A decade old Yale study concludes that CCW reduces the risk of multiple victim shootings, and does more good than ANY other gun law on the books.

 

The study was based on public shootings where there was more than one victim.

 

http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

 

page 20:

 

"Right-to-carry laws reduce the number of people killed or wounded from multiple victim public

shootings as many attackers are either deterred from attacking or when attacks do occur they are

stopped before the police can arrive. We are able to provide evidence for the first time that the harm

from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. Given that half the attackers in these multiple victim

public shootings have had formal diagnoses of mental illness, the fact that some results indicate

concealed handgun laws reduce these attacks by almost 70 percent is remarkable.

Differences in state right-to-carry laws are also important: restricting the places where permits

are prohibited increases murders, injuries and shootings; more training requirements reduce

injuries; and higher fees increase injuries and the number of attacks. The much greater deterrence

that right-to-carry laws have for multiple victim public shootings than for other crimes like murder

is consistent with the notion that a higher probability of citizens being able to defend themselves

should produce a greater level of deterrence. The results are robust with respect to different

specifications of the dependent variable, different specifications of the handgun law variable, and

different control variables. Not only does the passage of a right-to-carry law have a significant

impact on multiple shootings but it is the only gun law that appears to have a significant impact. [emphasis added]

While other law enforcement efforts -- from the arrest rate for murder and the death penalty --

reduce the number of people harmed from multiple shootings, the effect is not as consistently

significant as for right-to-carry laws. Finally, the data provides no evidence of substitution from

shootings to bombings and little consistent evidence of “copycat” effects."

I venture that if I were a anti wishing to rebutt this study,I would determine if it was an independent study and if not, who sponsored and/or financed it.

I have no doubt that it's accurate as statistics seem to bear it out and Yale is a much respected institution but you can bet that the Anti's are working feverishly to limit the impact such a finding would bring to states fighting for CCW .

You know the NJ version of this study has a special last line:

 

This study does not include NJ. The second amendment does not apply in NJ.

Skull and Cross Bones Society Funded?

I support complete CCW for all states.

 

This is typical angled trash that feeds our public.

 

Pretty sure trained law enforcement make a habit of taking out classrooms knowing there is, and where the CCW are in the room.

 

Discredits all they try to do - I would be embarrassed if I were ABC.

John Lott (author of the Yale study) has been around for a some time. He was at University of Chicago Law School (when Obama was teaching there) when he published his first work ""More Guns, Less Crime" in the 90s followed by "The Bias Against Guns" in 2003. When he published his first work he said he had no agenda,and was just for looking for the truth.

 

He's attacked by the anti-gun people because he's one of the few academics that supports gun rights.

 

The video only proves what can happen with minimal training. As far as the "expert" from the Bethlehem PD (who seems happy that he's going to be on TV) comment about losing your training after a month or two that depends on the nature and extent of your training. Is he saying a Navy SEAL has to be totally retrained if he gets hurt and spends a few months in the hospital and recuperating? Yeah I picked an extreme as an example to make the point that he's full of it.

Agreed - however most criminals aren't trained. The CCW doesnt stand a chance agianst a police officer that knows that there is a CCW in the classroom. Just clear angled - would of made stronger points without the disadvantaged CCW and the angle ABC is spinning. And the CCW needs training. IF every law abiding citizen carried, and criminals knew that, I believe that criminals would have second thoughts on crime in general. Granted there would be more death related to crime because of "quick to draw citizens". However crime would go down.

Agreed - however most criminals aren't trained. The CCW doesnt stand a chance agianst a police officer that knows that there is a CCW in the classroom. Just clear angled - would of made stronger points without the disadvantaged CCW and the angle ABC is spinning. And the CCW needs training. IF every law abiding citizen carried, and criminals knew that, I believe that criminals would have second thoughts on crime in general. Granted there would be more death related to crime because of "quick to draw citizens". However crime would go down.

 

Since the majority of thugs out there do not pay attention to the news, there no doubt would be a few shooting incidents before crime started to drop. Unfortunately someone will have to catch some lead before word spread through the thug cliques to watch out cause even grand ma may be carrying.

"...As far as the "expert" from the Bethlehem PD (who seems happy that he's going to be on TV) comment about losing your training after a month or two that depends on the nature and extent of your training..."

 

Has this LEO considered that most local PD's only re-qualify twice a year and Federal agencies quarterly? Many of the LEO Instructors that I trained with in the NRA stated that even the twice a year re-quals were rushed and lighten up considerably because of budget and resource constraints. Also, most of them agreed that too many of the active LEO's won't spend any time at the range unless it is on company time and dime. The serious professionals go to the range on their time and own dime if necessary.

"...As far as the "expert" from the Bethlehem PD (who seems happy that he's going to be on TV) comment about losing your training after a month or two that depends on the nature and extent of your training..." Has this LEO considered that most local PD's only re-qualify twice a year and Federal agencies quarterly? Many of the LEO Instructors that I trained with in the NRA stated that even the twice a year re-quals were rushed and lighten up considerably because of budget and resource constraints. Also, most of them agreed that too many of the active LEO's won't spend any time at the range unless it is on company time and dime. The serious professionals go to the range on their time and own dime if necessary.

I have a buddy who works for Port Authority and works at the range and performs the firearms certifications. He is constantly amazed at how many officers can't pass the test on the first attempt when being recertified. So much for well trained officers. I'd rather have somene with basic skills in operating a firearm available to defend then no one at all. The recent videos from Syria only strengthen this position. Unarmed citizens are sitting ducks.