Restrictive concealed weapons laws can lead to an increase in gun-related murders

Jan 21, 2014

It may make sense to assume that states in which there are tight laws on weapons would make that state a safer place and one with less gun crime, however, recent research argues that the very opposite is true.

Mark Gius from Quinnipac University, published in Applied Economics Letters, suggests that this is in fact not the case, research shows that in states with more restrictive concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws there is actually an increase in gun related crime.

Over the period of the study the average murder rate was 3.44, data available in the full article indicates that states with more restrictive CCW laws had a gun-related murder rate that was 10% higher than the average. In addition to this finding, the Federal assault weapons ban seemed to make an even bigger impact, with murder rates 19.3% higher when this ban was in effect.

There are four broad types of CCW laws, unrestricted, which means an individual requires no permit to carry a concealed handgun. Shall issue, in which a permit is required but authorities must issue one to all qualified applicants that request one. May issue, in which authorities can deny a request for a permit and finally no issue, those states that do not allow private citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

Although there have been many studies on gun control, there has been limited research into assault weapon bans and CCW laws. Of those that do currently exist there has been a mix in the exact results, however, Lott and Mustard (1997) found those states with a less restrictive law saw a 7.65% drop in murders.

This new study examines data from 1980 to 2009, one of the biggest time periods in research of this kind. It also looks solely at , rather than violent crime which is the case in similar research. State level data on related murder is taken from the Supplementary Homicide Reports from the United States Department of Justice and the information on CCW laws was obtained from a variety of United States bodies.

In conclusion it would appear that limiting people's ability to carry concealed weapons may in fact cause rates to rise. Gius does admit that more research is warranted in this area.

Explore further: CVI puts research into practice on firearms and domestic violence

More information: "An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates." Mark Gius. Applied Economics Letters. DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gun traffickers exploit differences in state laws

Oct 24, 2011

Every state in America legislates its own gun laws, but not without significant spillover effects on nearby states, according to a new study by Brown University economist Brian Knight. In a National Bureau of Economic Research ...

'Guns do not make a nation safer,' say doctors

Sep 18, 2013

A new study reports that countries with lower gun ownership are safer than those with higher gun ownership, debunking the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer. Researchers evaluated the possible associations ...

Recommended for you

How financial decisions are made

7 hours ago

Jayant Kale didn't grow up dreaming of becoming a leading expert in corporate finance and mutual fund investment. But he's happy he invested in that market early in life.

Less is more in lap of luxury

8 hours ago

Chandeliers, gold taps and ornate drapes are classic hallmarks of the world's most luxurious hotels, right? Wrong, according to Flinders University sociologist Eduardo de la Fuente.

Has microfinance lost its moral compass?

14 hours ago

The industry that provides financial services for people on low-incomes and without access to traditional banking services is morally reprehensible according to new research from The University of Manchester.

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Anda
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2014
Stop doing stupid researches and look at western europe.
Never seen or heard someone firing a gun in 40 years...
I suppose we are lucky living in the one and only region in the world where you can make this statement...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2014
Stop doing stupid researches and look at western europe.
Never seen or heard someone firing a gun in 40 years...
I suppose we are lucky living in the one and only region in the world where you can make this statement...
Criminals there don't need guns to victimize people and they certainly aren't afraid of getting shot. Britain is the victim capital of Europe did you know it? People there are incapable of protecting themselves. Rapers and stabbers don't make a whole lot of noise.
bertibus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2014
@Anda. So in 2011 the massacre of 69 people in Norway was caused by a guy shooting rubber-bands?
COCO
5 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
We got incredible strict laws in Canada - with three times the per capita police forces ( vis a vis the US) - better described as armed goons - we have little gun crime - most deaths from guns come from cops whose de facto immunity from prosecution remains legend. I tend to see the Amerikan mantra of " better to judged by 12 than carried by six" more clearly now - Peace - Chris
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
We got incredible strict laws in Canada - with three times the per capita police forces ( vis a vis the US) - better described as armed goons - we have little gun crime - most deaths from guns come from cops whose de facto immunity from prosecution remains legend. I tend to see the Amerikan mantra of " better to judged by 12 than carried by six" more clearly now - Peace - Chris
Californias violent crime victim rate is similar to the UK - numbers of victims shot up as they were disarmed.
http://ag.ca.gov/...e01.pdf?

-And like you say it took a huge increase in armed guards to affect these numbers at all, also reflected in the tables.

Funny - I read your post and thought it said CA. Canada's victim statistics shot up after guns were banned as well .
http://en.wikiped...n_Canada
AndyH
2 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
In Florida gun ownership has increased and the murder rate has gone down. This was easily accomplished. Florida changed the definition of murder, with consequences such as we saw in the case of Trayvon Martin.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2014
In Florida gun ownership has increased and the murder rate has gone down. This was easily accomplished. Florida changed the definition of murder, with consequences such as we saw in the case of Trayvon Martin.
Trayvon Martin attacked someone without provocation, knocked him to the ground, proceeded to pound his head into the pavement and announced his intent to kill him. Shooting Trayvon Martin would never have been considered murder no matter WHAT your tv tells you.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
A US Ambassador was murdered in Libya and his bosses, Hillary Clinton, BHO and 'liberals' don't care.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
A US Ambassador was murdered in Libya and his bosses, Hillary Clinton, BHO and 'liberals' don't care.
That compound was attacked at night by 150 insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars. They were quickly intermingled with civilians and friendly forces.

Previously the ambassador himself had rejected calls for increased security, but it is unreasonable to assume that any in-place security or relief force could have done much at all to defend the compound from such an attack; no matter what your tv tells you.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2014
unreasonable to assume that any in-place security or relief force could have done much at all

No one tried and BHO was more concerned about losing an election than acknowledging he allowed the murder of US citizens by Al Queda terrorist in a Libyan war BHO started.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2014
unreasonable to assume that any in-place security or relief force could have done much at all

No one tried and BHO was more concerned about losing an election than acknowledging he allowed the murder of US citizens by Al Queda terrorist in a Libyan war BHO started.

Correction, orders to stand down were given, by BHO, to anyone who could have provided support.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
No one tried
-Good thing because due to the very chaotic situation in an urban setting, a lot of innocent people would have died making for a much larger problem indeed.
and BHO was more concerned about losing an election than acknowledging he allowed the murder of US citizens by Al Queda terrorist
THAT is unwarranted conjecture. As I say the situation was not recoverable. The only defense would have been to vacate the compound well before the attack, something that the embassador was apparently unwilling to do.

An attack by 150 insurgents resulted in only 4 deaths. You should be congratulating Hillary.
in a Libyan war BHO started
This is odd. Did BHO cause Libyans to reproduce tgemeslves into abject poverty? Did BHO force kadaffy to respond to their unrest by oppressing them? Did BHO tell the people to rise up and die by the 1000s in order to reestablish equilibrium (for the moment?)

Of course not. No spokesmodel would ever be allowed to arrange these things.
baudrunner
2 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2014
In conclusion it would appear that limiting people's ability to carry concealed weapons may in fact cause murder rates to rise.
Bad conclusion. Murder is rare. Therefore it is carried out by few people. A few people might want to obfuscate the statistics by murdering people in states where gun laws become more restrictive. I wouldn't draw conclusions based on this study. It just makes sense that states that don't allow gun ownership should see a drastic drop in murder by gunfire. Everyone in Detroit has always owned guns. Detroit has had a million murders since 1950. The population there is under a million now, it should be about eight million. People don't kill people, guns kill people!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Cars kill people.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2014
@Anda
Never seen or heard someone firing a gun in 40 years

the inernet and the media reports from the region prove this statement false
therefore your statement is personal opinion and unsubstantiated by facts

http://www.gunpol...n+Europe

@ryggson2
Cars kill people.

your point is?

No matter how many laws are passed, criminals will not obey them

the laws only affect the law abiding citizen
restrictive laws only affect law abiding citizens
criminals will get firearms no matter what
(see Britian/Australia for proof)

so looking at western Europe or Britain only gives us examples of how to make innocent people VICTIMS of crime
it does NOTHING to show us how to prevent crime, or address the issue of violent crime

dav_daddy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2014
Duh! Hasn't nearly every unbiased study shown this exact same result since the 80's?

@Baudrunner
You are exactly right if I was going to go out and commit a random murderer I would certainly narrow my list of locales to the places where I am sure that the only people carrying concealed are fellow criminals.

The level of intentional ignorance by liberals regarding this subject is astounding.
Sigh
2 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
Trayvon Martin attacked someone without provocation, knocked him to the ground, proceeded to pound his head into the pavement and announced his intent to kill him. Shooting Trayvon Martin would never have been considered murder no matter WHAT your tv tells you.

Is there any source for that version of events other than George Zimmerman?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
Trayvon Martin attacked someone without provocation, knocked him to the ground, proceeded to pound his head into the pavement and announced his intent to kill him. Shooting Trayvon Martin would never have been considered murder no matter WHAT your tv tells you.

Is there any source for that version of events other than George Zimmerman?

@Sigh

the court records
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Having concelaed weapons backs society into a corner. The point is not to reduce gun related deaths but to eliminate them. When everyne is carrying guns (wild west style) then gun related deaths do not drop to zero.

People who commit murder do rarely so in a rational frame of mind (and those who do cold-blooded, premeditated murder will certainly find an easy way to kill someone even if they have a gun at hand - if only by using the element of surprise)

So anyone acting out a gaun related crime probably couldn't care less whether anyone has a concealed weapon or not.
Any study you care to look at shows you that criminals do not care what the penalty is - as they never expect to be penalized in the first place. Whether that penalty be being caught by the police and being handed a lawful sentence or the chance of being shot by armed bystanders. That type of "acting based on possible consequences" only applies to law abiding citoizens.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
@antialias
Having concelaed weapons backs society into a corner. The point is not to reduce gun related deaths but to eliminate them. When everyne is carrying guns (wild west style) then gun related deaths do not drop to zero

I have to argue some points here
the point SHOULD be to address violent crime

I agree criminals dont take concealed carry or penalties into consideration.

But the only way for gun deaths to drop to zero is to eliminate guns from existence... and that is impossible. So long as there are guns, there will be criminals who get them, and pass them on to other criminals.
Therefore the only way to protect yourself from criminals is to carry a gun or a cop, and the gun is much lighter and more effective
because trying to wield a cop for defense is not practical or feasible unless you are inordinately strong (hyperbole)
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
the point SHOULD be to address violent crime

From the point of view of someone shot it doesn't matter whether it was a crime or done by accident because someone went gung-ho.
The point is not to address violent crime (though that is a major factor and needs to be considered) but to address suffering to people.
And if you elminiate violent crime by adding suffering to people you've not achieved anything worthwhile.

But the only way for gun deaths to drop to zero is to eliminate guns from existence... and that is impossible.

Look at Japan. It's very well possible (or as near as makes no difference). I'd argue that their solution is much more effective than the solution of arming everyone and accepting a certain level of, non-decreasable, gun fatalities as a result.

or a cop

What's wrong with using cops? Works for most countries well.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
@Antialias
Look at Japan. It's very well possible (or as near as makes no difference). I'd argue that their solution is much more effective than the solution of arming everyone and accepting a certain level of, non-decreasable, gun fatalities as a result.

first off: Japan still has gun deaths because Japan still has criminals
second: there are still guns in Japan
third: you are talking about a seriously restrictive culture where there is little deviation from the norm

are you willing to adopt the Japanese cultural lifestyle?
Also, Japanese culture tends to be closed and does not really like outsiders
What's wrong with using cops?

ever tried carrying one? most are quite heavy...
The point is, you would need one cop per person to effectively protect the populace, or totally eliminate the criminal element, both of which are impossible
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
or a cop
What's wrong with using cops? Works for most countries well.
If by "well" you mean bleeding out while the police don't appear until 30 minutes after you are knifed, gutted or shot is fine with you
People who commit murder do rarely so in a rational frame of mind (and those who do cold-blooded, premeditated murder will certainly find an easy way to kill someone even if they have a gun at hand - if only by using the element of surprise)
Murder is very rational given the rule is predator/prey. All of the natural world operates on murder and savagery. You are domesticated and removed from the natural world. You forget that only two generations ago the law of the jungle was the law of your land
nowhere
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
Trayvon Martin attacked someone without provocation, knocked him to the ground, proceeded to pound his head into the pavement and announced his intent to kill him.

What a psycho. I would never have thought a 17 year old thief, who hadn't done anything illegal that night(yet), and after losing the 28 year old who was chasing him, would then return to attack and attempt to kill the chaser...by viciously beating him to death..?

At least Zimmerman made sure this one didn't get away.
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
Trayvon Martin attacked someone without provocation, knocked him to the ground, proceeded to pound his head into the pavement and announced his intent to kill him. Shooting Trayvon Martin would never have been considered murder no matter WHAT your tv tells you.

Is there any source for that version of events other than George Zimmerman?

@Sigh

the court records

No that would be the record, not a source.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Japan still has gun deaths because Japan still has criminals

If you look at years like 2008 (11 gun deaths) and 2006 (2 gun deaths). Yeah. They have them. But not to any appreciable number. And you can own guns in Japan if you want to. (by comparison: in 2008 the US had nearly 600 gun related deaths due to accidental discharges alone). So you be the judge which approach is better: A "feel safe" approach in which a lot of people die, or an objectively safe approach. And I'd argue that the "feel safe" approach wouldn't even be that - as it would increase the already preposterous levels of paranoia in the US even more.

third: you are talking about a seriously restrictive culture where there is little deviation from the norm

You have a slightly antiquated view of Japan.

are you willing to adopt the Japanese cultural lifestyle?

We're talking about (possibly) adopting their gun laws. How does that translate into adopting their lifystyle? That's hyperbole.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
The usual argument is that 'freedoms' are being taken away - but that's not an absolute thing. Even in the US you don't have the freedom to own a neutron bomb. It's not SENSIBLE for you to own a neutron bomb.

Other countries just have a different threshold for what they deem sensible. It's a quantitative difference - not a qualitative of "freedom" vs. "no freedom".

There is an issue of trust in protection by the police which plays into this. In the US the cops can be aordered around by politicians (i.e. they can be ordered to apply the law selectively despite what the law says). This is not true in many other countries where even politicians or the rich are beholden to laws. This leads to policemen being respected as impartial and viewed as helpful there. I can appreciate that when you basically live in a lawless place you might go for a gun. But the US does have laws. They should just apply to everyone and be enforced accordingly.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
@antialias
You have a slightly antiquated view of Japan

it was still the same in 2000 when I was there
We're talking about (possibly) adopting their gun laws. How does that translate into adopting their lifystyle? That's hyperbole

their gun laws only work BECAUSE of their culture and its incredible restrictions
because being "outside the norm" is frowned upon and corrected with pressures from family/peers etc

criminals will never obey the law
in America, we have the right to defend ourselves and our family
the only effective way to do this against an armed intruder is with a firearm

the issue SHOULD be about correcting violent criminal behaviour
NOT about restricting guns
as restrictions only affect the innocent
NOT the criminal

even criminals in "gun free" societies have guns

therefore criminals and the issue of criminal violence should be addressed before innocent people are prevented from defending their lives by restrictions that DONT work
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
@aa_p
There is an issue of trust in protection by the police which plays into this.

this is absolutely true
But the US does have laws. They should just apply to everyone and be enforced accordingly.

and this is the real meat of the problem here in America
we DO have laws
they DO work
but most of them are NOT enforced
and our politicians are at fault for this
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
being "outside the norm" is frowned upon and corrected with pressures from family/peers etc

You think that matters to criminals? Yet even criminals eschew guns in Japan. As you say: crminals don't obey the law - but criminals use the means that get results (they are Darwinian like that). You can either bunker up and force criminals to use atom bombs - or you can live in straw houses and have them use sticks. Neither approach is going to create more/less criminals/crimes. But the latter approach creates far less (seriously injured/killed) victims. That makes it better in my book. Criminals aren't motivated by laws or danger to seek a legitimate occupation. Getting the crime rate down is an entirely different issue altogether. That has nothing to do with allowing/banning guns.

Going for an armed populace just means everyone with an IQ 80 now wields a deadly weapon. Great

even criminals in "gun free" societies have guns

So? How is that an argument for anything?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
@aa_p
Yet even criminals eschew guns in Japan

no,they dont
criminals still have guns in Japan
How is that an argument for anything?

the point is that it doesnt do any good to take guns away with laws as they will always surface in the hands of the criminal
Getting the crime rate down is an entirely different issue altogether. That has nothing to do with allowing/banning guns

i agree but i disagree somewhat
i disagree only in that the political leaders "assume" that banning guns will change the crime rate
it will not
that is essentially what this whole thing is about
if banning guns worked, Chicago would be utopia
as well as DC, NYC and California
etc, etc
but you get the point there
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
no,they dont
criminals still have guns in Japan

http://www.japant...nmbS1KUk
Quote:
The retired cop then noted that even the yakuza don't like to use guns these days — because the penalties are too high.


The central sentence, however, from the article is this:
Guns don't kill people; people kill people - guns just make it a lot easier to kill a lot of people. That's why Japan bans them

The stuff you hear about from the US (school shootings and the like) aren't criminals. That's people with psychological problems using a violence multiplier - people that would get into a fistfight with the police in another country and be dragged away to a padded cell.
Banning guns will not change the crimerate - but it will change the number of people who live.

No one has a need for a gun. No one. If you feel you have a need for a gun then you have the need for a different society.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Banning guns will not change the crimerate - but it will change the number of people who live
Sorry. Guns are harder to get in this country than ever. And the incidence of mass shootings PER CAPITA is steadily decreasing.
No one has a need for a gun. No one.
Lets ask these people:

63-year-old wounds intruder, The Olympian, Olympia, Wash. 01/21/14...happened upon an intruder, who attempted to attack him. The homeowner responded by firing at the intruder, striking him in the leg and ending the confrontation.

Resident halts home invasion, KHOU, Houston, Texas, 01/12/13... an intruder attempted to gain access to the house by using a piece of concrete to smash a front window... retrieved a gun and fired at the criminal... ending the situation.

Armed Citizen halts carjacking, WTVR, Richmond, Va. 01/11/14
before the thieves were able to make off with his car, the resident was able to retrieve a shotgun
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Restaurant employee scares off pair of armed robbers, The San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego, Calif. 01/04/14... An employee spotted the criminals, retrieved a gun and fired at the robbers, striking both and causing them to flee

Grandmother fights off shotgun-wielding robber, The Shreveport Times, Shreveport, La. 01/06/14... Once inside, the intruder ordered Pipkins' granddaughter to fill a bag with valuables, while Pipkins begged the criminal to leave with the money in her purse... giving Pipkins an opportunity to retrieve the pistol from the safe and fire it at the robber. The home invader was struck once in the chest and fled before collapsing a block away

90-year-old store owner stops robber, The Dayton Daily News, Ohio, 12/31/13... With the cash drawer open on the store's register, the man confronted Hicks and demanded all of the money. Hicks responded by drawing a handgun from his coat pocket, prompting the criminal to flee.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Man discovers trio burglarizing his home, wounds one, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta, Ga. 12/16/13... he went to a back door where he spotted three burglars; prompting him to call 911. While making the call, the three criminals started running towards the homeowner. The homeowner responded by drawing a gun and firing at the burglars, striking one

Resident wounds intruder, Pensacola News Journal, Pensacola, Fla. 12/13/13... an attempt to break into the home's garage. The resident retrieved a gun, spotted the criminal and fired at him, striking the would-be intruder and causing him to flee

-More and more and more. Guns save lives dozens of times a day. This is evidence you never see and never think to look for. Why is that? This is a science site. Show some respect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Banning guns will not change the crimerate - but it will change the number of people who live
Yes the criminals do indeed get to live, and their victims get to live with disfiguring injuries, paralysis, brain damage, and nightmares of being kidnapped and raped for the rest of their lives.

"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research... Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK... The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

-And it also has some of the strictest gun laws in europe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Cars kill people.
Hillary Clinton disclosed Monday that she hasn't driven a car since the year 1996.

"The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996," Clinton said at the National Automobile Dealers Association meeting in New Orleans. She then joked: "I remember it very well. Unfortunately, so does the Secret Service, which is why I haven't driven since then."
There is an issue of trust in protection by the police which plays into this.
"Just before 4 p.m., the voluntary manslaughter indictment of Police Officer Randall Kerrick became public. The police officer was arrested Sept. 14 after he shot Jonathan Ferrell 10 times in a pre-dawn confrontation in a sprawling neighborhood northeast of Charlotte"
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Maybe this woman wishes she had had a gun?
http://www.youtub...2Zrse6-0

Maybe this woman would still be alive if she had had a gun...
http://www.youtub...XYkZyI74
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2014
@aa_p
No one has a need for a gun. No one. If you feel you have a need for a gun then you have the need for a different society

you are dead wrong here
a gun puts groceries on my table, protects me from wild animals
cops don't come out here
AND, more importantly, just because I own one, doesn't mean that I have to shoot someone to make it effective.

you should read Otto's posts.
Maybe you will learn something

as for your link:
there is no way you can tell me that if you and I went to Japan right now we would not find a single gun with a single Yakuza!
that is a ridiculous claim...
the article says that they don't LIKE to use them due to penalties, not that NONE EVER DO use them!

it is easy to condemn from your chair, aa_p, without knowledge of every situation and its details, but you make assumptions that are unsupported with evidence
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
a gun puts groceries on my table, protects me from wild animals
cops don't come

Fair point. I'll modify this to: No one needs a gun who lives within a civilized society. (Where food is available for purchase, you live in a 'tamed land' and there actually exists a police force worthy of the name)

You'll always find singular examples where 'a gun might have helped'. But the thing is: People who carry a gun are actually in more danger of getting seriously hurt when they get assualted than otherwise (remebre that criminals pick victims. And they pick victims that are weak. Those people would have a gun taken away from them before they could use it)

now we would not find a single gun with a single Yakuza!

No. But I would be under threat of getting hurt by a gun that is far, FAR lower than most anywhere else - especially places that have guns widely available. And THAT is what counts.

Choosing between life and unneccesary baubles seems like a no-brainer to me.
kochevnik
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
The stuff you hear about from the US (school shootings and the like) aren't criminals. That's people with psychological problems using a violence multiplier - people that would get into a fistfight with the police in another country and be dragged away to a padded cell.
Banning guns will not change the crimerate - but it will change the number of people who live.
Psychotropic medications cause people to want to kill and specifically do mass shootings http://rt.com/usa...ing-915/
Guy_Underbridge
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
lots of comments, but did anyone pick up on the fact the author of this 'study' is a right-wing shill that also has some interesting ideas about interracial marrage and mandating ultrasound for women?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
People who carry a gun are actually in more danger of getting seriously hurt
Well this only proves you didn't read the article. Here are the facts in another form:

"there are approximately 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America each year. Also, according to the Department of Justice's 2007 Uniformed Crime Report, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30 percent lower homicide rate, as well as a 46 percent lower robbery rate"

-These statistics TELL you that CCW prevent crime and saves lives. This implies that they are USED successfully against criminals.

But I suppose you could try the eurodisney method:

" (KMOV) – Police say a Ferguson convicted felon got his hands on a gun, tried to rob a story but was laughed off by the clerk who thought the holdup was joke.
... Police say Baker, a convicted felon, has been booked for drug procession and larceny. They say its easy for convicted criminals to get guns off the street."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
Here's one example. It's NOT unique.

"Just days before the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, a gunman walked into a Clackamas, Ore. shopping mall and opened fire, killing two before turning the gun on himself... a former security guard at the mall who confronted the gunman while the gunman struggled with his weapon... the young man... did not pull the trigger because of innocent bystanders in the offing behind the perpetrator.

"When he took cover, the shooter's next shots were against himself. Merely being confronted by another human being brave enough to assert himself and demonstrate that the shooter was not in control was enough to end the situation before any more innocent blood was shed."

THESE are the stories we read every week. Most never get past the local news. They're the ones you euros never get to see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
As far as your beloved japan goes, it's ok if you like police states .

"Accordingly, in order to find illegal guns, the Japanese police are given broad search and seizure powers. The basic firearms law permits a policeman to search a person's belongings if the officer judges there is 'sufficient suspicion that a person is carrying a fire-arm, a sword or a knife' or if he judges that a person 'is likely to endanger life or body of other persons judging reasonably from his abnormal behavior or any other surrounding circumstances'.

"In practice, the special law for weapons searches is not necessary, since the police routinely search at will. They ask suspicious characters to show them what is in their purse or sack.[34] In the rare cases where a policeman's search (for a gun or any other contraband) is ruled illegal, it hardly matters; the Japanese courts permit the use of illegally seized evidence.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
"Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police...' explains the Japanese National Police Agency. In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own.

"the nation's official year-end police report includes statistics like 'Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct'. The police recorded 9,402 such incidents in 1985, and determined that 37.4 per cent of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had sex 'voluntarily'. The two leading reasons for having sex voluntarily were 'out of curiosity' for 19.6 per cent, and 'liked particular boy', for 18.1 per cent."

-Antialias' profound doublethink: NSA metadata is horrid but it's ok for police to search your home unannounced and keep records on your kids sex lives.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
@antialias_physorg

take a moment, back up and read all of Otto's posts.
i cannot refute your arguments better
and i hope it helps you understand

Japan is NOT like other countries

the ONLY way to protect yourself/loved ones/ etc from a criminal is with a weapon, and the easiest weapon to use, and the best equalizer, is the firearm.
it makes an 80y/o paraplegic in a wheelchair every bit as effective as a 20y/o martial artist because kung-fu cant stop bullets...
and THAT really is the MEAT of the argument FOR guns!
because there isnt always a cop around when you need it, especially if the criminal does his/her homework...

like i said... read Otto's posts...