http://www.newser.com/story/198773/right-to-carry-laws-linked-to-violent-crime.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=clearchannel&utm_campaign=story

 

Who is newser? That article was just bs.

Here is John Lott's brief rebuttal:

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/11/problems-with-the-washington-posts-and-huffington-posts-more-guns-more-crime-claims/

I'll just give my two cents. Virtually all crime has decreased by approximately 50% in the past 20 years. So to say that right to carry (RTC) is even "associated" with an increase in crime is going to be almost impossible to demonstrate. Please note this from the study abstract: "...the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level." What that means is that IF they IGNORE 61% of the estimates, and rely on the  remaining 39%, they can get to the conclusion they want (Donahue has been publishing anti-right to carry articles for 20 years. One example: http://www.wmsa.net/legacy-wmsa/news/LATimes/lat-030123_donohue_v_lott.htm), but even then with HALF the confidence level that is considered the standard in research (.05). So they ignore the vast preponderance of evidence, and even then have TWICE the likelihood of being wrong. Let's not even consider what kind of data manipulation went in to their decision to "correct" for the "confounding factor of the crack cocaine epidemic".

[The authors define RTC as "shall issue", so never mind on the struck portion.] Since all 50 states now have RTC laws, I wonder if they include Hawaii crime statistics even though no one (okay, maybe one person) actually has ever been issued a CCW license (no open carry allowed)? Same for New Jersey, Maryland, etc. where the only people given licenses are poltically connected and/or campaign donors. I'd be willing to bet they cherry-picked the geographical areas to analyze, and that in those areas there may or may not be many, or even any, actual RTC practitioners in spite of their being theoretical laws allowing for RTC. Though I suppose their hypothesis is that it is the passage of a law allowing RTC that either causes or is associated with an increase in crime, not any actual people practicing RTC. Go figure. I guess that means that if all the states pass laws banning all ownership and possession of all guns, that there will be a dramatic decrease in all crime, you know, like Chicago. Or Great Britain.

Who is newser? That article was just bs.

Never heard of them but I don't know why you call the article BS. The article just reports that the study was done. The study itself might be BS though.

I read 5 different versions of this article, including the one posted on Stanford's webpage.

They use words like "linked", "associated with", and "connected" to say in a round-about way that the increase in right to carry states somehow caused numerical increases in gun-related violence.

Correlation does not equal causation!  If the percentage of female babies born in 10 years coincides with a similar increase in cancer patients, are we to assume the female births are causing cancer?

If they can't do any better than drawing conclusions from pure statistics, then the study is useless.  They need to actually find the CAUSES of the increased violence, not try to link it with people being permitted to carry firearms.

I once did a study to find the best place to eat and lose weight so I could drop a few pounds and still eat out. 
I discovered you should never, ever eat at a place with a salad bar! 
Every nice, big salad bar I observed was always surrounded by obese people!  Thus, I concluded salad bars must be making people fat!!

 

There is one flaw in this "research" and that is the assumption that all 50 states have a CCW law; whether it is permissive or not. I'd argue that while Hawaii does have a law that addresses CCW, it is nearly impossible for us mere law-abiding citizens to get. Taking that assumption, states that have restrictive CCW laws can skew their data analysis.

Never heard of them but I don't know why you call the article BS. The article just reports that the study was done. The study itself might be BS though.

...
Yes, the study is nearly worthless. Just a quick skim through will tell you that.
The national research council confirms that their study is basically inconclusive.
This newser website looks like just another clickbait job to generate ad revenue for jobless college grads who couldn't get a real productive job.
The author latched on to a flawed press release from that so-called  stanford study and just milked it for all the clicks it could buy.
Sorry to be so cynical, but this bs is so common now days. The internet is full of crap like this.