One in ten Detroit residents have concealed carry permit - Tucker Carlson tonight

- If so many good people (the ones who get permits) have guns, why is the crime rate so high?
- Has the crime rate changed with the number of licence holders?
- 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.

If you could dig up that study I’d love to quote it at people.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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. It's also hard to make conclusions based simply on statistics, because crime reporting statistics are really a mess. He also found out that simply brandishing a weapon stops/deters crimes from happening 95% of the time. You can't brandish a gun if you don't have it with you. Crime rates don't change unless actual crimes are stopped and prevented from being reported. No criminal gives a shit if you have your permit or not, if the gun isn't on you the permit isn't preventing crime. People carrying a gun without a license is just as effective at stopping crime, only problem is that carrying without a license is then characterized as a "crime" because the gov't didn't give the person a little card that says they can exercise their god given right. Permit holders tend to not commit major crimes so that can help lower crime rates, but you need a more significant part of the population to be licensed to change the crime rate because it is actually a small percentage of people, usually people that don't apply for permits, that commit most crimes, and are repeat offenders. Many criminals commit dozens of crimes before they see any punishment or consequences, especially with the way courts are now. Making permits easily accessible is great to help the numbers, and it makes sense, but you really have to dig deep into Lott's research to understand it, and remember that he wrote most of his research to support the gun lobby. Detroit is largely dealing with gang crime, and no matter how easily accessible permits are, they aren't going to be accessible to known gang members that already have criminal records, and gang on gang crime is not going to be influenced much by law abiding people with carry permits. If you were able to separate out the statistics to show only non gang related crime, I bet you would see a decline across the last 10 years, when permits became more accessible.
 
The crime rate didn't change much, but the types of crimes did. Detroit used to have frequent armed home invasions, armed robberies of stores, and carjackings. Criminals shifted their targets to places and people less likely to shoot back.

Firearms, locks, dogs, and cameras deter small time criminals from crimes of opportunity. Hardened criminals are more likely to keep offending, but adjust their crimes accordingly according to risk vs. reward behavior.

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.
 
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.

Youll be happy to find Lott has published a lot in recent years - happy reading! 😁

 
Man I'd love to see a live debate between Detroit chief of police versus the chief of an MA locale that is stingy about unrestricted permits (such as Boston)
 
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.

This, you take a mega dump city, Thug to Thug crime is not going anywhere even with a 20% carry rate. Those guys are already both armed, and don't
care, and there's no deterrence factor between them. Throw in inadequate LE resources and a lot of the criminals aren't likely to get caught unless they
get put into a body bag either by an armed citizen or another thug.

-Mike
 
Youll be happy to find Lott has published a lot in recent years - happy reading! 😁


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.
 
Many studies ignore the demographic question. For whatever reason, blacks are more violent than whites.

What functional difference does it make? Are you going to segregate people? lol.

Further there are likely other issues at play, etc, that involve race but not directly.

-Mike
 
Many studies ignore the demographic question. For whatever reason, blacks are more violent than whites.

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.
 
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.

There are tons of big dump cities in the US where its not difficult to legally carry a gun. This is why when I talk about this issue with "non" people I don't start waxing poetic about crime rates and all that kind of garbage, but rather try to sell the idea that gun ownership and crime don't really even correlate that well... plus, focusing on silly shit like crime stats ignores more important
arguments- such that prohibiting individuals from defending themselves should be considered morally offensive on its front. Everyone loses sight of that "cuz guns" etc.

Also I think that braying about guns relating to crime as a possible causative or preventative agent just keeps allowing public officials to deflect bigger issues and keep the focus on
guns instead of root causes of criminal activity. (drugs, poverty, bad groups of adolescents, etc).

-Mike
 
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.

Lol I don't think it's racist at all, but I do think it's somewhat devoid of any value. He's not wrong, see what Bonesy just wrote... the thing is, the response to that is "So what? What does that get us now?"

Also you dig deep enough and then you find other connections back to race (like the young male abandonment rate by black fathers is probably higher etc) but even KNOWING that, where
is that going to get anyone? It's not going to result in a solution, at least not by itself. Do people think that all black people belong to one tribe and they're going to exert societal pressure on their members to be less violent? That's laughable. "Being Black" only by itself doesn't "cause" crime any more than something like "Being Male" does. Yes, young men commit most of the violent crime in this country, especially young black men, but you can't have a free society (that is supposed to respect the rights of individuals!) where we start casting default aspersions on people just because of their race or gender, all that does is likely make the problem worse, and it sure as hell hasn't made anything better.

-Mike
 
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 Renaissance
 
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....
 
Last edited:
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....

Is the data wrong? You can call me a racist and disgrace, you can't call me wrong. Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violence relative to their population numbers. You can't blame poverty as liberals love to point out there are more poor whites than blacks. The crime rates are googleable. Turn on the ten o' clock news and observe how many white men rape black women compared to black men raping white women.
 
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?".
 
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?".

Yes, that incident has haunted Lott for years. He appears to have fabricated a fictitious interlocutor to admire and agree with his work, but didn’t fabricate and falsify data and analyses as others on the left routinely do. The list of those asked to testify at city, state and federal legislative hearings is very short. We are *almost* at a point where facts, statistics, studies and such are of little to no practical value. That said, each side wants to point to something to justify their position. Lott adds that something. Until that much anticipated “go time” actually comes, there is upside to Lott, Kopel, etc.
 
That said, each side wants to point to something to justify their position
And each side simply dismisses conclusions from the other side as wrong, convinced that the facts support their position.
 
Back
Top Bottom