Quote of the Day: Matt M

Over at Armed with Reason where the authors are attempting to claim using some VERY flawed methods (the biggest being citing reports that don’t support their claims as supporting them) that liberalizing carry laws cause an INCREASE in violent crime.

There is a rather simple way to get closer to settling this issue: are concealed carry holders more likely or less likely than the general public to commit the crimes that Donahue suggests will increase following the passage of concealed carry laws? If we find that concealed carry holders are less likely to commit these crimes, then the credibility of the study would be called into question. It would have us believe that while these laws create a new class of citizens less likely to commit certain crimes, by some mysterious force, the rate of these crimes actually increases.

Now in the video Lott explains why the numbers cited are statistical artifacts. Further in his off-camera rebuttal (where he ignores Lott’s points and moves the goal posts) he cites a number of studies by his own admission that state that relaxing gun laws show “No effect or Increases Crime”. I’ll note the majority of those studies show “no effect” rather than an increase.

Even if the anti-gun postulate is true, the idea that if something is shown to do no measurable harm is reason enough to ban or restrict it is the HUGE difference between people who fight for liberty and those who fight for government authority.

Now the authors on that site, like all anti-gun sites, are simply abusing science to push an agenda, all under the false pretense of being concerned about public safety. Still even if all said in this article is true, we have concrete data that if there is an uptick in violent crime it is NOT being done by those who are directly effected by these changes.

It COULD be argued, as antis do, that all “Crime Guns” start out as “Legal Guns”, so the only way to disarm criminals, is to disarm the lawful. That is both convoluted, dangerous, and anti-freedom.

It could ALSO be argued that if crime is INCREASED by allowing more people access to bearing arms, which I am in no way saying I believe, that this could be because of cultural pressure. Say the massive spike in gun sales in Missouri.

People SAW the writing on the wall, there was MASSIVE civil unrest, and the agitators were encouraging a second riot. So people went and bought guns, and the riots happened.

Now what’s also interesting about this well publicized event is that the riots happened, so violent crime increased MASSIVELY, but there were no stories of the good people of Missouri shooting rioters. Instead we see burnt and looted stores right beside untouched stores where armed people were dissuading rioters from attacking. So the good guys with guns actually DECREASED violence at a time when violence was INCREASING.

Of course this comment, like many others, will go unanswered by the authors, because their concern for public safety is 100% false, all they want is to ban guns.

Just saw this article from Dr. Lott himself that shows EXACTLY what he was saying in the video debate.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Quote of the Day: Matt M

  1. McThag says:

    I want to throw an unrelated tangent in here.

    I recall reading once that people who bother to get carry permits are also folks who tend to obey the law. So their getting permits won’t increase crime because they tend to not commit crimes.

    Some author was using that as a justification for constitutional carry.

    Just as an example of our side messing up causal relationships too.

  2. Burnt Toast says:

    Another tangent, consider our friend the automobile, more cars == more car crime.

    More cars results in more car crime is not a ‘given’,
    It is an obvious direct effect of more cars versus not having that additional car –

    every additional car results in virtually unlimited possible infractions on a moment by moment basis from operating on a public road without registration/insurance/licensed operator, speeding, illegal parking, DUI, no safety belt for whoever, not yielding to a pedestrian at a crosswalk or another vehicle at a yield sign, driving without headlights, failure to signal a turn or lane change, crossing a double yellow or passing another in a no-passing one, crossing a solid white when changing lanes, running red lights and stop signs, going down a road the wrong way, using then ‘official vehicles only’ turn-a-round on the interstate, using hi-cap vehicle lanes without passengers, obstructed view and over tinted windows, unsafe equipment and not renewing the safety check / emission test, hit-and-runs, careless and reckless driving, the list goes on, every moment of every day, for new car on the road.

    Every new car always increases the possibility of civil and/or criminal offense. Crime.

    So What! It is a simple observable fact.

    Grinding out hundreds of pages of statistical analysis does little but convince the ignorant to believe something had to be found through lengthy analysis. Some sort of revelation…

    So, of course, letting a person have ‘X’ will result in some chance that some crime will be committed. Whether ‘X’ is an automobile, a gun, or life, whatever. Just having it can only increase the chance of crime verses the alternative of not having it all all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *