Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns. Mauser, Lott, 6 Feb 2016

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns. Mauser, Lott, 6 Feb 2016

    Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns: Crime, Suicides, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2728123
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    There must be something wrong with this report. Guns deterring crime is a myth just like smoke alarms saving lives. It's a dangerous world out there and sticks and stones will not provide you safety.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Strong arguments for maintaining a prior restraint of a enumerated right...great.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Economists’ and Criminologists’ views on Guns. Co Author Dr John Lott

    This is a fascinating research paper on guns and the right to carry from the perspective of economists and criminologist: ABSTRACT: Economists and Criminologists have very different models of human behavior. A total of
    74 out of 130 academics who published peer reviewed empirical research on gun issues in criminology and economics journals responded to our survey.That was a 57% response rate. Looking at their views on gun control, our survey finds that these two
    groups have very different views on gun control that vary in systematic ways that we expected. While economists tend to view guns as making people safer, criminologists hold this position less strongly. Combining all the economists and criminologists
    together shows that researchers believe that guns are used more in self defense than in crime; gun free zones attract criminals;guns in the home do not increase the risk of suicide; concealed handgun permit holders are much more law
    abiding than the typical American; and that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate. All those results are statistically significant.The survey of economists was conducted from August 25th to September 12th 2014. The survey of criminologists was conducted from May 29th to June 14th 2015.

    http://chicago.ssrn.com/delivery.php...005101&EXT=pdf
    Last edited by Law abider; 02-12-2016 at 05:00 PM.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    I think this has already been posted.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...68#post2180468


    --Mod note: Just merged--
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-12-2016 at 10:45 PM. Reason: Merged notation

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Strong arguments for maintaining a prior restraint of a enumerated right...great.
    For those who can't understand the Constitution, particularly the academic, brainy, uber-liberal types, smacking them upside the head with a good, solid, peer-reviewed academic study is just what they need.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Strong arguments for maintaining a prior restraint of a enumerated right...great.
    Combining all the economists and criminologists together shows that researchers believe that guns are used more in self-defense than in crime; gun-free zones attract criminals; guns in the home do not increase the risk of suicide; concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American; and that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate. All those results are statistically significant.
    And then there is this. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2629704

    Mr. Lott "makes" a strong case for continuing the firearm permit system. Mr. Lott makes a strong case that may (will?) persuade some lawmakers to perpetuate a prior restraint who may otherwise have worked to eliminate all prior restraints on our 2A right...liberals excluded of course.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    There must be something wrong with this report. Guns deterring crime is a myth just like smoke alarms saving lives. It's a dangerous world out there and sticks and stones will not provide you safety.
    Wait a minute - are you listening to yourself? Did you just say that it's dangerous, so defensive weapons won't help keep you safe? I thought the whole defensive thing is because it's dangerous. Does the danger magically disappear if I don't have the means for defense? There's something wrong here.

    How about this one, "The policeman is your friend." or "Life insurance will protect you." or even, "The police are there to keep the public safe." I'd rather have a gun, myself, at least that way I've got a chance.

    There IS something wrong with the report - they asked a bunch of criminologists for an opinion; people who get into the line of work they're in because they're interested in crime, they study crime, so they define crime in terms of The System's goals, one of which is to make the populace easy to control, both individually and in groups. If you're a cop and you need to arrest someone, you're really rather that guy didn't have a weapon available to him. And since the whole point of law enforcement is to apprehend suspects after a crime has been committed, The System has no goal whatsoever of actually keeping people safe - the courts have said over and over that that's an individual's duty to himself. In fact, The System actually feeds on crime - less crime means less law-enforcement empire, fewer jobs for cops, judges, bailiffs, clerks, court reporters, criminologists, and defense attorneys. (Yes, I'm trying hard to do myself out of a job.) Ask anyone who's really signed up as a member of The System (and who therefore wears the mark of The Beast), and they'll all tell you that just plain folks can't possibly defend themselves, and that they shouldn't have the means to do so. That's because they couldn't care less whether individuals and their families are damage, because they're only statistics. A certain number of "stochastic deaths" are to be assumed and tolerated.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    [ ... ] That's because they couldn't care less whether individuals and their families are damage, because they're only statistics. A certain number of "stochastic deaths" are to be assumed and tolerated.
    An interesting point, and why I carry a gun. I will not be a mere stochastic death, I will be a flier and an out lier.

    We must work to make legal gun carry fatten the right hand tail of the death distribution.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Interesting... https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/

    So, defending against death, the imminent kind of death, is good, yet anything less than imminent death is to be tolerated.

    Burgergler: I'm not going to hurt you I just want your TV then I will leave.
    Home owner: ...uh?...

    Know the laws that affect you and know a good lawyer.

    Economists and criminologists...nope, never ask the right question they do...never. And folks wonder why polls and surveys are looked upon as one talking head talking to the other talking head. When polls and surveys must be looked upon as we look upon a cop telling us what the law is (allows).

    ..."ivory tower"...

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=ivory+tower
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •