Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:48 AM Jun 2014

Concealed Carry Laws Don't Decrease Gun Violence -- But the NRA Continues to Say the Opposite

The NRA and its academic acolytes like John Lott have been tirelessly promoting the idea that guns protect us from crime, which is another way of saying that everyone should carry a gun, which is another way of saying that we should all buy more guns. And the proof that more guns equals less crime comes in the form of a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that over the past twenty years, violent crime, particularly gun crimes, have fallen by more than 50 percent. Since it's over the same two decades that every state has adopted some form of concealed carry weapons (CCW) law, the gun lobby argues that the reason we are a much safer country is because everyone's walking around with a gun. Now if we could get rid of those unhealthy gun-free zones, right?

Another, much more troublesome report was issued in January with data and conclusions that the NRA chooses to ignore. The report was based on a study of 6,300 patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center in Newark suffering from gunshot wounds between 2000 and 2011, a time when, according to the FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%, but since we're only talking about less than 60 dead bodies lying around, we'll leave that one alone.

Getting back to the gunshot wounds, the physicians who conducted the research found that the number of patients didn't significantly change, notwithstanding the alleged drop in gun violence everywhere else, and the severity of the wounds substantially increased. Despite the fact that Level 1 trauma centers utilize the most advanced life-saving skills imaginable, the mortality rate from gunshot wounds climbed from 9% to 14%, the number of spinal cord and brain injuries nearly doubled, and the incidence of multiple bullet wounds increased from 10% to nearly 25%.

The gun lobby could (and will) ignore these numbers were it not for the fact that the national picture for the trend gunshot wounds is roughly the same as what happened in Newark. According to the CDC, the rate of intentional gun injuries per 100,000 was 17.25 in 2000 and 17.83 in 2011, holding steady nationally just like the researchers in the case of Newark's University Hospital found over the same eleven years. That being the case, how does one reconcile those numbers with the BJS report that the NRA uses to bolster its claim of such a dramatic decrease in the criminal use of guns? The BJS report shows a decline in the gun homicide rate from 7 per 100,000 to less than 4 from 1993 to 2011, and a decline in nonfatal gun victimizations from above 7 per 1,000 persons to less than 2. So who's right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/concealed-carry-laws_b_5479055.html
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Concealed Carry Laws Don't Decrease Gun Violence -- But the NRA Continues to Say the Opposite (Original Post) SecularMotion Jun 2014 OP
this study should have been ignored gejohnston Jun 2014 #1
try reading the entire article jimmy the one Jun 2014 #3
Yet according to the FBI, murders continue to decline gejohnston Jun 2014 #4
...and so do aggravated assaults (which cover nonlethal gunshot wounds) friendly_iconoclast Jun 2014 #6
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #38
Must be back breaking work to discredit the FBI under Eric Holder DonP Jun 2014 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author friendly_iconoclast Jun 2014 #5
Holder is something of a Renaissance man- he simultaneously fought off NRA... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2014 #7
"You'd almost think their hatred of guns and gun owners over rides any political principles."? Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #10
Oh, come now. beevul Jun 2014 #13
Of course it exists, but not in the OP or this thread. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #14
Did someone say it existed in this thread? beevul Jun 2014 #16
Of course blueridge3210 Jun 2014 #18
Did you see any of those statements in this thread? Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #20
Do you agree that there is no place on DU for those terms? hack89 Jun 2014 #26
"grabbers" LOL Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #29
So you see my point hack89 Jun 2014 #30
Why are you telling me this? Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #31
You enable those that use worse insults hack89 Jun 2014 #32
Yup. beevul Jun 2014 #33
Thanks for the info, but I'll continue to carry my PSD. ileus Jun 2014 #8
Me too! In fact, I carry two. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #11
Old argument, same response: Eleanors38 Jun 2014 #9
Another steaming pile, I see krispos42 Jun 2014 #12
It's not just about stats and "crime levels" Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #15
Who gets to determine blueridge3210 Jun 2014 #17
Every one of us, when we examine our behavior. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #21
especially in an urban environment gejohnston Jun 2014 #22
Maybe, but it's not all about you Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #25
when it comes to collateral damage, gejohnston Jun 2014 #27
I've never supported cops carrying guns. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #28
I am quite sure you could not find a cop in the U.S. that would agree with you. Jenoch Jun 2014 #36
I doubt that. But I'm sure there are very few. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #37
Our behavior or others behavior? blueridge3210 Jun 2014 #23
We all have the right to comment on any behavior. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #24
"inappropriate". beevul Jun 2014 #19
Which is a subjective term krispos42 Jun 2014 #34
Absolutely! Same as introspection. Starboard Tack Jun 2014 #35

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
1. this study should have been ignored
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:14 AM
Jun 2014
Another, much more troublesome report was issued in January with data and conclusions that the NRA chooses to ignore. The report was based on a study of 6,300 patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center in Newark suffering from gunshot wounds between 2000 and 2011, a time when, according to the FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%, but since we're only talking about less than 60 dead bodies lying around, we'll leave that one alone.
The fact that the study focused only on one city in New Jersey invalidates the study. Why? New Jersey was one of the few states that did not liberalize concealed carry. Also, this is Newwark. We are talking gangs shooting each other, people not exactly inclined to a police station to fill out a form and asked to be fingerprinted, and innocents caught in the crossfire.

FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%
So, they are saying the FBI is wrong? Murder is a subset of violent crime. It is possible that rapes, armed robberies, etc dropped enough (since they are greater in number to begin with) to accommodate the 60 percent in murders and still have the lower rate.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
3. try reading the entire article
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jun 2014

Johnston: this study should have been ignored ... The fact that the study focused only on one city {Newark} in New Jersey invalidates the study. Why? New Jersey was one of the few states that did not liberalize concealed carry.

Did you bother to read the whole article, Johnston?

The gun lobby could (and will) ignore these numbers were it not for the fact that the national picture for the trend gunshot wounds is roughly the same as what happened in Newark.
According to the CDC, the rate of intentional gun injuries per 100,000 was 17.25 in 2000 and 17.83 in 2011, holding steady nationally just like the researchers in the case of Newark's University Hospital found over the same eleven years. That being the case, how does one reconcile those numbers with the BJS report that the NRA uses to bolster its claim of such a dramatic decrease in the criminal use of guns? The BJS report shows a decline in the gun homicide rate from 7 per 100,000 to less than 4 from 1993 to 2011, and a decline in nonfatal gun victimizations from above 7 per 1,000 persons to less than 2. So who's right?
They're both correct except that virtually the entire decline in gun violence occurred between 1993 and 2002, while since the latter date the gun violence rate, including both fatalities and injuries, has stabilized or slightly increased. This stabilization of the number of admissions for gun violence is exactly what was reported by the medical team at University Hospital in Newark, even while the severity and cost of injuries continues to climb.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/concealed-carry-laws_b_5479055.html

Also, gun ownership rates have fallen since the early 90's, in sync with the decline in murder rates & violent crime rates.
So it's more like 'LESS GUNS, LESS CRIME & MURDER RATES'

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to {GSS} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
4. Yet according to the FBI, murders continue to decline
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:50 PM
Jun 2014

The NRA uses the FBI's numbers. Yes I read the entire article. I would like to read the entire study because I doubt Mike the "gun guy" is explaining it very ummm well. For example:

Getting back to the gunshot wounds, the physicians who conducted the research found that the number of patients didn't significantly change, notwithstanding the alleged drop in gun violence everywhere else, and the severity of the wounds substantially increased. Despite the fact that Level 1 trauma centers utilize the most advanced life-saving skills imaginable, the mortality rate from gunshot wounds climbed from 9% to 14%, the number of spinal cord and brain injuries nearly doubled, and the incidence of multiple bullet wounds increased from 10% to nearly 25%.
Which has what to do with the number of guns or concealed carry? While worthy of study, it doesn't support their overall thesis. It might actually undermine it.

I also would like to see the raw data from this study. MD's pretending to be criminologists while funded by Bloomberg, not something I'm going to take at face value.

Gallup has been asking do you have any guns since 1960. They report 51 percent in 1993, 34 percent in 1998, and 43 percent in 2012. There are a lot of possible reasons for that. Also, most murders and violent crimes, per capita and raw numbers, are in places where legal gun ownership is not common if possible.

So it's more like 'LESS GUNS, LESS CRIME & MURDER RATES'
it is more like cum hoc ergo propter hoc, assuming there is such a correlation. I seriously doubt there is since there are more guns, not fewer guns.

Response to jimmy the one (Reply #3)

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
2. Must be back breaking work to discredit the FBI under Eric Holder
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014

Funny how the gun control progressive's here seem to overlook who's running the FBI that they don't want to listen to.

You'd almost think their hatred of guns and gun owners over rides any political principles.

Response to DonP (Reply #2)

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
7. Holder is something of a Renaissance man- he simultaneously fought off NRA...
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:49 PM
Jun 2014

...attempts to oust him during Fast And Furious while at the same time
allowing them to manipulate crime statistics to show murder and aggravated assault rates declining drastically over the past twenty years or so.

Or so some of our more overheated posters would have us believe...

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
10. "You'd almost think their hatred of guns and gun owners over rides any political principles."?
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 12:12 PM
Jun 2014

I saw nothing that indicated a "hatred of guns and gun owners". Did I miss something?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
13. Oh, come now.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 07:01 PM
Jun 2014

It is crystal clear that there exists a subset of the population that hates guns.

They've been around since before Clinton was President.

Can you really say with a strait face, that there is no overlap with that subset, and the subset that demands more and more gun control, and then truly expect anyone to believe it?

You'd have better luck trying to sell Arizona oceanfront property.


Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
14. Of course it exists, but not in the OP or this thread.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:14 PM
Jun 2014

When one side starts using words like hatred, then there is little room for discussion.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
16. Did someone say it existed in this thread?
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:31 PM
Jun 2014

Its pretty clear who Don was referring to, and when he said "here" It appears he was referring to "on DU".

"When one side starts using words like hatred, then there is little room for discussion."

But "second amendment absolutists" "gun nuts" Gun humpers" "ammosexuals" and the like, are just peachy, and leave plenty of room for discussion, right?

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
18. Of course
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:36 PM
Jun 2014

Because there is nothing controversial about those terms at all. Do I need a "sarcasm" tag?

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
20. Did you see any of those statements in this thread?
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:33 AM
Jun 2014

Or do we have to revert to insults in every thread to prove we are not interested in civilized discussion?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
26. Do you agree that there is no place on DU for those terms?
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:01 AM
Jun 2014

Why do we never see grabbers confronting those that use such terms?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
30. So you see my point
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:25 AM
Jun 2014

Choice of words can derail meaningful conversation. I understand that cultural wars and not meaningful dialog motivate most anti-gun posters here but even you should understand how two faced it is to vilify gun owners on one hand and demand our cooperation on the other.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
32. You enable those that use worse insults
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

The day I see so call reasonable gun controllers confront Hoyt, Jpak and the host of others that use vile broadbrush slanders against legal gun owners is the day I will take them seriously.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
33. Yup.
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 02:03 PM
Jun 2014

If pro-gun posters are responsible every time theres a school shooting, or other gun crime, why aren't you responsible every time an anti-gunner insults demeans and vilifies us?

Sauce for the goose.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
9. Old argument, same response:
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:07 PM
Jun 2014

The RKBA ain't social policy, one way or t'other.
It is a choice Americans take or don't take as they see fit, under the Constitution. If the practice lowers the crime rate, fine. My decision is unaffected.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
12. Another steaming pile, I see
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 06:39 PM
Jun 2014


It's pretty simple... if the primary reason gunshot-related murder was down was that we had better medicine and faster response times (due to widespread cell phone coverage and usage), then the violent crime rate and the aggravated assault rate would stay roughly flat.

Same number of people shot, but fewer deaths (homicides) and more survivors (attempted homicides).

BUT, as we can CLEARLY see from the FBI stats (above), ALL crime indicators have been falling proportionally. The tracks are parallel, or nearly so; only one line (motor vehicle theft rate) crosses another (aggravated assault rate). Once.


With only a couple of percentage points of the population having CCW permits, and even fewer carrying on a regular basis (which, I believe, is your goal anyway), OF COURSE it's not going to have a noticeable impact on the crime levels, either raising or lowering them.


You fight hard to make owning guns, much less carrying concealed guns, a social issue, a reason to shame and shun a person, then act jaw-droppingly surprised when only a relative handful of people do so and it doesn't change anything.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
21. Every one of us, when we examine our behavior.
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:41 AM
Jun 2014

Sometimes, as humans, we over-react to situations. Maybe we decide to carry concealed weapons everywhere we go out of unrealistic fear of our fellow humans. Carrying a weapon for sound reasons may well be appropriate. Carrying one, especially in an urban environment, just because it is a so-called right, is not. But that's for each individual to figure out for themselves.
It's called "reality testing".

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
22. especially in an urban environment
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 01:23 AM
Jun 2014

why not in an urban environment? You are more likely to need it in the city than in rural areas.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
27. when it comes to collateral damage,
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 10:07 AM
Jun 2014

perhaps cops should be expected to go to the range as often or more than the average "gun nut". At most a big city cop might go to the range twice a year and fire 40 rounds each time. I do at least 100 rounds every other week, and I don't carry. I went every week before I went into the military, when it was easier to get a CCW in Germany, Canada, and California than it was in Wyoming.
Statistically, cops shoot more innocents than CCW holders, and are held to a lower legal standard than a non LE. LAPD for example. Those cops probably still have their badges and guns, even though the violated department policy. Either one of us would be in jail.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
37. I doubt that. But I'm sure there are very few.
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:35 PM
Jun 2014

Columbo was not a real cop, I know.

Fortunately, the US is not the world.

BTW, my view on cops being armed or not isn't absolute. There are times when it is wise for them to be armed and I think they should have weapons available for such occasions. But the routine carry of sidearms is not IMO, good practice.

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
23. Our behavior or others behavior?
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 07:33 AM
Jun 2014

Most of the comments I've seen regarding public carry has been directed at the action of others. No, I'm not talking about this thread but on the subject in general.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
24. We all have the right to comment on any behavior.
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:46 AM
Jun 2014

Whether that behavior is appropriate or not is ultimately up to the individual.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
19. "inappropriate".
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:15 PM
Jun 2014

"Inappropriate" is one half of "arbitrary and capricious".

For the other half, see "second amendment absolutists" "gun nuts" Gun humpers" "ammosexuals" and the like.

I trust you can do the math.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
35. Absolutely! Same as introspection.
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:12 PM
Jun 2014

It's your life. You decide what's appropriate or not and you live with the consequences.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Concealed Carry Laws Don'...