Prof admits to wanting to protect criminals in anti CCW stud

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Prof admits to wanting to protect criminals in anti CCW stud

Postby M-Quigley » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:13 am

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/shall-i ... ide-rates/

Looser Concealed-Carry Standards Are Linked to Higher Gun-Homicide Rates

States that give concealed-weapons licenses to anyone who meets basic criteria have higher homicide rates than those that require people to demonstrate good character or a real need to walk around armed, according to a new study. Public health scholars at Boston University found that states with “shall-issue” concealed-carry licensing standards had homicide rates 6.5 percent higher than states with “may-issue” standards.


This study however included all homicides, justifiable or not, in contrast to another study. A reason was given for this.

In contrast to the Boston University group’s results, however, Donohue did not find a consistent, statistically significant relationship between shall-issue standards and homicide across all statistical models used.

The difference comes down to the underlying data cited. As Donohue wrote in a response to the BU paper, the research showing elevated levels of homicide used injury data, not crime data. As a result, the BU researchers would have included justifiable homicides or those otherwise not recognized as crimes.

But as Phil Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University, wrote in an email to Donohue, which was cited in Donohue’s response to the BU study, “we want to reduce the number of intentional killings, whether criminal or resulting from legal intervention or self-defense.”


There are many times where a crime victim doesn't necessarily die from an attack by a criminal, so the victim wouldn't be part of the homicide statistic. Near death, permanent injury, sexual assault, etc. doesn't count in those statistics. Those situations might still be justified in using deadly force, and for good reasons. Also of course this study does not take into account the thousands of cases of armed self defense that do not involve the criminal dying, or even shot. It seems like, according to this public policy professor, it's better for a woman to be sexually assaulted and almost killed or permanently injured, than for a criminal to die, even though it was the criminals actions that caused the criminal to have to be shot in the first place? :roll:

This nonsense is similar to a certain gun violence website tracker that included criminals being shot. When asked why criminals were listed along with real victims of crime, the response was that criminals had family and loved ones too. :roll:
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest