Permitless carry set to take effect in Florida July 1st

You can't refute an argument that is fact based.

When states enact Right-to-Carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws, incidents of violent crimes, robberies, and aggravated assaults involving firearms increase by around a third in major cities as a result of the altered behavior of gun permit holders, career criminals, and the police. These adverse crime effects from RTC laws are in part generated by a substantial increase in gun thefts as well as reduced police effectiveness, John J. Donohue, Samuel V. Cai, Matthew V. Bondy, and Philip J. Cook find in More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities (NBER Working Paper 30190).
https://www.nber.org/digest/202208/rights-carry-concealed-handguns-and-urban-crime

 

Well, people have brought forth studies, and you have claimed the data is there for all to see, so it should be east to refute by showing the contradictions, but if you can't refute, then........well, its quite an admission.

 

Noticed that none of these sources you include are doing something as simple as comparing the crime rates in these states from three maybe five years before and an equal period of time after? Did you notice that?

And I'm not talking about just for one state.... It's a claim is true it should be easy to demonstrate in all 26 states that have permitless carry

 

I don't support giving the government powers that can be used to prevent honest people owning firearms

 

Every study that people have brought forth is not giving a comparison from an equal period of time from before and after for all of these states.

Not to mention they're all thoroughly left-wing biased. Who the hell takes anything seriously from something like the giffords institute?

I'm sure you think sources like that are very credible though.

 

you are dishonestly assuming facts not in evidence-such as claiming that if we don't support unconstitutional bans on firearms that are rarely used in crimes, we support criminal use therefore. you want to ban guns. You want to harass lawful gun owners and you pretend that your schemes are going to stop criminals

 

I have made my position clear several times on this thread.

Not sure why you'd open a thread to ask people to present studies, and then refuse to defend your view. Weird, but to each his own.

 

While the recent state panel data literature has broadly concluded that “right-to-carry” (RTC) concealed handgun regimes increase violent crime, there is little empirical evidence on the precise mechanisms that drive this increase. Using data from 217 US cities, we find that the effect of RTC on violent crime is concentrated to large urban centers. In cities with an average population of over 250,000 between 1979 and 2019, we find that the introduction of RTC increases violent crime by 20 percent.

Here is a claim of cause and effect, with an admitted ability to meaningfully describe the mechanics of said cause.
Thus, there is no demonstrable necessary relationship between the claimed cause - permit-less carry - and the described effect -- increase in gun-related crimes in urban areas.

I love it when the cited source negates the claim it was intended to prove.

 

did you read it-lots of assumptions, presumptions and unproven conclusions.

 

there is an ASSUMPTION that the police are distracted by things that MAY have happened

 

Your attempt to disparage the study by questioning the methodology of experts who do this for a living is as laughable as it is pathetic. You asked for research proving your assertion is wrong. You got it in spades.

Enactment of RTC laws was also associated with a 35 percent increase in stolen gun value per capita. When these results are projected nationwide, they imply that the existence of RTC laws in 2015 was associated with an increase of more than 100,000 gun thefts.

 

Sorry you're having difficulty coping with the facts.

In 2019, the US experienced nearly 300,000 aggravated assaults, homicides, and robberies committed with a firearm. To study the impact of RTC laws, the researchers analyze data from the 1979–2019 period for 47 US cities with a population of at least 400,000 in 2019. They study monthly FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics reports on firearm and non-firearm crimes, the rate at which police are able to identify and arrest the perpetrators of crime (the clearance rate), and stolen property. The last data series enables them to determine the monetary value of stolen guns.

The data include four categories of violent offenses: aggravated assault, robbery, violent crime, and homicide. The first three increased by between 11 and 15 percent after RTC laws were adopted. The number of these crimes that involved firearms increased even more, by between 24 and 32 percent. Firearm homicides increased nearly 13 percent and non-firearm homicides decreased by over 3 percent. While the overall homicide rate rose 8.5 percent, this increase was not statistically significantly different from zero.

Police effectiveness decreased in cities covered by RTC laws. Across the four violent crime categories, clearance rates fell between 7 and 15 percent; the total violent crime clearance rate fell by 13 percent. This decrease in clearance rates is not explained by the increase in violent crimes. Rather, it may be due to factors such as the burdens on police time caused by greater gun carrying (investigating additional gun thefts, dealing with increases in accidental gun discharges and injuries, evaluating whether guns are being lawfully carried, or addressing wrongful gun carrying into sensitive locales), police hesitation to engage with a more heavily armed civilian population, or weakened police-community relations.

 

Associations and implications are not proof.
All you have here is a long-winded post-hoc fallacy.

 

I'm not sure how I can state it any more clearly....

All they have to do is demonstrate a rise and gun crime compared to a set period of time before and after the laws have passed.

Now of course many factors can alter those numbers over a period of time.... So that's why showing one state is not reliable.

If what they say about permitless carry is true.... They should clearly be able to demonstrate the before and after effects in all 26 States.

Your left wing anti-gun hacks are not impressive

 

Its almost as if none of them took a basic logic class.

 

See post #185.

 

Se your own source:

there is little empirical evidence on the precise mechanisms that drive this increase.

Absent a sound description of the mechanism that drives the increase, it is impossible to demonstrate the claimed cause and effect.

But I -have- refuted the claim of cause and effect.

 

I guess you missed that part .

 

Many Gun banners start with a desire to ban guns and try to force any article that they think helps their cause into that pigeonhole

 

Just another example of how the (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

Are they giving department of Justice statistics from specified periods of time before and after in all 26 States?

Of course not. All they have to do is produce that and it would be undeniable.

There should be a clear ability to demonstrate the corresponding rise in all 26 States that would be absent from all of the states that did not initiate permitless carry.

 

In all reality, it doesn't matter:
Correlation does not imply, much less prove, causation.

 

Never trust a man who is afraid of firearms. And certainly never trust a man who is only afraid of firearms when you have them and not him. You know.... Like the government the majority of Democrats

 

Those the concerns presented by the LE as well. You should at least try to consider all sides of the debate.

From the National Bureau Of Economic Research article:
"Rather, it may be due to factors such as the burdens on police time caused by greater gun carrying (investigating additional gun thefts, dealing with increases in accidental gun discharges and injuries, evaluating whether guns are being lawfully carried, or addressing wrongful gun carrying into sensitive locales), police hesitation to engage with a more heavily armed civilian population, or weakened police-community relations."

 

do you understand what that means? I already went over this