November 16, 2014 1:00 pm -

[su_center_ad]One of the most confusing arguments I’ve ever seen is the argument that more guns will some how mean less crime. Now, I’m not one to make appeals to common sense (enough of the world violates “common sense” that I don’t bother making appeals to it; see: the Banach-Tarski paradox), but it seems to me like…


D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

73 responses to Study: Right-To-Carry Gun Laws Linked To Rise In Violent Crime

  1. Anomaly 100 November 16th, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Also, water is wet.

    • FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 1:38 pm

      You beat me to it.

    • StoneyCurtisll November 16th, 2014 at 1:40 pm

      Cougar Jim sez..
      Freeze dried water is real~!
      Just add water.

      • M D Reese November 16th, 2014 at 3:03 pm

        I wonder how much he made on the idea. The “Coast to Coast AM” crowd would buy it by the truckload.

        • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 3:28 pm

          It’s great for the end of times crowd!

          • M D Reese November 16th, 2014 at 9:19 pm

            And of course don’t forget your survival seeds!…
            Boy–that show sure has gone to hell–sometimes literally. I used to listen to it when Art Bell had it. Now it’s just wackadoodle conspiracy nuts and people who talk to ghosts and aliens.

  2. rg9rts November 16th, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Can’t wait for the first shootout at Krogers over the last can of pumpkin pie filling

    • Red Eye Robot November 17th, 2014 at 2:49 am

      And therein lies the difference between Liberals and conservatives Liberals are breathless at the prospect of a tragedy involving the loss of human life

      • rg9rts November 17th, 2014 at 3:56 am

        And conservatives dance in the street while calling for LESS restrictions on weaponry

  3. FrankenPC . November 16th, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    This is like saying rain is linked to flooding.

  4. Republicans_are_Evil November 16th, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    I think it is great that right wingers get to go to prison for murdering Americans with their penis extenders.

    • M D Reese November 16th, 2014 at 3:02 pm

      I just wish that they would keep it amongst themselves.

    • Allan Kim Harrison November 16th, 2014 at 4:24 pm

      Freud had a theory about your type of thinking.

      • Republicans_are_Evil November 16th, 2014 at 4:38 pm

        Specifically what theory is that?

  5. M D Reese November 16th, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    And the exact magnitude of the problem will never be known since the CDC is prohibited from studying it.

    Thanks, NRA.

    • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 11:19 pm

      Why does Bloomberg just not fund the research?

  6. tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    So, where are our 2A brethren who will dispute these so called facts?

    • Suzanne McFly November 16th, 2014 at 3:31 pm

      From what I understand, they were here trying to throw stones at the smarty liberals who frequent this site. Maybe mommy told them to sleep in today cause they were up so late.

    • Allan Kim Harrison November 16th, 2014 at 4:21 pm

      If we take the results of this study to it’s logical conclusions then we have to assume the criminal types waited for the law to allow legal carry before they did so. The criminal types bought their guns legally and jumped through all the hoops to get a license to carry so they could go out and do illicit things with a gun. Does that really make any sense to any of you?

      “In some cases, may have risen by as much as 33%, as did murder rates,
      which jumped in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws”

      If people are able to arm themselves for self defense then yes the murder rate will go up. It’s called justified murder, it’s a job hazard for violent criminals.

      • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 5:00 pm

        You are an idiot.

        • Carla Akins November 16th, 2014 at 5:12 pm

          I think I love you.

          • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 6:47 pm

            Nooowww you tell me after you tell us that you’re moving farther away!!

        • Allan Kim Harrison November 16th, 2014 at 6:49 pm

          Perhaps, but at least I can see that this is just another pandering “study” for the anti-second amendment types. Carrying a gun on you does not make you rape, burn and pillage, sorry to bust your bubble.

          • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 7:16 pm

            No, not perhaps, you are an actual idiot. Yes, it used facts and solid science to get to its result, so, of course its pandering because you don’t like the outcome!

          • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 8:23 pm

            Solid science like those found in basic physics or mathematics? If this science was so solid that way was statistical significance not determined?

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 8:06 am

            There are many studies that say the opposite of this one. What’s your opinion of those? Waiting………

          • Carla Akins November 17th, 2014 at 8:17 am

            Okay, link? A new study, with the updated data? Prove it.

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 8:52 am

            Although I’m willing to bet you’ll disregard it anyway, here it is. John Lott has also done extensive research on the subject that also refutes the assertion that right to carry laws increase crime.


          • Carla Akins November 17th, 2014 at 8:59 am

            I’ve read Lott’s study it’s old and doesn’t include the new data.

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 9:10 am

            To believe the more “legal” guns in law abiding hands equals more crime mantra you have to believe that a gun “causes” otherwise peaceful people to become violent. That is absolutely absurd on it’s face.

          • Carla Akins November 17th, 2014 at 9:53 am

            Well, since you’re the expert and these guys with degrees and peer reviewed published articles working for Stanford are obviously shills…

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 10:06 am

            It doesn’t take a degree to figure it out. Smart people with degrees run the world. How’s that working out for us? So what did you think about that link?

          • mea_mark November 17th, 2014 at 9:54 am

            Maybe they only seemed peaceful because they didn’t have a weapon that made them feel superior. Guns enable, is that to hard a concept to understand.

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 9:59 am

            Maybe you’re just projecting your own self control issues upon others.

          • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 9:11 am

            Plus it’s always hjard to take activists seriously, especially in the light of;

            CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

            The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle
            Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s
            budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.


            How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
            Violence Research

            Read more:


            Harvard School of Public Health ; Homicide

            1. Where there are more guns there
            is more homicide


          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 9:19 am

            What is it with you guys and wanting the government to do the studies? Here’s one for you.


          • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 9:39 am

            What is it with you guys and wanting the gun industry and groups with their own agenda to fund the research?

            When I hear smallgovtimes, that usually translates to Big Unregulated Business Times.

            Who funds them?

            In these cases, especially where there is no profit motive for government, I trust government more than those who are profit driven.

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 9:57 am

            Harvard did the study, they were commenting on the results.

            ” I trust government more than those who are profit driven.”

            You’re an Oldlefty needless to say you trust government more than anything else. Regardless of who does the study or what the results are, the fact is we have an enumerated right to have and keep firearms, no study will change that.

          • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 10:45 am

            Harvard did the study, they were commenting on the results.


            And those authors have biases. One “is also a Senior Fellow with the conservative Canadian think tank, the Fraser Institute. His particular research interest is in critiquing gun control policies as being ineffective at reducing crime. His work has been criticised for inaccurately citing statistics.[1]His biographical notes on the Fraser Institue website states that he is “a member of the Board of Directors of British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the President of Barnet Rifle Club.”

            While the other is from a right wing think tank.

            “You’re an Oldlefty needless to say you trust government more than anything else”


            Trusting the government like the CDC, more than I trust Big Business with a profit driven agenda is NOT trusting “government more than anything else”

            Guess what?

            I also trusted the government on the risks of smoking more than I trusted the tobacco industry.

            As for our ” enumerated right to have and keep firearms”…

            And supporting common sense regulations have nothing to do with that.

            Even Scalia in Heller;

            “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
            The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions
            on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

            Also, you always have to leave out the ‘well regulated militia part.”

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 11:00 am

            So you’re asserting that the second amendment isn’t already highly regulated? I know, just one more “common sense” law will do it, right? While we’re quoting the supreme court, what did they say about that “well regulated” part again?
            Why don’t you guys just come on out and say it? You don’t want people to have guns plain and simple. It’s not about one more “common sense” law, it’s about law by law reducing an enumerated right down to nothing.

          • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 11:06 am

            I am asserting that by a “well regulated Militia”, the Founders meant;

            Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

            May 8, 1792.


            how to be arranged, and

            within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective
            states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and
            companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division,
            brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
            made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in
            the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment
            shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
            lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade
            shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
            battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.

            whom officered.

            That the
            said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each
            division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to
            each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
            as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one
            lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company
            one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
            drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
            consist of

            1803, ch. 15, sec. 3.

            one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one
            surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one


            And NOT every yahoo who can shoot himself in the foot and various other body parts, or his neighbor in the head.

            Perhaps gun owners should be required to carry insurance for the damage they cause to others, and let the free market decide.

            Why don’t YOU guys just come out and say it?
            Americans should be ruled by the tyranny of the gun lobby, which trumps anyone else’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 11:20 am

            Yes you are correct about the militia part. What about the remainder of it? Why is it that when the constitution refers to the “people” it doesn’t MEAN the “people” in the second amendment? The supreme court has laid out what it means I’m good with it for now.

          • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 11:24 am

            The SCOTUS changes frequently, (As I Said before, Scalia even says that it it not without limits.)

            Conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Second Amendment in
            “The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the
            Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

          • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 8:53 am

            about as much as intelligent people think about your climate denial “studies” financed by koch and block liars

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 8:56 am

            A predictable and myopic response.

          • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 8:58 am

            a typical response from an inbred teabagg, blah blah blah

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 9:03 am


    • Republicans_are_Evil November 16th, 2014 at 4:38 pm

      They were all banned.

      • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 5:00 pm

        That’s too bad. Their postings are such fun to read.

      • Carla Akins November 16th, 2014 at 5:11 pm

        We tried, I gave several of them a number of posts and even offered warnings but they insist on being douchecanoes.

        • Roctuna November 16th, 2014 at 5:22 pm

          Douchecanoes? That’s a new one, at least to me. It sounds like swearing Polish.

          • Carla Akins November 16th, 2014 at 6:11 pm

            I stole it (with permission) I just needed the right douche to earn the title.

        • Republicans_are_Evil November 16th, 2014 at 5:42 pm

          In some ways it’s nice. They know they will be banned, so most just avoid the place.

        • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 8:19 pm

          May I ask what “associated with” means? I do suspect that an “association” could be found between the amount of ice cream sold and an increase in crime?

          Furthermore, I ask by what mechanism “right-to-carry laws increase firearm-related assaults*”. Is he directly referring to a CCW permit holder shooting another human being?

          Finally, does not ‘He did, however, note that “the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.”‘, mean that statistical significance cannot be determined?

          In essence, I feel that no real actionable data was collected.

          *Are these criminal assaults or just assaults per a dictionary definition. Additionally are these physical battery or verbal assault?

    • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 8:19 pm

      I have posted my response.

      • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 9:23 pm

        Yeah, and it’s about what I expected.

        • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 9:30 pm

          It’s just bad research.

          The phrase, ‘He did, however, note that “the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.”‘, reads to me that it could be from 0.001% to 100%.

          In other words, its useless.

          • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 10:14 pm

            Only to those, like you, who refuse to acknowledge the danger that you, and your buddies, guns pose to a civil society.

          • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 11:17 pm

            So I am sure that you could point to that statistical research that shows the percentage amount of CCW permit holders that commit violent AND illegal acts with their CCW pistols. correct?

            I acknowledge that a CCW holder may be dangerous, but on a proportional basis in am more at risk from a 16-25 year old person of color than I am from a CCW holder.

            I doubt that I will find you saying I should be afraid of Blacks.

          • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 11:25 pm

            Which is not the point, is it? Your lack of comprehension is showing. Along with your pathetic racism.

          • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 11:28 pm

            What IS the point? What is the scientific LAW that can be obtained from a study that has a 0.00001% to 100% range of magnitude?

            What is the causation relationship? 1:1?

            Please, tell me the EXACT conclusion that is to be obtained by this “working paper”?

          • tiredoftea November 16th, 2014 at 11:38 pm

            Read it yourself:


          • Jeff Chang November 16th, 2014 at 11:53 pm

            tiredoftea stated:
            “Read it yourself:”

            What does that prove? After all, that study has this little sinppet:

            “Although we could not determine causation”

            The conclusion:

            “we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

            This could be due to a number of factors: Red neck states then to spend less money on public health care, their could be more crime, fewer well-trained medical professionals, the population could be more rural, more criminals could live in those states, or the rise in homicides (by criminals) could spur MORE firearm ownership.

            In FACT, your citation did not even show the relationship between legal gun owners and the increase in violent crime. For all I know it could just be a small subset of the population commiting MORE firearm homicide per person.

            P.S. This citation in NO WAY relates to the story at hand. What is the danger posed by CCW holders?

            P.P.S You have still not cited YOUR exact thesis regarding THIS story.

            P.P.P.S BTW, firearm homicide is not the same a firearm murder. I could just say that the police or citizenry are more efficient at dispatching the criminal element.

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 10:46 am

            It’s not racism, it’s statistical fact.

          • Khary A November 17th, 2014 at 11:14 am

            Based on the parameters of those statistics every “person of color” should attack every white person with justifiable cause. Rooted in a long history of violence enacted by the ” non-colored” populous perpetrated with malice over centuries…or is there a conveniently placed statute of limitations on wholesale murder now?

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 11:36 am

            There are no people alive that were slaves. There are no people alive that owned slaves. Shouldn’t we at some point be able to get over it? The blame for the stats on violence lays squarely on the perpetrators shoulders no matter what color they are.

          • Khary A November 17th, 2014 at 11:59 am

            Ok lets not talk about slaves then. How about we talk about the last 70 years then? You’ll find it’s the same story. No matter what time period we take if from the real fact of aggression against the black populace and other ” minorities” for that matter, occurring is indeed fact. If someone is going to throw statistics to prove a point then they must take all the statistics relevant. That includes the ones that created the situations we exist in today, no matter how distasteful they may seem. Oh and by the way, NO there’s no one “getting over it”. How about I rape you and your family consistently, terrorize them with impunity and then keep the threat of that alive in your face for decades if not centuries? Yeah you don’t get over that you keep that understanding in the back of your mind but you try your best to not let it paint your landscape. My point is statistics are made for those who keep themselves at arms reach from actual immersion in a subject, whether that be a culture or something as trivial as sporting events.

          • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 5:23 pm

            We are all responsible for our own actions. The numbers that keep track or those actions are what they are. You know what they are as well as I. Pointing out the numbers is not “racism” it is stating fact.

            MOST people today don’t see color but that doesn’t mean there isn’t racism out there. Look around there are people of color in positions of power everywhere, we’re making progress.

            It’s not okay to act like a slave owner and it’s not okay to act like a slave. Let’s stop making excuses for bad behavior because of our color or history no matter what it is.

            Have a nice day.

  7. tracey marie November 16th, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    If they want to fight why not enlist and take on ISIL…or are ther not enough diapers in the world for them to contain the soiling and the smell if they had to actually show courage beyound weilding a weapon at walmart.

    • Roctuna November 16th, 2014 at 5:24 pm

      Can you imagine that douchecanoe Kinnison (from the tea story) on the battlefield facing Isis? HA!

  8. Red Eye Robot November 17th, 2014 at 4:22 am

    the soup bone quote: “the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.”

    First, 1979 to 2010? Right to carry really started rolling in 1989 with Florida. since then 39 states have adopted Show cause or Must Issue permit laws and another 5 require no permit what so ever. And with the 9th circuits recent ruling even California has joined those states. Violent crime is down in EVERY STATE homicide is at it’s lowest rate since 1906 Where are these states where crime has increased? Only 2 major cities saw increases in violent crime or murder last year. Memphis and Baltimore, Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in America.And is one of the states with restrictive right to carry laws

    Second the use of states instead of cities is purposely deceptive. Michigan homicide rate is 6,5 per 100,000, 585 homicides, With over 65%, (385), of those homicides ocuring in 2 cities that combined equal less than 10% of the state’s population. The homicide rate outside those 2 cities is 2.5 per 100,000 . This is just another in a long series of gun studies that purposely manipulates statistics while ignoring reality.

    Wanna play a statistical game like the anti gunners do Using Detroit’s numbers? .Detroiter’s voted 98% for Obama in the last election. the homicide rate in detroit is 47 per 100,000. If you voted for Obama you are 8.7 X more likely to commit murder than the US population as a whole. Detroits numbers are not unique. The 10 most dangerous cities in the US all voted Obama 90% or greater.All have murder rates that completely skew their states respective homicide rate.

    • Allan Kim Harrison November 17th, 2014 at 10:43 am