Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 7 comments on Permissive Concealed-Carry Laws Linked to Higher Homicide Rates

  1. Give up on this stuff guys. It’s getting old. Just like higher levels of CO2 are the RESULT of – not the CAUSE of – increased temperatures during periods of natural (non-anthropogenic) climate change, higher homicide rates are the CAUSE, not the RESULT of more law-abiding CC citizens. The world is laughing at you. Just stop it.

    1. The comment above makes absolutely no sense. The fact that this person doesn’t believe CO2 causes earth temperatures to increase makes it clear that he disregards science and evidence based research.

    2. No Gary, the overwhelming majority of the world is laughing at you and all those who try to deny well controlled, evidence based studies. As for those who say the criminals who are getting killed via self-defense killings are what’s causing the data to show higher homicide rates … you’re profoundly wrong. Those killings were considered and do not at all make a statistically significant difference. And did you really say that higher CO2 levels are the result of global warming? You’ve made it crystal clear that you and science do not get along very well LOL.

  2. This is laughable and infuriating at the same time.

    If there are more people carrying firearms for personal protection then there’s a greater chance that a criminal will pick the wrong “victim”. Some of those unlucky criminals will die as a result of bad luck and poor life choices. If homicide rates stay the same year over year when law abiding citizens are at the mercy of armed criminals, what would you expect to happen when those same law abiding citizens are given the means to effectively fight back? Here’s a hint: Take the old homicide rate, now add to it the number of criminals who met their demise at the hands of a law abiding citizen who chose to defend themselves. Mystery solved.

    You, and the authors of the report seem to assume that all firearm homicides are criminal. It seems you do not account for the fact that sometimes criminals die when they try to visit violence upon others. If someone is killed (with a firearm) when they’re trying to kidnap, rape, mug, or murder another person it goes in with the tally for “firearm related homicides”. Then you lot act as if it’s a tragedy just because the number got bigger. Shameful.

    1. Agree completely. Since the vast majority of people are not crminals, if the same majority of people carry firearms for self defense the odds of the criminals succeeding in their attempts to commit violent crime are dramatically reduced. Of course the idea that all police need guns to achieve this same numerical and fire power advantage seems obvious to the same people who claim it does not work when those who are not in law enforcement possesses guns.

  3. Gary, the only thing that needs to be “given up on” is being a science denier. Did you really say that higher CO2 levels are the result and not the cause of climate change?? Seems like you’ve been studying science at Trump University. And to Mr. G Clifford Williams, the only thing that is laughable, infuriating and shameful is you not looking at this study closely enough to realize that the rate of justifiable homicides are approximately three percent and do not come close to accounting for the overall higher homicide rates that states with weak gun laws experience.

    Public health science is here for a good reason: In my opinion, creating conditions that preserve health is by far the most important role of the government. The people who conduct these studies have as an overriding goal to produce evidence-based research that guides lawmakers and society to enact legislation that optimizes the health of populations. Their goal is not to preserve or destroy traditions, freedoms or cultural norms that many consider to be the fabric of American culture. Of course in any branch of science, one study only represents a piece of the pie of knowledge. Still, it needs to respected and used for further investigation. I applaud the fine work of Dr. Siegel, Dr. Galea and all the other faculty members who produce well controlled public health research … especially in a time when the health and safety of populations is under attack at the federal level (and at the state level in many cases).

    1. Academic imperialism. The researchers are ouside their areas of expertise. Criminology is the relevant area of study, not public health. If the study had been done by those with relevant expertise – criminologists – then it would have validity. Public health professionals are not qualified as researchers or journal referees in the discipline of criminology.

      Also, public health people seem to have an inherent preconcieved bias against firearms ownership and towards government power. Think about what public health people do – they issue government edicts or research in support. They exercise government power or participate in it. The influence or exercise of power is part of their job satisfaction. People having firearms is a barrier to excessive exercise of government power and tyranny. People who derive their job satisfaction

Post a comment.

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