Texas A&M Study

[RetNavy]

http://tpr.org/post/new-texas-am-study- ... e#stream/0


how about the college doing a study on how many CHL/CCW holders stopped/saved themselves/somebody versus non CHL/CCW holders saving themselves/somebody

[gljjt]

I don't carry to reduce crime. I carry to protect myself and my family.

[Mike S]

I'll need to read the entire study to form an opinion of how well it was conducted, but just by glossing over the link the biggest thing that jumped out at me was their data was pulled from '500 counties in 4 states'. Results will skew based on what was used for their data points.

[MechAg94]

“We’re not about law enforcement, we’re not about preventing crime, we’re not about punishing people, we’re there for self-defense to drop the crime rate for us personally,” Arnold said.

[VoiceofReason]

I’m a little confused.

Has the crime rate gone up or down since Texas passed concealed carry?

Has the crime rate gone up or down in states that don’t have concealed carry?

“We decided in order to hopefully improve on that what we would do is not look at the passage of legislation but instead we’d look at the rate at which conceal handgun licenses were issued and changes in crime,” Phillips said.

Phillips said researchers looked at this data on a county by county basis in four different states.”

Sounds like cherry picking the data to get what they wanted to me. I am disappointed that A&M would go along with this though.

[mojo84]

I don't think there are many restrictions on what tenured professors do and what or how they do their studies. I'd like to know how much government grant money, if any, went to fund this study.

[J.R.@A&M]

This is just a continuation of research that doesn't conclude anything about concealed carry and crime rates.

Personally, I would prefer it not be referred to as a "Texas A&M Study". The University did not commission it. Just some research faculty, trying to get promoted.

[VoiceofReason]

Instead of just “cherry picking” the data looks to me like they structured the whole “study” to get what they wanted.

[baldeagle]

http://bearingarms.com/academic-study-a ... ect-crime/

[VoiceofReason]

For a minute there I took their bait, but then I realized their “study” doesn’t mean anything.

We do not have to prove it lowers the crime rate for us to exercise our rights under the constitution.

If that were the case, then they should have to prove it will make a positive impact on society before they can publish the results of a “study”.

[LSUTiger]

I don't carry to reduce crime. I carry to protect myself and my family.

Any reduction in general crime due to me CC or soon to have OC option is welcomed but unintentional and any one who benefits directly in case an incident should occur should consider themselves lucky that I was close enough to them to coincidentally save their skins while saving my own.

But, I do carry to reduce crime. Crimes against me.

[Cowboyhockey14]

I would like to have seen Stats that were related to this study. Maybe I missed it in the article. But county by county stats would have been nice.

[n5wd]

The main point that most folks (except for BearingArms' note) are seeming to miss is that the authors of the study compared CHL numbers versus the numbers of ARRESTS for crimes, not the number of crimes, themselves.

Imagine this: a police department's officers refuse to arrest anyone for a month. Then they publish their arrest records as a reflection of the amount of crime in the city. Do the statistics correlate? Of course not! The same thing is happening in the A&M "research".

Now, if someone wants to compare CRIME statistics versus numbers of CHLs issued, then you might have a valid study, but not as the research is presented.

[baldeagle]

For a minute there I took their bait, but then I realized their “study” doesn’t mean anything.

We do not have to prove it lowers the crime rate for us to exercise our rights under the constitution.

If that were the case, then they should have to prove it will make a positive impact on society before they can publish the results of a “study”.

It's the same legerdemain they use in the capital punishment debate. They claim the death penalty does not deter crime, which may or may not be true but is completely irrelevant. The purpose of the death penalty is punishment, not deterrence. If it deters crime, mores the better, but it's purpose is to remove from the earth someone who has proven to be a deadly threat to other human beings. Left unanswered is why it's better for other inmates to be exposed to such an individual rather than putting them to death.