On Friday I posted a chart from the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) showing the rate of violent crimes in states with right to carry as defined by the NRA versus the rate of violent crime in those without RTC. The difference was dramatic.
Except that there was a problem with their math that I failed to notice when I posted the chart. Phil Lee, commenting over at Pro-Gun Progressive, didn't miss it.
The actual numbers, though still showing RTC states with an advantage over non-RTC states, aren't nearly so dramatic:
As you can see, the gap isn't anywhere close to as large as the earlier post indicated. My apologies for posting misleading information and my thanks to those who caught the mistake and pointed it out.
Lee thought that including DC in with the 50 states made it "apples and oranges," but I disagree and left DC in. For those that are curious, without DC the numbers become RTC: 466.5, US Avg: 471.5, Non-RTC: 481.5.
Secondly, I'd like to also point out something else brought up, this time over at Say Uncle's. The very valid point was made that numbers showing the violent crime rates before and after right to carry laws were passed in each state would be much more meaningful.
This is very true, but I think that is hitting Step #2 before clearing up some common misconceptions about Step #1. Step #1, of course, is that place where streets run red with blood. Start with the larger point that, overall, states with RTC have fewer violent crimes that states without. This defuses the first argument raised against concealed carry and lays the foundation for further debate of more specific points.
2 Comments
KTLA said:
These still aren't the right numbers to look at. While they are interesting, and serve to suggest that anti-gun advocates are wrong, they don't prove that RTC does or doesn't increase violent crime.
What is needed (and still nwouldn't be proof, but damn close) is data on the same state over time after a move to/from RTC laws, and compare that with the same data for the national average over the same time period. You'd probably still have to adjust for the specifics of that state, but the more states you get the data for, the more solid your conclusion gets.
This is interesting and relevant to the debate, but still doesn't lead to any conclusion at all. I'd point out the same thing if the other side presented this data if it fell on their side.
Murdoc
said:
Well, what I was talking about with Step #1 and Step #2, above. This isn't meant to lead to any conclusion. It isn't about any increase or any decrease. It's about framing the debate in the real world.
A huge number of debates go like this:
Anti-Gun Person: Guns are dangerous and criminals use gun. It's stupid to think that a place with guns might be safer than a place without.
At this point, the debate usually ends.
If you're lucky, you can manage to get them to see that the rock foundation their position is based upon isn't so absolutely accurate. If so, you can move on to more detailed and meaningful discussion.
I would bet that at least 95% of the anti-gun types truly believe that states with RTC have more violent crime. This sort of fact is an attempt to wake them up for a second or two to be able to engage in some honest debate.
Leave a comment