This is unusual because most research done and published by the medical establishment has an extreme bias against civilian firearm possession, and thus they usually construct a data analysis of cherry-picked locations and time frames that will produce the result they seek: "more guns means more crime". In this case however they looked at all states for a 30 year period, thus they "discovered" that "liberalizing" (i.e.following the Constitution re bearing arms) concealed carry laws had no effect whatsoever on crime rates. While that makes a good case for our side, it also doesn't support any notion that as the percentage public that carry increases means a lowering of the crime rate. What it does mean, of course, is that people who previously would have been crime victims due to being disarmed in public at least now have a fighting chance of not becoming victims. This study didn't measure that, and can't, but that fact is invaluable to those who would have been victimized.

Anyone think the legislators here will give this study any weight? 

From the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32074-X/fulltext

Results
During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.

Conclusions
This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.
* * * * *
Here's Dean Weingarten's brief article on the study: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/new-study-no-relationship-ccw-homicide-violent-crime/#axzz5Zafio2x2

This is unusual because most research done and published by the medical establishment has an extreme bias against civilian firearm possession, and thus they usually construct a data analysis of cherry-picked locations and time frames that will produce the result they seek: "more guns means more crime". In this case however they looked at all states for a 30 year period, thus they "discovered" that "liberalizing" (i.e.following the Constitution re bearing arms) concealed carry laws had no effect whatsoever on crime rates. While that makes a good case for our side, it also doesn't support any notion that as the percentage public that carry increases means a lowering of the crime rate. What it does mean, of course, is that people who previously would have been crime victims due to being disarmed in public at least now have a fighting chance of not becoming victims. This study didn't measure that, and can't, but that fact is invaluable to those who would have been victimized.

Anyone think the legislators here will give this study any weight? 

From the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32074-X/fulltext

Results
During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.

Conclusions
This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.
* * * * *
Here's Dean Weingarten's brief article on the study: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/new-study-no-relationship-ccw-homicide-violent-crime/#axzz5Zafio2x2

but, but, but ,but gunfight at the ok corral!
think of the children!
blood in the streets!

We all know the top medical associations are anti 2a.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

We all know the top medical associations are anti 2a.

Yep... the majority of the docs, the associations, and their journals all exhibit ignorance bias against gun ownership and use... that's what makes this journal article so surprising. I have to wonder if someone's head(s) will roll over the publication.

I'll have to read it later when I have more time, but it seems like their data is taken from what they see.  Homicides, injuries, etc.  That that probably don't have data on incidents where an armed individual stopped the threat without use of force or resulting in injury.   

Anyone think the legislators here will give this study any weight? 

You one funny guy.

I'll have to read it later when I have more time, but it seems like their data is taken from what they see.  Homicides, injuries, etc.  That that probably don't have data on incidents where an armed individual stopped the threat without use of force or resulting in injury.

Happens all the time in the mainland where  ccw/open is allowed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk