If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
The one study I've come across said CCW license holders are so unlikely to commit a crime that statistically they are less likely to be arrested than police officers.- I'll bet the crimes aren't committed by the licence holders.
The one study I've come across said CCW license holders are so unlikely to commit a crime that statistically they are less likely to be arrested than police officers.
Won't see crime rates change until that number hits more than 10%. Think about how things actually work with people carrying. Lots of people have their permit but don't always carry. If permit rates are 1/10 and you have 1000 people, you'll be really lucky if 50 out of the hundred licensed persons are carrying at any given time, and I bet the number of those that are decently trained and carrying a real pistol/revolver in an actual holster with a spare magazine/moon clip is probably 10 or less out of those 50.
I like Lott, I read all of his studies in college, I've written a few hundred pages on gun control research in my college career, but most of his studies are going on 20 years old and don't apply to the socioeconomic conditions we have now in places like Detroit.
As said above, most of Detroit's crime is gang on gang. Permitted carry isn't going to change the rate of that type of crime.
Youll be happy to find Lott has published a lot in recent years - happy reading!
Many studies ignore the demographic question. For whatever reason, blacks are more violent than whites.
Many studies ignore the demographic question. For whatever reason, blacks are more violent than whites.
Which is largely a lot of regurgitated and summarized statistics that, even though they look great for the 2nd, don't necessarily show causation, and when you talk about a city like Detroit, it's a special case, that's why I said what Lott shows in his research probably applies once you take out the gang related crime factor. I'm not trying to discredit the guy, I just don't think a lot of his research applies to the current situations in inner city Detroit, or places like Chicago.
Some seriously racist and ignorant crap, with no citations to back such a controversial statement, and even if there are stats that back your idea, they would be severely skewed by other socioeconomic factors. Correlation in statistics doesn't necessarily show causation and if we're going to make arguments to support the 2nd, we, as a special interest group, need to be careful about spouting off baseless crap based solely on a statistic.
Look at homicide statistics as well as interracial crime stats. The cucks love to point fingers at the DEMORATS, showing how violent Democrat cities are. But who lives in Baltimore, Chicago and New Orleans? It's not the Mormons or Amish. The Color of Crime - American RenaissanceSome seriously racist and ignorant crap, with no citations to back such a controversial statement, and even if there are stats that back your idea, they would be severely skewed by other socioeconomic factors. Correlation in statistics doesn't necessarily show causation and if we're going to make arguments to support the 2nd, we, as a special interest group, need to be careful about spouting off baseless crap based solely on a statistic.
Look at homicide statistics as well as interracial crime stats. The cucks love to point fingers at the DEMORATS, showing how violent Democrat cities are. But who lives in Baltimore, Chicago and New Orleans? It's not the Mormons or Amish. The Color of Crime - American Renaissance
Ahhh.. linking "commentary" from a subset of the StormFront website.... who would've thunk you would reference such a site ?
You're a disgrace (proven more than once) to whatever race you belong to....
John Lott has no credibility, despite the fact that his answers may be correct. Google "Mary Rosh" for details and ask yourself "If someone from the other side pulled that sort of stunt would your reaction be "yeah, but they are still a credible researcher?".That doesn't match the conclusion John Lott came to, which was that the rate of actual ownership or carrying a gun didn't matter very much, but the ability / ease of getting a carry permit did.
John Lott has no credibility, despite the fact that his answers may be correct. Google "Mary Rosh" for details and ask yourself "If someone from the other side pulled that sort of stunt would your reaction be "yeah, but they are still a credible researcher?".
And each side simply dismisses conclusions from the other side as wrong, convinced that the facts support their position.That said, each side wants to point to something to justify their position