More Guns Equal Less Violence

More concealed carry guns in the hands of responsible freedom lovers results in a more free and peaceful society

When responsible freedom lovers conceal carrying guns, violence diminishes.

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest” Gandhi [1]

If you want a more peaceful society, please consider the one strategy scientifically proven to consistently reduce violent crime. The following is a compilation of evidence primarily from John Lott’s research on the relationship between conceal carried weapons and violent crime rates.

Buckets and bathtubs are more dangerous than guns

According to the Center for Disease Control, in 1996 U.S. Americans owned over 200,000,000 guns. Keep that enormous number in mind when you examine the following stats from the same year.

  • 80 children under 5 accidentally drowned in a bath tub.
  • 40 children under 5 accidentally drowned in a 5-gallon water bucket.
  • 17 children under 5 died from a gun-related accident. [2]

To state the obvious, each death is a tragedy. However, we cannot allow our heart to cloud our judgement, especially when lives are at stake. Doing so would result in more unnecessary tragedies.

According to the evidence, the bucket you use to clean your bathroom is far more dangerous to your child, than your gun. Why? Because the vast majority of gun owners handle their guns safely, responsibly and never endanger their children.

Only 0.0000085% of all guns in the U.S. resulted in the accidental death of a small child. That’s an infinitesimal number.

We live with buckets and bathtubs every day because they improve lives by preventing infection for the vast majority of people. We live with guns because they save lives by preventing rape, assault and murder.

Buckets, bathtubs and guns are tools. Each one can be used responsibly without posing any threat to your child. Each one can also be misused. So can a pillow.

Concealed carry guns are far more likely to protect life than to destroy it. Far more likely to maintain peace than to interrupt it.

Carrying defensive weapons used to be considered admirable behavior

Guns were considered an everyday item in the U.S. up until the late 1960’s.

  • A 13-year-old could buy a rifle at a hardware store or through the mail.
  • Few states had any age restrictions for purchasing handguns.
  • Public high schools commonly had shooting clubs even in New York City. Students commonly carried guns on the subway so they could practice shooting after school.
  • Those that performed well at shooting competitions were rewarded with university scholarships. [3]

An irrational fear

Our modern culture has been transformed from one of practical preparedness and individual freedom to an Orwellian culture of hysterical fear.

  • Police actually arrested two 8 year-old children for playing cops and robbers because they had folded a piece of paper into an “L” shape to roughly resemble a toy gun. [4]
  • Students in Alabama, Georgia and Washington, ranging from 5 to 9-year-olds, were suspended for possessing tiny inch-long plastic gun props that fit in the hands of G.I. Joe action figures. [5]
  • An 8-year-old in Louisiana was suspended for drawing a character he called “Commando Man” because it included a drawing of a gun.[6]

These school authority figures have lost their ability to make reasonable decisions. This fear, hatred and intolerance toward the freedom to bear arms (and anything that resembles it) has been encouraged by several sources, including the news media, propaganda masquerading as science, politicians and special interest groups.

“News” is not reality

Perhaps in an effort to boost ratings and push political agenda, many news programs embrace exceptional stories they can use to associate guns with bloodshed, while ignoring the thousands of stories every day in which guns save lives.

Equally disturbing is the way the news willingly rewards mass murderers with a national platform through which to spread their image and twisted messages, thus providing the next mass murdering copycat with dangerous incentive and inspiration to commit crime.

The news often ignores the heros who stop mass murderers using their guns. If the news does mention these heros, it often leaves out the fact that a gun was instrumental in preventing further casualties.

Furthermore the news ignores multiple victim attacks involving weapons other than guns. Have you heard of the following?

  • The 1999 Costa Mesa preschool massacre, in which a man intentionally used his car to attack a crowded playground at Lighthouse Coastal Community Church killing 2 small children and injuring 5 more.
  • The 2008 Akihabara massacre, in which a man intentionally drove a truck into a crowd of shoppers killing three, injuring two, then got out and stabbed 12 more with a knife?
  • You probably heard of the 1995 Oklohoma City bombing. But did you hear of the 1,884 bombing incidents that occurred in the U.S. the following year, killing 34 people and injuring 365?

The news, cherry picks stories in order to spread an inaccurate view of reality, and to encourages viewers to draw false conclusions. [7]

Pseudoscience vs. real science

We revere the scientific method for it’s ability to guide us toward truth. Unfortunately not all people who call themselves scientists consistently follow the scientific method.

Scientists like all humans are imperfect. Even studies published in peer reviewed “scientific” journals can include errors, bias, political influence and deception.

Pseudoscientists have used the following methods to spread misconceptions about the relationship between guns and crime.

A good scientist doesn’t flip the causal relationship

Pseudoscientists use studies to imply that storing a gun in your home will increase your risk of being a victim of homicide.

However, the causal relationship is in fact the reverse. People that are at higher risk of homicide are compelled by that risk to purchase a gun and keep it in their home.

Police records shows almost all homicide victims were killed by weapons brought into their home by intruders, not by their own guns. [8]

But just to be fair, let me admit, there IS a risk associated with guns in the home. A risk to violent home invaders 😉

A good scientist uses a sufficient sample size

Pro-gun-control advocates cite a 1995 study by the University of Maryland that analyzed 5 counties. Wow, that’s a lot of data, right? Wrong!

Compare that to a study by John Lott that examined not 5, but all 3,054 U.S. counties. And examined each of them over a longer period of time. Quite a difference.

In fact, Lott’s original study, which has since been expanded, included over 54,000 observations over 18 years. Among all criminal studies, it was by far the largest data set ever assembled. [9]

A good scientist tests his hypothesis vigorously

As we mentioned, Lott examined thousands of locations over a significant period of time.

To account for large differences between states, within states, and nationally over time, he examined data at the city, county, state and nationwide level. [10]

He compared regions that adopted right-to-carry laws, to regions that did not. Regions that imposed gun bans, to regions that did not. [11]

In 2000, and again in 2010, he added data that had hence become available. [12]

Regardless of geography, time, specimen studied (counties, states, etc.) or the addition of newly available data, the relationship between more guns and less violent crime remained consistent. [13]

A good scientist evaluates the data in detail

Pseudoscientists, Black and Nagin, explain their methods as follows, “to test formally for the impact of right-to-carry laws, we see if the sum of the coefficients for two to three years prior to adoption is significantly different from the sum for two and three years following adoption.” Sounds scholarly, right? Wrong. Averaging data over time hides important changes that occur within that time. [14]

To uncover the relationship between crime rates and the number of gun permits, Lott examined yearly changes that were ignored by Black and Nagin. [15]

Using Black and Nagin’s approach. The data is averaged over a few years. As a result we remain oblivious to the yearly rise and fall of crime rates.

Using Lott’s approach we obtain a more accurate view of reality. We see that robberies were increasing before right-to-carry laws were passed, and dropping after. By looking at yearly changes over a longer period of time, we also see violent crime rates plummet as more concealed-carry gun permits are issued.

A good scientist accounts for other variables

Prior to Lott’s research on guns and crime, the vast majority of gun studies failed to take other variables into account.

Lott, on the other hand, used statistical methods to control as many variables as possible, i.e. hundreds of variables including income, poverty, unemployment, population, population density, demographics, arrest rate, conviction rate, sentence length, other gun laws, etc. When compared to all previous crime studies, Lott used the most comprehensive set of control variables ever, many of which were never previously accounted for. [16]

A good scientist doesn’t cherry pick data

As a scientist one must resist the urge to include only data that supports your hypothesis. Similarly one must resist the urge to exclude data that does not.

Black and Nagin suggest throwing out crime data from Florida. When you see how clearly Florida demonstrates the benefits of concealed carry, you can see why gun control activists want to ignore it.

Florida passed a right-to-carry concealed handgun law in 1987. Each year after that, the murder rate decreased at an accelerating pace, because each year more people acquired conceal carry permits. It wasn’t until 1992, that the murder increased from the previous year. Why? Because in 1992 Florida began requiring a waiting period and background check before issuing permits, thus decreasing the number of concealed carry permits issued, thus increasing the murder rate. [17]

A good scientist doesn’t rely on inconclusive data

Gun control advocates compare the U.S. to other nations in order to claim Americans are less safe due to loose gun control laws. [18]

Unfortunately, comparisons between countries are relatively useless. Why?

  1. An enormous number of uncontrolled variables.
  2. The difficulty acquiring all relevant data over the same significant period of time.
  3. The wildly inconsistent manner in which data is collected, measured, recorded and reported. [19]

Statists want you to beg for more gun control when you discover that the U.S. has a firearm suicide rate 5.8 times higher than other countries. Unfortunately for them, the same study found the overall U.S. suicide rate to be 30% lower than other countries. After all, the point is to lower suicides in general, right? So even if comparisons between countries were reliable, which they aren’t, there would still be no good case for gun control. [20]

A good scientist doesn’t inflate numbers to scare you

Some pseudoscientific studies treat justifiable defensive homicides committed by police and civilians as if they were criminal murders. This creates the illusion that your gun makes you less safe. In fact, the violent criminals are the ones that should worry. Not you.

In contrast, Lott focused not on the general category of homicides, but on the murder of innocent people instead. [21]

A good scientist’s results are reproducible

Lott’s critics claim his findings could not be replicated by other researchers. This is false.

Lott made his data available to all academics that requested it. Professors at 24 universities took advantage of the offer.

His results were replicated by researchers using his original data and by researchers who assembled the data independently. [22]

A good scientist doesn’t rely on mud slinging

Lott’s critics have resorted to ad hominem attacks and false statements. As liberty lovers, many of us can relate. Afterall, that tends to happen when you challenge common strongly-held beliefs, and your critics cannot use logic and evidence to prove you wrong. [23]

More guns = less violence

For argument’s sake, imagine you’re not a freedom lover who lives by the non-aggression principle. Imagine for a moment that you are instead the polar opposite, a violent criminal with a desire to rob, rape, torture and murder innocent people.

You hear about a place that has no police, no prison, no government laws, and is filled with defenseless non-violent victims that have no guns. Such a description would attract violent criminals like moths to a flame. Such a result would be devastating to victims and the cause of freedom. This is why it’s so important for members of a free society to arm themselves.

Gandhi dedicated his life to truth and non-violence. If you share the same values, you should face the reality as he did, that disarming law abiding individuals exposes them to further violence.

This reality has been consistently confirmed by logic and evidence. Today we know that the concealed carrying of guns by law abiding individuals has been scientifically proven to decrease violence.

Logic

Guns offer by far the most effective means of defending innocent life against violent criminals. When responsible individuals carry guns, violent crimes against them carry more inherent risk. So violent criminals avoid committing violent crimes in the presence of responsible individuals who carry guns. [24]

When a large percentage of individuals in a given region carry guns in a concealed manner, violent criminals cannot identify who is armed and who isn’t. All potential victims present a potentially lethal threat to violent criminals. Thus, violent criminals are more likely to avoid committing violent crimes in that region, and more likely to either change their behavior or to commit their violent crimes elsewhere. [25]

Evidence: more guns = less violence

  • Once guns were invented, murder rates declined in England. [26]
  • Citizens use guns to stop violent crime roughly 2.5 million times per year. [27]
  • Simply displaying a handgun prevents attack in about 95% of all cases in which handguns are used defensively. [28]
  • Right-to-carry concealed handgun laws were passed at many different points in time, yet the relationship between concealed handguns and less violent crime remained consistent. [29]
  • Whether one examines county, state or nationwide data, all evidence supported the conclusion that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime. [30]
  • States with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership experience the greatest reductions in crime. [31]
  • Concealed handgun laws are more likely to deter crimes involving direct contact between criminal and victim, e.g., aggravated assault, murder, robbery and rape, especially where guns were not previously allowed. [32]
  • When concealed handgun laws were introduced to counties, murders fell by 8%, rapes by 5% and aggravated assaults by 7%. [33]
  • Allowing individuals to carry concealed guns clearly increases the number of lives saved even when considering accidental gun related deaths. [34]
  • When a country and it’s neighboring countries adopt concealed handgun laws, the murder rate drops by over 8% and aggravated assaults drop by 21%. [35]
  • Evidence implies that a doubling of permits in Oregon reduces murder rates by 37%. [36]
  • Right-to-carry concealed handgun laws equally deter murders committed with a gun and murders committed without a gun. [37]
  • The magnitude of the drops over time in violent crime due to right-to-carry concealed handgun laws corresponds to the number of permits issued. A larger increase in permits relates to a larger drop in crime. [38]
  • Concealed handguns benefit people who do not carry guns, because criminals cannot identify defenseless victims. [39]
  • The rate of children murdered drops even though they‘re not allowed to carry, because their guardians are more likely to be armed. [40]
  • Criminals change their behavior as a result of deterrence. [41]
  • Violent crime rates were rising consistently before right-to-carry laws and falling thereafter. [42]
  • Over ten years, murder rates in right-to-carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states. [43]
  • Right-to-carry laws are consistently and significantly related to fewer killings of police. [44]
  • Rural areas have the highest gun ownership rates and the lowest crime rates. [45]
  • For every 1000 additional people with permits, there are .3 fewer murders, 2.4 fewer rapes, 21 fewer robberies and 14.1 fewer aggravated assaults. [46]

Evidence: fewer guns = more violence

  • In states without right-to-carry concealed-handgun laws, violent crime rates were 81% higher. [47]
  • States that ban concealed carry guns have murder rates 127% higher than states with the most freedom oriented concealed-carry laws. [48]
  • When threatened with crime, women who do not resist, are 2.5 times more likely to suffer serious injury from an attack, than women who resist with a gun. [49]
  • When threatened with crime, men who do not resist are 1.4 times more likely to suffer serious injury from an attack than men who resist with a gun. [50]
  • Cities with more than 500,000 people have the lowest gun ownership rates and the highest crime rates. [51]

Common concerns

Suicide

There is no significant relationship between concealed handgun laws and suicide rates. [52]

Accidents

The presence of concealed handguns has no significant effect on the rate of accidental gun-related deaths. [53]

Large dense urban populations

The higher the population, the greater the benefit. When concealed-handgun laws passed in counties with almost 600,000 people, the murder rate dropped by 12% (a drop 7.4 times larger than the average drop due to concealed handgun laws). [54]

The greater the population density, the greater the benefit. Passing concealed handgun laws in counties with about 3000 people / sq. mile lowered murder rates by 8.5% (12 times more than the average drop due to conceal handgun laws). [55]

The largest drops in violent crime due to right-to-carry concealed handgun laws occurred in the most urban counties with the largest, most dense populations. [56]

In rural areas, gun permit requests are regularly approved even without right-to-carry laws. In contrast large cities do not regularly approve permit requests. Plus, they typically have the most restrictive gun control laws. So once right-to-carry laws are passed, the number of permitted concealed guns increases far more in cities than it does in rural areas. This is why urban areas experience the largest reduction in crime after right-to-carry laws are passed. [57]

The escalation of violence

Some falsely claim that criminals are more likely to use firearms if their victims are armed. The evidence implies the opposite. [58]

The great equalizer

Counties with a high proportion of elderly, females and blacks benefit disproportionately more from right to carry laws. [59]

Why elderly and females? Because size and strength matter in physical confrontations. The average elderly adult and average female have a physical disadvantage relative to the average criminal. This disadvantage makes them more vulnerable to attack. The same concept applies to anyone, (man, woman or child) with a physical disadvantage. But if the potential victim carries a gun, suddenly these disadvantages are no longer relevant. A gun allows the smallest weakest person, of any age or gender, to defend themselves effectively against the largest strongest criminal.

Why blacks? Because historically gun control laws were intended to disarm blacks and did so successfully. Furthermore, politicians today continue to imposed strict gun control and other horrible legislation onto many predominately black neighborhoods. Those who suffer from the high crime rates that result, have the most to gain by recovering their freedom to defend themselves. [60]

Mass murder deterrent

Higher arrest rates, higher conviction rates, longer prison sentences and the death penalty… What do these policies have in common? They all fail to significantly deter multiple victim public shootings. Why? Because criminals who plan multiple victim public shootings typically expect to die in the process, so they have no reason to care about long term legal penalties.

Their goals typically involve killing and injuring as many defenseless people as possible.

Uniformed open-carrying police cannot stop multiple victim public shootings. Obviously the police cannot be everywhere at once, so criminals can easily choose times and locations in which police are not present. If police are present, the criminal can easily identify them, shoot them first, then proceed to shoot unarmed civilians.

Open-carrying civilians cannot stop multiple victim public shootings, for the same reasons uniformed police can’t. The criminals can easily avoid them, or shoot them first.

The only thing that effectively deters multiple victim public shootings are the people who exercise the freedom to conceal carry guns. The criminals cannot identify them and therefore cannot take them out first. [61]

If people in a region exercise concealed carry, criminals must face a much higher probability that some of their victims will be armed and able to defend themselves. [62]

Even if criminals do decide to begin a multiple victim attack, concealed carry gun owners can effectively and drastically reduce the carnage the criminal can inflict by shooting back. Criminals that plan mass public shootings are well aware of this fact. [63]

Thus it’s not surprising that concealed carry guns have been proven to be the only effective deterrent to multiple victim shootings.

Some multiple victim public shootings did occur in states after they passed right-to-carry concealed carry handgun laws. Predictably, these shootings tended to occur only in “gun free zones“ where concealed handguns were still prohibited, e.g., public schools, college campuses, shopping malls, etc. [64]

Evidence

When states passed right-to-carry laws, the number of multiple victim public shootings dropped by 67%, deaths dropped by 75% and injuries dropped by 81%. [65]

When the data was extended to 1999, multiple victim public shootings fell by 60%, and deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell by 78%. [66]

5 years after the laws were adopted deaths and injuries from mass public shootings dropped to zero. [67]

In 1969 in America, there were 38 airplane hijackings. When undercover, concealed-carry, armed air mashals began flying in 1970, annual hijackings fell into the twenties and eventually declined to the low single digits. [68]

Until the early 1970’s terrorists used machine guns to attack shopping malls, schools and synagogues. Terrorists easily avoided threats from armed soldiers and police by waiting for them to leave before starting an attack or by shooting them first using the element of surprise. Today 10% of Jewish Israeli adults are licensed to carry weapons, so this type of attack no longer occur. [69]

In their glorious stupidity, gun control activists and the federal government have banned all guns from schools, making our children sitting ducks to the violent fantasies of mass murderers. [70]

As freedom lovers,
we’re smarter than that.

What about other restrictions?

Since most of my readers are liberty lovers, you probably understand that laws do not prevent criminals from acquiring things they want. Criminals can obtain illegal drugs in prison. So certainly obtaining guns illegally on the street is no problem. Hence the only people you are disarming are law abiding individuals.

Furthermore any mandate that delays or increases the cost of acquiring a gun, decreases the number of armed individuals, which in turn increases the probability of violent crime. [71]

Mandated waiting periods

Waiting periods may provide a cooling off period, but they also prevent victims from obtaining a gun quickly enough to defend themselves. [72]

There are documented cases in which women, threatened by former lovers, were unable to buy a handgun for self defense fast enough due to mandated waiting periods, and as a result, were raped and murdered. [73]

The 15 day waiting period imposed by Oregon increased murder by 5%, rape by 2%, and robbery by 6%. [74]

Mandated background checks

Evidence shows little if any crime reduction benefits from mandated background checks. [75]

Mandated training

The existence or length of training periods typically show no effect on crime. Personally we recommend training. But that training should not be mandated by government. Many people can acquire sufficient training in less expensive ways, e.g., from an experience family member or friend, or from the gun dealer. [76]

Mandated age restrictions

A 21-year-old minimum age requirement for concealed handgun permits increases rape and violent crime in general. [77]

Mandated permits

Permits invariably come with fees that are especially detrimental to poor communities, where individuals suffer from more violent crime, because they cannot afford the costs required to obtain a permit. [78]

A $10 increase in permit fees results in a $1.7 billion increase in victimization costs when examining the 31 states with right-to-carry laws.[79]

Safe storage laws

There is no evidence to support the theory that safe-storage laws reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. More Guns Less Crime p. 201 Gun locks are more likely to prevent victims from defending their lives and the lives of their loved ones. [80]

When accounting for unrelated regional crime increases, Lott’s study found that safe storage laws caused rape to increase by 9%, robbery by 9.9% and burglary by 6.8% [81]

In 15 states, in a single year, safe-storage laws resulted in 64,000 more burglaries. [82]

When before and after trends are accounted for, 15 states faced over 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults during 5 years after safe storage laws were passed. [83]

Limits on the number of guns you can purchase

One-gun-purchase-per-month laws prevent victims from storing guns in multiple locations for self defense, and prevent people from giving guns as gifts to potential victims. [84]

The Brady law

The Brady gun control law significantly increased aggravated assaults and rapes by 3.6%. More Guns Less Crime p. 93, 199

Higher permit fees, higher training costs, and longer training requirements, all reduced the number of permits issued, thus undermining the benefits of concealed carry. [85]

Gun bans

In addition to gun bans on nations, states and cities, gun bans have been imposed on public housing, city parks, schools, shopping malls, government buildings and universities, making all these locations ideal targets for mass public shootings. [86]

In 1976 Washington DC’s murder rate was 15th among the most populous cities in the U.S. In 15 of the 29 years following the gun ban, DC consistently had the 1st or 2nd highest murder rate in the country. [87]

Relative to the rest of the U.S., DC’s murder rate rose 29% each year the ban was in effect. [88]

To rule out regional causes, after the ban the ratio of DC’s murder rate to that of adjacent Maryland and Virginia averaged twice as large as it was before the ban. [89]

Great Britain banned handguns in 1997. The number of gun crime related deaths and injuries in England and Wales increased 340% in the seven years following the ban and the rates of armed robbery, rape, homicide and violent crime soared. [90]

Ireland and Jamaica’s murder rates also soared after they banned handguns. [91]

Assault Weapons Ban

Each year the U.S. assault weapons ban remained in effect, murder and robbery rates increased by 3%. Rape increased as well. [92]

Gun show regulations

A survey of state prison inmates found that less than 1% of inmates who had acquired a gun had obtained it at a gun show, compared to 40% who obtained their gun from friends or family, and 39% who obtained their guns illegally. [93]

There’s no research linking gun show regulations to decreased crime rates. Research does demonstrate a correlation between gun show regulations and increased rates of murder and robbery. [94]

“Duty to retreat” vs. “castle doctrine”

The “duty to retreat” is a principle that requires you to retreat as far as physically possible when threatened or attacked before defending yourself.

The “castle doctrine” is the opposite. As long as you are on your property, or in your car, you can stand your ground and defend yourself.

When the castle doctrine was implemented legally, committing car-jackings and crimes in homes became more risky for the criminal. Study suggests an overall reduction in violent and property crimes as a result. [95]

We do not support any law passed by a coercive monopoly that requires you to retreat when attacked. Such a law would protect criminals, and endanger victims. We do support your freedom to stand your ground and defend yourself, your loved ones and your property using reasonable force. That said we do not always recommend standing your ground.

As liberty lovers know, government central planning does not work. It’s better for individuals to make their own decisions based on their unique circumstances. For example, if you are being attacked by the operator of a bullet-proof government Black Hawk helicopter who intends to kill you, standing in your front yard and defending yourself with a handgun is suicide. On the other hand, if a psychotic former lover is pursuing you and your children with the intent to kill you, by all means shoot them! Whether you should retreat or stand your ground depends on the circumstances.

Economic sense

Of all methods studied by economists, carrying concealed handguns is the most cost-effective method for reducing crime. [96]

Victimization costs include loss of life, physical and psychological damage, lost earnings, lost medical care, and the destruction of property. Murder by far results in the largest victimization costs. Right-to-carry laws save 29 states $30 billion per year, half of which results from a reduced murder rate. [97]

Each 1% increase in the number of people owning guns nationwide reduces victim costs by over 3 billion dollars. [98]

Estimated economic gains far exceed the private costs of owning a concealed handgun. [99]

Concealed carry guns provide a higher ROI than increased law enforcement, incarceration, alternative private security devices or social programs. [100]

The durability of guns allows owners to recoup their investment over many years. [101]

Under government, permit fees are the largest cost to gun owners. In a free society, government permits would be unnecessary. [102]

 

 

 

Footnotes

This article relies heavily on research included in the book “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott. In fact, this post could serve as the Cliff Notes. Why? Because Lott’s original study along with subsequent updates represents the largest data set ever assembled and most thorough study investigating the relationship between guns and crime. In short, it’s the most reliable and intellectually honest source I could find.

  1. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth.” p. 446. Beacon Press / Boston, first Beacon paperback edition published 1957, Forward © 1993
  2. More Guns Less Crime p. 229, 10
  3. More Guns Less Crime p. 232
  4. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/22/news/mn-41243
  5. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=20040226&id=IH4hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q4oFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4458,3332762http://www.wtoc.com/global/Story.asp?s=896296http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=012704&ID=s1478589
  6. https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/legal_features/Tracking_and_Fighting_Zero_Tolerance
  7. More Guns Less Crime p 230, 231
  8. More Guns Less Crime p. 25-26
  9. Daniel W. Webster, “The Claims That Right-to-Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime Are Unsubstantiated,” The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, copy obtained March 6, 1997, p. 5.David McDowall, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema, “Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States,” Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 1995.CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND PUBLIC SAFETY By Marcus Nieto, California Research Bureau, California State Library, November 1997. p. 14More Guns Less Crime p. 151, 155, 157-158, 169
  10. More Guns Less Crime p. 151, 155, 30, 98, 99
  11. More Guns Less Crime p. 23-24, 49
  12. More Guns Less Crime p. 170, 235
  13. More Guns Less Crime p. 23-24, 199
  14. Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do ‘Right-to-Carry’ Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Carnegie-Mellon University working paper, October 16, 1996 or 1998?, p. 7
  15. More Guns Less Crime p. 151 and 155
  16. More Guns Less Crime p. 23-24, 151, 155, 157-158, 169.
  17. Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do ‘Right-To-Carry’ Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Carnegie-Mellon University working paper, October 16, 1996, p. 9More Guns Less Crime p. 112, 142
  18. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/crime
  19. More Guns Less Crime p. 116
  20. Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, published online ahead of print, June 2010
  21. More Guns Less Crime p. 307New England Journal of Medicine. Colin Loftin, David McDowall, Brian Wiersema, Talbert J. Cottey Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide on the District of Columbia. New England Journal of Medicine 325 (1991): 1615
  22. More Guns Less Crime p. 307, 132, 162, 295, 303
  23. More Guns Less Crime p. 295
  24. More Guns Less Crime p. 199
  25. More Guns Less Crime p. 20
  26. More Guns Less Crime p. 219
  27. More Guns Less Crime p. 217
  28. More Guns Less Crime p. 3
  29. More Guns Less Crime p. 157 and 161
  30. More Guns Less Crime p. 157 and 161, 20
  31. More Guns Less Crime p. 20
  32. More Guns Less Crime p. 29
  33. More Guns Less Crime p. 52, 59
  34. More Guns Less Crime p. 59, 169
  35. More Guns Less Crime p. 95
  36. More Guns Less Crime p. 112
  37. More Guns Less Crime p. 118
  38. More Guns Less Crime p. 136
  39. More Guns Less Crime p. 165
  40. More Guns Less Crime p. 166
  41. More Guns Less Crime p. 169
  42. More Guns Less Crime p. 172
  43. More Guns Less Crime p. 259
  44. More Guns Less Crime p. 287David Mustard (data from 1984-1996 Olsen and Maltz)
  45. More Guns Less Crime p. 40
  46. More Guns Less Crime p. 178
  47. More Guns Less Crime p. 49
  48. More Guns Less Crime p. 49
  49. More Guns Less Crime p. 3, 303
  50. More Guns Less Crime p. 3, 303
  51. More Guns Less Crime p. 40
  52. More Guns Less Crime p. 116
  53. More Guns Less Crime p. 21, 118
  54. More Guns Less Crime p. 68
  55. More Guns Less Crime p. 71, 86, 182
  56. More Guns Less Crime p. 40, 98, 99, 165
  57. More Guns Less Crime p. 135
  58. More Guns Less Crime p. 118
  59. More Guns Less Crime p. 98, 99, 165, 168, 182
  60. More Guns Less Crime p. 71
  61. More Guns Less Crime p. 194-197
  62. More Guns Less Crime p. 194-197
  63. More Guns Less Crime p. 321, 322
  64. More Guns Less Crime p. 194-197
  65. More Guns Less Crime p. 194-197
  66. More Guns Less Crime p. 324-325
  67. More Guns Less Crime p. 106, 118
  68. More Guns Less Crime p. 324
  69. More Guns Less Crime p. 321
  70. More Guns Less Crime p. 118
  71. More Guns Less Crime p. 199
  72. More Guns Less Crime p. 199
  73. More Guns Less Crime p. 93
  74. More Guns Less Crime p. 112
  75. More Guns Less Crime p. 21, 166
  76. More Guns Less Crime p. 92, 21
  77. More Guns Less Crime p. 92, 21
  78. More Guns Less Crime p. 181
  79. More Guns Less Crime p. 181
  80. More Guns Less Crime p. 199
  81. More Guns Less Crime p. 202
  82. More Guns Less Crime p. 199, 201
  83. More Guns Less Crime p. 201
  84. More Guns Less Crime p. 199
  85. More Guns Less Crime p. 176-177
  86. More Guns Less Crime p. 306-307
  87. More Guns Less Crime p. 306-307
  88. More Guns Less Crime p. 310
  89. More Guns Less Crime p. 310
  90. More Guns Less Crime p. 316
  91. More Guns Less Crime p. 316
  92. More Guns Less Crime p. 327
  93. More Guns Less Crime p. 329
  94. More Guns Less Crime p. 330
  95. More Guns Less Crime p. 330-331
  96. More Guns Less Crime p. 21, 119
  97. More Guns Less Crime p. 275
  98. More Guns Less Crime p. 119
  99. More Guns Less Crime p. 113
  100. More Guns Less Crime p. 119
  101. More Guns Less Crime p. 164
  102. More Guns Less Crime p. 164

By .

About DanShielding

Dan Shielding is a freedom strategist. He researches, explores, develops and tests various strategies for achieving real freedom in an effort to improve lives. To be free, Dan believes you must live as you truly wish, adhere to the non-aggression principle, and shield yourself from the aggression of others. So his strategies vary from self-help guru advice to practical steps collaborators can take to peacefully establish and maintain a free society.
Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *