“…since instituting its right-to-carry law in 1987, the Florida murder rate as averaged 36% lower than before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower. The results are similar in other states. Florida’s ‘very lax’ gun laws actually reduce crime. That’s because criminals respect guns, not laws.” – S.E. Cupp at nydailynews.com
Smashing! Good quote, too.
It kinda reminds me of that scene from the movies where the BG decide to rob the bar not knowing that the bar is a local cop hang out and everyone in the bar is carrying. It was a “Oh Sh*t” situation.
This just strengthens the argument for Conceal/Open/Constitutional Carry.
A logical fallacy is STILL a logical fallacy when being used to support your beliefs. She’s confusing correlation and causation. There are a shit ton of reasons that crime is lower now than it was in ’87.. Attributing it to conceal carry is completely inconclusive.
Even if the drop was larger than other places, maybe that had something to do with the primary drug corridor shifting from Miami to the border states? Plenty of other theories out there… Even saying that there are simply less men in the “criminal” age range. Again, you can make these points all day… but its all the same logical fallacy.
That being said, what can be said is that the institution of conceal carry did NOT result in all the homicide spikes/Dodge City/parking space shootout anti’s predicted.
You are correct there is no causation with correlation; however, what are the other reasons you speak of? I will have to agree with the fewer men of criminal range theory as Roe v Wade has played a significant impact on the criminal population (Levitt).
The only problem attributing all the decreases in violent crime with that would be European countries where abortion is even less restricted than here (and always has been). Yet these European countries have more violent crime per capita AND have restrictive firearms/weapons possession laws.
So with all things being equal, the availability of firearms coupled with our right to self defense are two of the major things that separate us.
One possible reason as requested: the government has been giving away so much free “stuff” in the Clinton/Bush/Nobama eras that criminals don’t need to steal other people’s stuff as much.
“There are a shit ton of reasons that crime is lower now than it was in ’87.. Attributing it to conceal carry is completely inconclusive.”
OK, so saying that concealed carry = lower crime might be correlation w/o causation, so we’ll take the reduction part out, and change the question. Has concealed carry led to more crime? Remember the anti’s claim: that every relaxation of currently existing gun controls, be it concealed carry, open carry, the repeal of a one-gun-a-month law, whatever, will cause a direct and corresponding increase in crime. The statistics on crime by carry license holders are readily available, and the numbers are very low, below that of the general population. So while “more concealed carry = less crime” is equivocal, “more concealed carry != more crime” is undeniable.
Some people’s logic is just screwed. Having said that conceal and carry folks don’t lower crime rates (yet where they exist crime is lower somehow) is ridiculous because they do not raise it. Especially when they contribute a non-amount factor to crime.
Having a conceal and carry permit and not having a crime happen or perpetrating one is no more harmful than having a heavy truck and trailer license but not driving both. What difference does it make if you don’t contribute to the overall accident total?
Logic and sense, an antis true and worst enemy.
You’re exactly right… I addressed that in the bottom part of the original comment….
Could we please have an expert come in and explain to everyone what the phrase “correlation is not causation” means? That way, we could just have one reply after a post like this, and we would not have a whole bunch of responses that start out “I know correlation is not causation, but . . . ”
If a person says this, that person really does not understand what it means.
Correlation or causation? You guys keep doing the very things you accuse others of doing, whenever it serves your purposes.
I’ll settle for proving, time and again, that the causation you and other antis claim is completely false.
Yes, that is indisputable. It is a fact that concealed carry and other so called lax gun laws has not led to more crime. In other words, blood in the streets hysterics failed to materialize.
+1.
“In other words, blood in the streets hysterics failed to materialize.” Much to the anti’s great disappointment, I’m sure.
Mike,
Addressed in my little comment, but please notice the bottom part…
Learn a new word, Mike. Falsification. A scientific theory is one which can be disproven by evidence. We say that such theories are falsifiable. The theory that disarming victims leads to less crime has been falsified.
Correlation is not, in and of itself, causation. However, it is a good start in showing causation. And lack of correlation is falsification.
Hypocrisy or chemical imbalance? You guys keep doing the very things you accuse others of doing, whenever it serves your purposes.
I’m still waiting to see one real citation of non-BS stats and research. Where is all this mind blowing proof you’ve been promising?
Mike, is that all you’ve got? Then you’re a circular, question begging fallacy. The blood ain’t in the streets and you want to condescend from some never did exist ivory tower. Your pseudo-academic arrogance makes me yawn.
Wow, you thought that was academic. Thanks. But, was I wrong? Or did you just not like what I said?
Aren’t there many factors involved in violence besides guns? That’s what you keep telling me, but in this little story, you must have forgotten.
No, and no, and no. I just don’t care for the arrogance of your position (implied in your accusation) that logic or reasonable discussion are incompatible with support of firearms for self-defense. Yes, there are many factors and that is the subject. And it is useful to continually re-examine one’s logic. I did forget that you are only here to disagree.
Meanwhile you imply that guns are practically the only thing that causes violence…hmmm…
I just said, “Aren’t there many factors involved in violence besides guns? ”
I don’t imply anything, I talk about guns and gun control.
B-b-but, blood in the streets! Shoot-outs over parking spaces! The wild west! Dogs and cats cohabitating! Hidden criminals! What about MY right to feel safe?!
Did I miss any?
Think of the children!
Oh, sh!t! How did I forget that one?! Thanks, Matt.
Concealed Carry KILLERS!
License to KILL!
Anybody notice how some of these work as Stephen Segal movie titles?
At a university near me we had a stabbing over a parking space. Granted, given how little parking there is in that entire town, let alone the campus, you’d stab your own grandmother over a parking space…
I am just totally amazed that this piece appeared in a New York City newspaper! The mayor must be suffering apoplexy!!!!
Yeah, I was amazed at this article and the source as well.
The situation is even better than indicated by this quote: Comparing Florida to the U.S. doesn’t tell the whole story, because Florida is part of the U.S., and is dragging the overall crime averages down. A proper comparison would be carry states vs. non carry states.
” carry states vs non carry states”
At present there is only one (1) non carry state ( on the surface at least).
So to compare carry vs non carry would pit Illinois and DC against the rest of the country.
But to my understanding ( feel free to contradict) for citizens of the May-issue states of NJ, MD and HI getting issued is next to impossible.
Making these states in essence, No-issue states.
For a clearer picture consider:
Unrestricted vs Shall-issue vs May-issue (with and without NJ, MD and HI) vs No-issue (w/wo NJ, MD and HI).
I believe this comparison would clear the picture quite a bit.
But to my understanding (again feel free) in some May-issue states, while obtainable, getting issued is difficult. In others easy.
Also in NY, CA (and others ) some areas of these May-issue states are Shall-issue while other areas are No-issue.
The picture becomes cloudy again
.
So for the clearest picture possible (at present) I suggest:
1. The FREE states of VT, AK, AZ and WY vs IL, DC, NJ, MD and HI.
2. The FFEE states of VT, AK, AZ and WY vs the rest of the country.
Yes, but several states are fairly recent carry states. For statistical modeling to determine the impact of concealed carry laws on crime, you need several years worth of data to work with.
Yes,I realise this.
If you re-read the opening sentence of the last paragraph you will see the words “possible” and “at present”. Nowhere will you see the word “ideal” or any derivative of the word.
As for needing several years worth of data, the state of VT has always been a FREE state.
The states of AK, AZ and WY became Shall-issue states in 1994.
These states are now all FREE states that continue to issue permits to those citizens who want them for reciprocity.
The states of VT, AK, AZ, and WY have been Shall-issue states or FREE states a minimum of eighteen (18) years.
The states of IL, NJ, MD, HI and the DC have always been, to all intents and purposes, No-Issue states.
I’ve done a comparison between the top 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws (as ranked by Brady) and the top ten states with the most relaxed gun laws (I call them the Baldwin Top Ten). I’ve found that the states with the most restrictive gun laws have higher violent crime rates and higher murder rates than the states with the most relaxed gun laws. In my most recent comparison, I’ve found that the states with the most restrictive gun laws, have a higher percentage of gun use in violent crimes than the states with less restrictive gun laws. The results can be found on my blog. My conclusion was that not only do more guns equal less crime, but less crime with gun use.
Surprisingly, leave out the highest and lowest of each set and the spread increases; 65.35 vs 52.48. Lot’s more to think about here but it probably leads to the obvious; polite people are nice but nasty people will be polite if they know the polite are armed. In a real society, as opposed to the ideal, the nasty will behave or perish.
Did anyone else notice that this article was an editorial, and the author did not actually cite a source for those figures?
As the unwitting participants in the Sokal Hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) learned some years ago, it always pays to be extra careful about articles that confirm our cherished preconceived notions.
Right after the CCW law passed in Florida violent crime started going down fast. No shootouts over parking spaces, none of that predicted nonesense.
Let us flip the proverbial script for a moment.
The justification for nearly every single piece of gun control legislation enacted since the 1800s has been for the safety of the public. Magazine capacity limits, registration systems, purchase and posession permits,expensive databases and background check systems , and so on and so forth. Money and time spent trying to “enhance” public safety, and the best outcome the disarmament lobby can point to is neutral. At worst we have Chicago- A city so “safe” that a South Side Chicago resident would actually improve their odds ov avoiding being shot by joining the Army and deploying to Afghanistan.
While causation and correlation are distincly two different things, we can certainly look at relaxation of gun control as an input when looking at crime reduction. Violent crime has been on a downward trend since the late 70’s. We can look to the bureau of justice statistics to validate that. Further if we look to self reporting surveys, though indexes are higher, it mirrors the same trend.
What is the reason? Imagined vs. real poverty? Improved policing? weather (believe it or not this can be a factor) aging out? or ccw? These are all valid inputs that would need to be disproved to be removed. I would anectodately say that with the current trends in single parent low income families, divisive racial politics, flash mobs etc., I would expect an uptick. But no.
Media outlets create the illusion of crime run rampant, a serial killer there, a robbery murder here, but it’s just easy access of information. They were always there.
“Media outlets create the illusion of crime run rampant…”
Right. And they tend to fall prey to their own propaganda, which would explain why the more gullible among them really believe gun totin’ citizens would lead to Wild West scenarios all across The Fruited Plain.
The causes of crime rates, like weather, are varied and extremely complex. The thing to remember is that the rise in popularity of concealed carry has not produced the results our friends in the media said they would.
btw – S.E. Cupp is hot.
Gee, we hadn’t noticed.
When specific acts correlate to specific results time after time after time without exception, I will assume causality and place the burden on the deniers to disprove it. I’m still waiting for someone to disprove that more guns = less crime.
It’s funny that when we say MG=LC, we’re told to prove it, while the antis don’t have to prove anything. What utter rubbish. Please, people, don’t allow the gungrabbers control the dialog.
I think anyone who makes an assertion, regardless of its content, should be expected to put forth solid evidence for it or else risk having their statement dismissed for being pure B.S.
Is it not proof enough that absolutely none of the antis wild speculation has come to pass? At the very best if they were right crime would have plateaued. Instead it fell. Whether or not increased gun ownership is a direct cause of this probably can never be fully proven scientifically, but what is certainly proven is that guns can’t be blamed for an increase that never came about.
Are you seriously arguing with the concept that unsupported bare assertions (esp. on the Internet) are best disregarded?
I think the miraculous drop in violent crime has mostly to do with radical feminists teaching males to open their hearts to the Divine Feminine Goddess within them and to feel love and compassion for all living creatures. It has been prophesied, in ancient texts, that this will occur prior to the Supreme Goddesses re-entry into the world to rule us all.
The decrease in violent crime probably also has some to do with the worldwide dropping of male sperm counts, and the decreasing number of male children born because of the toxic polluted environment, lousy modern diet, and sedentary lifestyle. Now, this para might be slightly true since if you are too filled up on processed fatty foods, doped up on TV, and out of shape then you are less inclined to go mug people.
You forgot the /sarc instruction.
😉
Droopy, sperm-less, unarmed gluttons will come to wonder how uber chicks came to rule the world.
Beautiful AND Logical? Where do I find on of those?
Also, is anyone else extremely tired of the term “wild west”? You know, since it never actually existed and was made up by Hollywood?
I remember reading once, though I have no sources and am too lazy to look it up right now, the the famed “dodge city” had somethin like 3 murders in it’s bloodiest year. Wasn’t exactly the D. Of C. out there.
I especially hate hearing about the “massacre” at the OK corral. Most people attempt to call BS when I tell them there weren’t even ten people involved, never mind killed. Not to mention it was law enforcement engaging criminals!
Depending where you were in the Wild West, it could really not be so wild. Most people on the frontier actually tried to get along with other settlers.
Comments are closed.