In forty years of history, one of the greatest victories of the American movement for the right to bear arms is not reached before the elections, by a presidential executive order or a court ruling.

It took place in the minds of millions of people.
Since the late seventies, the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby exerted enormous pressure to make more acceptable the presence of weapons in everyday life.
And there's a big moledi -i most recent data from the Pew Research Center -which shows that Americans have fewer problems with the fact that someone can turn in public with hidden weapons.
The most cited reason by those who claim the right to own a weapon is self-defense, that made guns, the most widespread weapon in the arsenal of the Americans.
But these habits and these behaviors have experienced several major changes: in the mid-nineties, for example, Americans had weapons mostly for recreational purposes; In 2005, however, a large percentage of the population thought that only the police should have the right to carry weapons in public.
At the center of the campaign to win the hearts, minds and holsters of Americans is a belief that the NRA and its allies have supported at least until the early nineties: public safety can only benefit from the fact that all private citizens tadpole armed to defend themselves in case of danger.
This theory-more weapons are out there, the lower the crime rate-has been developed for the first time by the economist John Lott in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, and since then has become extremely popular.
The NRA has used the work of Lott to answer all requests for regulations on the possession and use of weapons.
After the massacre at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, the unfortunate statement by the leader of the NRA Wayne LaPierre- "the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is a good person with a gun" -faceva reference precisely to the idea that the gun ownership among citizens would ensure greater security.
It is strong and attractive idea, especially for Americans who consider the most important personal liberty of collective well-being.
But it is also completely wrong, at least according to a recent analysis that examined 40 years of data on crime.
In a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of Stanford Law School researchers has analyzed this mass of data using four different statistical models-including the one developed by Lott and used in More Guns, Less Crime -and came a conclusion unambiguous: in the US states where it is easier to carry guns, the crime rate is higher than that of the states in which the right to bear arms is restricted.
The only exception is the category of the murders in this case, the researchers determined that the effects of the regulations right to bear arms on the incidence of homicides are statistically insignificant.
While other studies since 1994 had already questioned the thesis Lott, the latter looking denies unequivocally.
"For years, the question has always been put in these terms: there is a benefit in terms of public safety directly related to the right to bear arms?
Today this matter is resolved, "said the lead author of the study, Professor John Donohue.
"The answer is no."
Donohue and his colleagues have analyzed crime data collected from 1977 to 2014 both nationally and in 33 US states that have implemented laws "Shall Issue" on the port of concealed weapons.
It is more strongly influenced by the NRA and its work pressure on the political class, which has meant that most of the states allentassero their regulations on arms.
In states that have laws "Shall Issue" -which in his Donohue study indicates the RTC theme song, "right to carry" -the licensed to carry concealed weapons in public is granted to anyone who meets a set of basic criteria.
These were also the rate at which applications are accepted and permission granted is much higher than in states where laws apply "May Issue," that is, the states in which the authorities have the discretion to decide who can turn armed and who is not.
Since lowering the bar for the granting of licenses to carry concealed weapons means that there are more people who possess them (only in Florida, for example, people with regular license to carry concealed weapons are 1.8 million) and since according to the theory Lott have more private armed citizens should reduce crime, we would expect to find crime rates lower in countries where laws are in force "shall Issue."
Instead, the researchers found that the opposite is true: "Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws," says the study, "the violent crime rate is higher than 13-15 points that there should be no RTC laws. "
The first criticism of RTC laws have come years ago, in response to the wave of laws "Shall Issue" issued in the eighties and the first half of the nineties.
Among these responses was also a famous 2004 National Research Council report which questioned the findings of Lott, but he had no information to substantiate the impact that the new, more permissive legislation would have on crime statistics.
The study of Stanford researchers has however been able to observe what happened in the states where these laws have been in place for more than a decade.
In the study, the researchers suggest that the largest number of legally registered weapons in the lowering of the requirements may have contributed in different ways to the increase in crime rates.
As more and more ordinary citizens are procured weapons, so they do even criminals.
In addition, the researchers argue, that are emitted more ports of weapons increases the amount of weapons available to the public, and conversely increases the likelihood that more weapons are lost or end up in the black market.
As people realize that there are more and more weapons around, they begin to feel more and more insecure, frightened and angry-becoming consequently more violent.
"I was not surprised to discover that the number of violent crimes had increased," said Donohue.
"I expected a greater number of weapons in circulation would affect the crime rate in that sense."
The findings of the Stanford scholars contradict not only the central message of the NRA campaigns, but also the common perception on the progress of crime over the past two decades.
Nationwide, the violent crime rate peaked in the early nineties, before collapsing.
This collapse coincided largely with the entry into force of less strict rules on the carrying of weapons in public.
Lott and his followers use this trend as evidence for their theory, or at least to contradict the argument that a larger number of weapons would cause the most violent crimes.
However, as noted by Donohue and his colleagues, there is a problem in connecting the reduction of restrictions on the carrying of weapons and the decrease in the crime rate nationwide.
And this problem is that the latter has not dropped similarly in all parts of the country; he did better in states that have maintained restrictive legislation the right to bear arms, as the state of New York and California.
When other states have decided to make it easier to possess firearms, the data show failure to reduce crime.
So yes, overall crime has decreased even in states that have enacted laws less restrictive on firearms-but what could decrease relative to the national trend.
Looking at the statistics taken from the US Census Bureau and Dall'O data extracted FBI Uniform Crime Reporting the authors estimate that in states with more restrictive laws on firearms crime rate has decreased by 42 percent between 1977 and 2014.
In states with less restrictive laws, the decrease was nine percent.
In conducting their analysis, the Stanford researchers wanted to make sure they were precisely the differences in legislation and not some other factor-such as, for example, the economy or a different organization of law enforcement-to be responsible for the decrease in crime in some places than others.
To find out, scientists made a projection of what would happen in states with less restrictive laws if they had not lowered its standards on the release of the carrying of concealed weapons-all, taking into account economic growth and demographic differences.
Again, the researchers were able to make calculations that would not have been possible in the nineties and noughties, when for the first time the Lott theory has been subjected to scrutiny, because at that time the amount of data analyzed it was definitely insufficient.
The findings of the study are based on two statistical methods with very technical names and seemingly obscure: the analysis of "panel" data and the synthetic control analyzes.
The first method seeks to break down complex social phenomena-and Crime is a complex social phenomenon-studying their smallest components and easily measurable, such as incarceration rates, the amount of police in a state, the rates of poverty wages, the population density.
The second method instead allows researchers to make comparing data collected after the introduction of a change-such as, for example, the entry into force of a more lax laws on carrying of weapons-with projections based on what it would have happened if the change had not occurred.
This method is based on demographic data and the results obtained in demographically similar places, where the change has not yet occurred.
There are several hypotheses as to what are the most important factors in increasing and decreasing crime rates.
Rather than basing the analysis on a single set of variables, the Stanford research team analyzed 37 years of data on crime with four different panels: their favorite, called DAW; a method developed by the independent research center Brennan Center; one used by John Lott for More Guns, Less Crime and fourth developed by Carlisle Moody and Marvell Thomas, two researchers favorable to the free possession of weapons.
Projections made with all four panel showed that in states where laws are less restrictive firearms license, there would be an even greater decrease in the crime rate if those same laws were more restrictive.
"The results thus obtained suggest that there is no positive result from a more favorable legislation the right to bear arms," said Donohue.
Take Texas, for example.
In this case the projections of Donohue showed that ten years after the introduction of a less restrictive gun laws, the violent crime rate was 16 points higher than what one would expect to find if this law did not exist It was, as shown in the graph below.
The dotted-line called "synthetic control unit" -is a projection of what might happen to the crime rate in Texas if he had not loosened controls on firearms.
The only difference between the projections preferably used by researchers pro-gun and the other is related to the murders.
According to the NRA, the ultimate goal of an armed citizenry is to deter or prevent a potential murder.
When the Stanford researchers have applied to the data on homicides formulas researchers pro-gun, the results showed how the laws are less restrictive on the right to bear arms have increased the murder rate.
On the other hand, the method DAW and that of the Brennan Center showed only that if the states had not brought into force the laws "Shall Issue" there would be a decrease only in the non-fatal violent crimes.
But it is significant that both methods have shown this result in all 33 states for which the simulation, without exception was made.
It remains one last question: have tests we can produce improvements in the real world?
To answer, Donohue did not use statistics, but his years of experience as a scholar of weapons problems.
"Many people have very strong ideas and precise on the subject," he admitted.
"It's hard to change his mind."
Donohue is well aware of the challenge that he and other researchers have to do.
The sociological and anthropological research suggests that the views of Americans about the firearms, the right to possess and carry them around in self-defense are motivated by issues of identity and masculinity, and are not influenced that much by safety statistics.
The NRA has given much to do to inculcate the idea that the right to bear arms is one of the main pillars of the American identity, and that the self is "the first freedom."
The companies that manufacture the weapons advertise playing on the needs of consumers feel powerful and virile.
It is difficult for an academic study manages to make a difference.
But judges and politicians are a different type of audience, and Donohue hopes that his findings could influence them at least.
"Eventually it will be the Supreme Court to decide on the right to bear arms," he said, commenting on the decision of a judge who dismissed an action to make it less restrictive law on weapons of California.
"They will hold into account this new evidence?"
This article was also published on the Trace, a nonprofit magazine that deals with the right to arms in the United States.
Trace Follow on Facebook and Twitter

From Vice