{"id":954927,"date":"2021-11-02T17:58:55","date_gmt":"2021-11-02T21:58:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=954927"},"modified":"2021-11-02T17:58:57","modified_gmt":"2021-11-02T21:58:57","slug":"mark-w-smith-does-carrying-guns-cause-blood-in-the-streets-hardly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/mark-w-smith-does-carrying-guns-cause-blood-in-the-streets-hardly\/","title":{"rendered":"Mark W. Smith: Does Carrying Guns Cause Blood in the Streets? Hardly"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fmark-w-smith-does-carrying-guns-cause-blood-in-the-streets-hardly%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=954927&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/handgun-open-carry-holster-american-flag-getty.jpg\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" \/><\/div>\n<p class=\"subheading\">Get ready. This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a major Second Amendment case,&nbsp;<em><i>New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/i><\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>In my previous&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/politics\/2021\/10\/31\/mark-w-smith-clever-but-wrong-inside-the-anti-gun-arguments-at-the-supreme-court\/\">article<\/a>, I showed why the State of New York uses an abstract concern for \u201cpublic safety\u201d to justify restricting the right to carry guns outside the home. But over the past two decades the massive&nbsp;<em><i>expansion&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>of licensed (and unlicensed) carriers has corresponded with a significant&nbsp;<em><i>drop&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>in violent crime. I also discussed how Americans have used firearms for defensive purposes in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Y13vrgwGai4\">millions of cases<\/a>.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"D-ROS-B1\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B1\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"gmxrevmore\" class=\"H\"><\/figure>\n<p>So, how can we expect New York to make its public safety case?<\/p>\n<p>Easy\u2014by cherry-picking studies. Expect New York\u2019s lawyers to cite some research purporting to show that restrictive gun laws actually lead to a decrease in crime.<\/p>\n<p>But don\u2019t be fooled. A single study in isolation isn\u2019t worth much. You must check the quality and reliability of each evaluation. And you must survey the broader literature to get a comprehensive view of the empirical data.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B2\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<p>Fortunately, organizations like the National Research Council, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the RAND Corporation have done such comprehensive surveys. These are all establishment organizations. You wouldn\u2019t expect them to be eager to promote gun rights. And yet their findings damage the anti-gun case.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\" readability=\"7.44\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">Second Amendment victory! The Illinois Supreme Court ruled 6-0 Thursday that Cook County&#8217;s tax on guns and ammunition violates the Second Amendment. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/EX8ijAtQRk\">https:\/\/t.co\/EX8ijAtQRk<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/BreitbartNews\/status\/1451663742752657423?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">October 22, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The National Research Council is the research arm of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Its study was published in 2005, and it can be found&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nap.edu\/read\/10881\/chapter\/1\">here.<\/a>&nbsp;The study&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nap.edu\/read\/10881\/chapter\/8#150\">concluded<\/a>, \u201cWith the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry-laws and crime rates.\u201d There was one dissent on this issue. Committee member James Q. Wilson, the esteemed political scientist,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nap.edu\/read\/10881\/chapter\/13#271\">concluded<\/a>&nbsp;that the available evidence \u201csuggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help&nbsp;<em><i>drive down&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>the murder rate\u2026\u201d&nbsp;<em><i>No one&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>suggested that the evidence showed right-to-carry laws&nbsp;<em><i>increase&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>murder or other violent crimes.<\/p>\n<p>The CDC study also was published in 2005, and it can be found&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thecommunityguide.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf\">here<\/a>.&nbsp; Like the National Research Council, the CDC said that the available studies didn\u2019t offer enough evidence to support anti-gunner claims about right-to-carry laws, also known as \u201cshall-issue\u201d laws. The CDC concluded that \u201cfurther research is needed to assess the effects of shall issue laws on violence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The RAND Corporation supplied further research in a study published in 2020. This study also is available&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.rand.org\/pubs\/research_reports\/RR2088-1.html\">online<\/a>. RAND investigated whether shall-issue laws lead to a host of ills: suicides, homicides, firearm homicides, robberies, assaults, unintentional firearm injuries and deaths, and mass shootings. And like the National Research Council and the CDC, RAND couldn\u2019t find conclusive evidence to support anti-gun arguments.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B3\" class=\"a8d adSo\"><\/figure>\n<p>The only category for which RAND found even&nbsp;<em><i>limited&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>evidence was a relationship between shall-issue laws and increased violent crime. But even that was a stretch. As RAND admitted, the evidence was inconclusive about the effect of shall-issue laws on \u201ceach component of violent crime.\u201d So, it\u2019s hard to see how shall-issue laws could increase violent crime&nbsp;<em><i>overall<\/i><\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>What\u2019s more, most of the studies RAND reviewed&nbsp;<em><i>didn\u2019t&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>support a relationship between shall-issue laws and increased violent crime. Only&nbsp;<em><i>two&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>of them did, and those two are hardly compelling.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"D-ROS-B2\" class=\"a8d\"><\/figure>\n<p>The first appeared in 2016. A team of scholars led by the University of Chicago\u2019s Steven Durlauf wrote the study. Durlauf and his team acknowledged that the evidence relating shall-issue laws to violent crime was \u201cweak.\u201d They concluded that the \u201cliterature on shall-issue carry laws\u201d is not \u201ca body of work from which conclusions may be drawn.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So, not exactly a crushing blow for the anti-gun side.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\" readability=\"4.88\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">Second Amendment Update <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/YJitIqBscn\">pic.twitter.com\/YJitIqBscn<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/BreitbartNews\/status\/1380216564398559237?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">April 8, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<figure id=\"M-ROS-B4\" class=\"a8d adSo\"><\/figure>\n<p>The second study was published in 2019. Stanford law professor John Donohue was the lead author. The anti-gunners often rely upon this study. For example, New York\u2019s brief in the&nbsp;<em><i>Bruen&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>case cites Donohue\u2019s research.<\/p>\n<p>Too bad the study appears to have little probative value.<\/p>\n<p>Georgetown University professor William English has published a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887151\">persuasive critique<\/a>&nbsp;of the Donohue study. English argues that it relies on a flawed analysis. For starters, Donohue used improper data-weighting techniques. As English reveals, once you correct for that improper weighting, Donohue\u2019s violent-crime findings disappear.<\/p>\n<p>More fundamentally, Donohue&nbsp;<em><i>measured the wrong thing<\/i><\/em>. He simplistically compared crime rates before and after the passage of shall-issue laws. The problem? He didn\u2019t account for the number of permits actually issued. This makes no sense! The mere&nbsp;<em><i>passage&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>of a shall-issue law couldn\u2019t lead to an increase in crime. What matters is whether and how citizens obtained permits and carried firearms. When English accounted for actual permit issuance, he found no statistically significant correlation between permit rates and violent crime.<\/p>\n<p>Donohue also used a model of analysis called \u201csynthetic controls.\u201d He didn\u2019t compare shall-issue states to other&nbsp;<em><i>real&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>states. Instead, he compared them to \u201csynthetic\u201d (i.e., non-existent, invented) states. His \u201csynthetic states\u201d were Frankenstein-type monsters made up of parts of actual states. And again, the Donohue study is probably the&nbsp;<em><i>best<\/i><\/em>&nbsp;one the anti-gun crowd can find for their public safety argument yet it seems that its conclusions are unpersuasive.<\/p>\n<p>To close, New York wants the Supreme Court to think that there will be blood running in the streets, if we don\u2019t restrict the right to carry. But the empirical data doesn\u2019t support this claim.&nbsp; Just ask the 44 states that allow all law-abiding citizens to carry. (For more on this topic, see the amicus briefs filed in&nbsp;<em><i>Bruen&nbsp;<\/i><\/em>by&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/20\/20-843\/184380\/20210720135957258_20-843%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20William%20English%20et%20al..PDF\">Professor William English<\/a>&nbsp;and by&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/20\/20-843\/184184\/20210719155924977_20-843%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Law%20Enforcement%20Groups%20et%20al_.pdf\">law enforcement groups<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<p><strong>* Attorney Mark W. Smith is a Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy at The King\u2019s College, a&nbsp;<em><i>New York Times<\/i><\/em>&nbsp;bestselling author, and the host and producer of&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=S5uV5aUxqVw\">The Four Boxes Diner<\/a>&nbsp;on YouTube, a channel providing in-depth analysis on Second Amendment scholarship, legal matters, news, and issues.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Get ready. This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a major Second Amendment case,\u00a0New York State Rifle &#038; Pistol Association v. Bruen. In my previous\u00a0article, I showed &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-954927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/954927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=954927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/954927\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=954927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=954927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=954927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}