1) Adam misrepresents the direction the country has been moving in for decades:
> We have this weird disconnect,” Winkler says. “The country’s moving in one direction, and the Supreme Court is moving in the other.”
There are several ways to show this is wrong.
1a) Concealed carry policy has been consistently expanding for decades, as captured by this animated map from Wikipedia - all but 8 states now have objective criteria for concealed carry permits - and many now require no permit for concealed carry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
1b) The number of permits has increased substantially: “Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million” Kellan Howell, Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report, WASH. TIMES, July 14, 2015.
2) they misrepresent may-issue, saying:
> In eight states, including New York, those who want a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public must prove to the licensing authority issuing the permit that they have a good reason to carry one, which can include self-defense.
2a) "can include self-defense", is a misrepresentation of NY's law, which requires you face a special danger to your life, like a known stalker: “Nash and Koch do not satisfy the ‘proper cause’ requirement because they do not ‘face any special or unique danger to [their] life.’”
3) Winkler "cited a 2017 examination of state-level crime data by Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue, which found that states saw an estimated 13 to 15% increase in violence crime in the decade after enacting a right-to-carry concealed handgun law."
3a) This was refuted in an Amici brief filed by several states, which surveyed the research, and found Donohue a flawed outlier
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/167028/20210122154401104_20-843%20Amici%20Brief%20States.pdf
3b) > One outlier to this evidence is the work of John Donohue, but scholars have called the validity of his results into question, and “[Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang] have admitted that they estimated the wrong model” in The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report (2014).
3c) > These flaws were underscored by Moody et al.’s research, which determined that “[t]he most robust result,” confirmed even by Donohue’s “county and state data sets is that the net effect of [right-to- carry] laws is to decrease murder.” Id. at 42.
3d) > Further, analysis of Donohue’s own data showed that objective-issue permit regimes, referred to by Moody as “right-to-carry” laws, statistically “decrease rape” and “reduce the victim costs of crime.” Id.
So there you have it: quote a biased researcher, citing biased research, highlight misleading historical evidence, don't bother to inform on the seismic shift that has occurred over the past year or decades, and call it news under the label of a once-venerable periodical. 🤡
You can follow @Empact.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: