There is actually a public policy change that reduces mass shootings

[Libertarian666]

Would you prefer a lower body count from mass shootings?
If so, then you should be an advocate for "shall issue" laws, as that is the only known way to get that result.

From http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=161637:

"For example, shall issue laws appear
to lower the combined number of killings and injuries (equation (3))
in a state by 11.1 per 10 million people per year, or by more than 80
percent of a one standard deviation change in the murder and injury
rate from multiple shootings. Equations (4) and (5) imply that the
average state passing these laws reduces the number of murders and
injuries by 6.9 and 6.5 persons respectively."

[dualstow]

I'm interested, but could I get the tl;dr on this?

[MachineGhost]

I'm interested, but could I get the tl;dr on this?

Concealed weapons permits without political obstacles.

A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a license to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such licenses is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause". The laws in a Shall-Issue jurisdiction typically state that a granting authority shall issue a license if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a license at their discretion.

I wonder what it will finally take for the UltraLiberal SuperCult in NYC to get their heads out of their asses.  I admit, I'm surprised New York State even allows it.  The whole place has always reeked of liberal crazyness to me.  Didn't it take some tough conservatism to clean up the Red Light District aka Times Square?

EDIT: I'm scratching my head why I'm picking on NYC here.  It certainly applies to many other urbane urban superliberal metros.  Must have been mathjak.

[MachineGhost]

The  results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun  or  shall  issue  laws  reduce  the  number  of  multiple  victim public shootings.  Attackers are deterred and the  number  of  people injured  or  killed  per  attack  is  also  reduced,  thus  for  the  first  time providing evidence that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated.  The  results  are  robust  with  respect  to  different specifications  of  the  dependent  variable,  different  specifications  of the  handgun  law  variable,  and  the  inclusion  of  additional  law variables (e.g., mandatory waiting periods and enhanced penalties for using  a  gun  in  the  commission  of  a  crime).  Not  only  does  the passage  of  a  shall  issue  law  have  a  significant  impact  on  multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that appears to have a significant  impact.  Other  law  enforcement  efforts  from  the  arrest rate  for  murder  to  the  death  penalty  to  waiting  periods  and background  checks  are  not  systematically  related  to  multiple shootings. We also find that shall issue laws deter both the number of multiple shootings and the amount of harm per shooting. Finally, because  the  presence  of  citizens  with  concealed  handguns  may  be able to stop attacks before the police are able to arrive, our data also allows us to provide the first evidence on the reduction in severity of those crimes that still take place.

The simple answer is prevention is superior to deterrants or fixing the problem afterwards, just as with sickcare.

BTW, this was published 16 years ago.  Did it change the terms of the debate?   Dare I say there might be a vested interest on behalf of the law enforcement industrial complex to stay in business and be relevant?

[rickb]

BTW, this was published 16 years ago.  Did it change the terms of the debate?   Dare I say there might be a vested interest on behalf of the law enforcement industrial complex to stay in business and be relevant?

It's apparently not universally accepted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

[Libertarian666]

BTW, this was published 16 years ago.  Did it change the terms of the debate?   Dare I say there might be a vested interest on behalf of the law enforcement industrial complex to stay in business and be relevant?

It's apparently not universally accepted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

Well, that study didn't say it decreased violent crime in general, but it did decrease mass shootings. So unless that has somehow been disproven, there is still a solution.