GunFacts Hasn’t Any
Journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.
Please note that if I were a GunLoon, my first salvo would be to attack the author as biased and/or unqualified. I won’t do that. Also, I’m going to debunk GunFacts in no specific order; so, if I appear to have skipped a section, I’ll be addressing it at some other time.
Today, it’s pgs 1-2, ‘Concealed carry laws and weapons.’
Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime
Fact: Forty states1, comprising the majority of the American population, are “right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-tocarry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.
Cherry-picking. What the author neglects to mention is that crime rates fell in those states that restrict or forbid CCW–at a higher rate than those with more liberal CCW laws.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.2
Actually, the rate is just under 1% (.879 %) for the period of 1987-2007. Regardless, why are we happy to see people with guns commiting crimes?
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains it below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).3
A lot of cherry-picking and sleight of hand here. As noted earlier, crime fell in those states that had restrictive or no CCW laws as well. In some states, the crime rates fell more than Florida’s.
General note: The author plays fast and loose with his crime stats. Many crimes simply have no bearing on whether someone is carrying a gun or not. For example, most burglaries occur when nobody is home. Most vehicle thefts occur when no one is near the vehicle.
Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after Texas passed a concealed carry law in 1995.
The author doesn’t a cite a source for this “fact” nor do we have a definition for what “serious crime” means.
Fact: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
• Murder rates drop 8%
• Rape rates fall 5%
• Aggravated assaults drop 7%
Again, the author doesn’t cite or source or identify what states, cities or time periods he is talking about. Though he doesn’t cite a source, these numbers are in line with John Lott’s findings (Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. ) in More Guns, Less Crime (1998).
A number of researchers have debunked Lott’s work. More than a few have found not just errors in Lott’s methodology but some misconduct. I shall quote just one, the pro-gun Gary Kleck in his book Targeting Guns:
“Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.”
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws4:
This is attributed to John Lott and is disputed by most experts. Even Gary Kleck who is strongly in favor of CCW laws.
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.5
Author’s cite excludes RI and HI–why? Because when you factor those states in, there isn’t much of a difference.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws
are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.
Author provides no cite. It is generally attributed to John Lott. Recent events in VA, NE, and CO–all of which have liberal CCW laws–repudiate this ‘fact.’ Anumber of studies by Jens Ludwig, Phillip Cook, Daniel Webster, John Donohue and others state their is no statistical evidence to support Lott’s claim.
Ok, so more guns means more violence? So why did Camp Victory, Iraq, where every single person had a loaded rifle or handgun, on them at all times, have an effective crime rate of zero? Why weren’t there shootouts in the dining facility and love triangle murder-suicides daily? Is it possible that guns are not the main factors in violence?
Comment by Mike_the_Army_Officer — December 17, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Ok, so more guns means more violence? So why did Camp Victory, Iraq, where every single person had a loaded rifle or handgun, on them at all times, have an effective crime rate of zero? Why weren’t there shootouts in the dining facility and love triangle murder-suicides daily? Is it possible that guns are not the main factors in violence?
Comment by Mike_the_Army_Officer — December 17, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Ok, so more guns means more violence? So why did Camp Victory, Iraq, where every single person had a loaded rifle or handgun, on them at all times, have an effective crime rate of zero? Why weren’t there shootouts in the dining facility and love triangle murder-suicides daily? Is it possible that guns are not the main factors in violence?
Comment by Mike_the_Army_Officer — December 17, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
citations?
Comment by Freddy — December 18, 2007 @ 7:04 am
When you finish with this one here is another for you to discredit
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Of course written by GL’s it must be
Comment by JDFAR — December 18, 2007 @ 8:29 am
I’m actually glad to see constructive criticism of these statistics, since there is not much on our side of the fence. However, GunFacts does have citations for a majority of their figures, whereas you have posted none. When you say things like “Actually, the rate is just under 1%”, could you cite your source, so it can be cross-verified? Often, two groups collect the same data and get different results, so it helps to see where the numbers come from to verify which number (if any) is valid, and whether or not given studies are reputable.
Comment by Gregory Morris — December 18, 2007 @ 8:30 am
I’m impressed, all of that text without any mentionable insults.
Still, I’m not sure if you know what cherry picking really means, also, how did you manage to put up all that info without posting a single source?
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 18, 2007 @ 10:29 am
This is another of those “Factless” studies:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Boy those CDC people must be loons too.
Comment by JDFAR — December 18, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
When are you going to start quoting Michael Bellesiles as a way to back your stats?
Comment by JDFAR — December 18, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
MAJMike: It isn’t true there aren’t violent crimes committed at Camp Victory. But one must remember Camp Victory represents a self-selected sample.
Comment by Administrator — December 19, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
GM: GunFacts, as I note, doesn’t always furnish citations. In fact, in several instances, I researched where the info may have come from. In other instances, GunFacts may only furnish a general cite by pointing to the Bureau of Justice Statistics page or the FBI UCARs without highlighting where the data came from.
………..
WRT my Florida right-to-carry law, my numbers come from FL’s DOACS licensing statistics for Concealed Weapon/Firearm Summary.
Comment by Administrator — December 19, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
MH: Cherry-picking is an easily defined term. It basically means picking that data which is favorable to one’s argument and omitting that which is not.
Comment by Administrator — December 19, 2007 @ 5:25 pm