swept off the table as a matter of course. To say that it has relevance just means that it needs to be taken into account when weighing what's reasonable and what's not. The outcome, for example, might be that gun type x is still OK but type Y isn't. I'm leaving open a lot of room for different options, I think.

But in any case, I'm not a huge fan of these crossover arguments with regard to the various amendments. Do you remember when Ted Cruz made the same line of argument? It's kind of silly, imo. In practice, different standards have always applied to different amendments.

You can argue that guns should be treated differently because they're dangerous, but you can't argue that "the Constitution doesn't apply to technology that didn't exist when it was written" only applies to guns because they're dangerous.

Amadan said:

You can argue that guns should be treated differently because they're dangerous, but you can't argue that "the Constitution doesn't apply to technology that didn't exist when it was written" only applies to guns because they're dangerous.

Click to expand...

Of course. I don't think the constitution only applies to what existed at the time of ratification, either with regard to guns or anything else.

I think the argument is not "the constitution doesn't apply to technology that didn't exist when it was written," but that "technology that didn't exist when the constitution was written should be examined closely to see if it should fall under constitutional protections or not."

And that, I agree with, even if we're talking about the first or fourth amendments.

Monkey said:

I think the argument is not "the constitution doesn't apply to technology that didn't exist when it was written," but that "technology that didn't exist when the constitution was written should be examined closely to see if it should fall under constitutional protections or not."

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'd say that even what did exist at the time is up for debate as well. (Artillery would be the obvious example, I suppose.)

Don said:

Applied to the First, that's a great argument for regulating the Internet. Applied to the Fourth, that's a great argument for searching cell phones.

Click to expand...

BANG! You're dead!

...oh, wait, no. No, you aren't.

Michael Wolfe said:

Of course. I don't think the constitution only applies to what existed at the time of ratification, either with regard to guns or anything else.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And a little common sense would go a long way on such matters, regardless of which amendment we're talking.

Everyone is in favor of common sense. Agreeing on what constitutes common sense is as difficult as agreeing on what reasonable gun control means.

Well, I think it's pretty clear from the evidence that Right to Carry laws don't measure up to it. Not if the goal is to reduce violent crime, anyway.

I do not think the intent of carry laws is to reduce crime.

Amadan said:

Everyone is in favor of common sense. Agreeing on what constitutes common sense is as difficult as agreeing on what reasonable gun control means.

Click to expand...

Something data driven (for which this research might be an element) would be a start.

raburrell said:

Something data driven (for which this research might be an element) would be a start.

Click to expand...

I'm dubious that you can achieve sufficient traction on this issue to change anyone's mind either way with data-driven analysis, because I doubt many people make up their minds that way. Statistical correlations may be evidence for or against a particular assertion of fact ("guns prevent crime/guns increase the violent crime rate") but do not resolve moral, philosophical, or emotional arguments.

I haven't gotten far into the paper at all, because I have to concentrate too much during my downtime when I can read it ( ) but I believe this is just a different crunching of the same data that gave the earlier, opposite, results.

That's completely cool and I respect that the authors are arguing that the earlier model was not the best choice, in their opinion. But it might be worth pointing out that the same data gave two different results, then. That's not unexpected at all, imho, but it's worth noting, perhaps.

Amadan said:

I'm dubious that you can achieve sufficient traction on this issue to change anyone's mind either way with data-driven analysis, because I doubt many people make up their minds that way. Statistical correlations may be evidence for or against a particular assertion of fact ("guns prevent crime/guns increase the violent crime rate") but do not resolve moral, philosophical, or emotional arguments.

Click to expand...

No, but the inability of people to see past data which doesn't support their particular moral, philosophical, or emotional arguments is probably the single biggest problem we face in this country.

The thing is, until recently, the right to bear arms meant you had the damned things in your house, or unloaded in your car if you were going hunting or to the shooting range. People still had accidents, and sometimes used them when they got into arguments. But unless they were law enforcement, or criminals who were looking for trouble, they didn't pack in public.

Even the so-called wild west had gun control laws.

But now, every yahoo who doesn't already have a felony conviction can carry them in some states. And in concealed carry states, even university campuses aren't able to stop people from bringing guns to talks when a death threat against the speaker has been issued.

The day they pass laws allowing people to bring guns to class in my own state will be the day I seriously consider finding a new profession. There's always a chance that there will be an occasional student who sneaks a weapon into class, law or no law. But if a large percentage of students on campus are packing, it's not a matter of if tempers flare or carelessness happens and someone gets shot, but when.

And the other insidious thing these open and concealed carry laws are doing is normalizing the presence of weapons in public, along with the expectation of gun violence as a daily fact of life.

raburrell said:

No, but the inability of people to see past data which doesn't support their particular moral, philosophical, or emotional arguments is probably the single biggest problem we face in this country.

Click to expand...

I can think of bigger problems, but that's certainly a big one.

However, my point was actually different - a moral, philosophical, or emotional argument is not necessarily inferior to a fact-based one. For example, even if it's true that higher gun ownership rates increase gun violence rates (I suspect it does), in the eyes of gun control advocates, that may be proof that their argument is correct, yet it would not move me. Likewise, if it were proven that a higher gun ownership rate correlated to a lower gun violence rate, I doubt many gun control advocates would consider their position to have been disproven and change it, because they aren't making a utilitarian argument.

Amadan said:

Likewise, if it were proven that a higher gun ownership rate correlated to a lower gun violence rate, I doubt many gun control advocates would consider their position to have been disproven and change it, because they aren't making a utilitarian argument.

Click to expand...

Criminal violence is only one aspect of the proliferation of guns. Equally troubling, if not more so, are the numerous suicides and accidents that occur, particularly accidents involving children and teenagers.

If data were to show that the more guns that are in circulation, the more the murder rate drops, it would make me think twice. Although there are so many factors involved in gun violence, including poverty, education, the economy and a host of other things, that it is difficult to make any definitive statement about a direct causal correlation between access to guns and gun violence.

But if data showed that the more guns that are in circulation, the fewer gun involved fatalities there are, I would certainly rethink my position.

Amadan said:

I can think of bigger problems, but that's certainly a big one.

However, my point was actually different - a moral, philosophical, or emotional argument is not necessarily inferior to a fact-based one. For example, even if it's true that higher gun ownership rates increase gun violence rates (I suspect it does), in the eyes of gun control advocates, that may be proof that their argument is correct, yet it would not move me.

Click to expand...

I'd like to make sure I understand your last sentence here - are you saying that even if right to carry increases crime rates, you'd maintain nothing needs to change about right to carry laws?

Likewise, if it were proven that a higher gun ownership rate correlated to a lower gun violence rate, I doubt many gun control advocates would consider their position to have been disproven and change it, because they aren't making a utilitarian argument.

Click to expand...

If in some alternate reality, it could be shown that right to carry didn't cause crime problems, then no, I wouldn't find it necessary to make a major push to change those laws. The idea is to focus on solutions which address a specific problem.

However, data on right to carry is different from gun violence in the home, gun storage safety, etc - a data set shouldn't be extrapolated beyond whatever it has the power to actually show.