Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?

imported post

chris in va wrote:

I think criminals are just stupid in general.

Click to expand...

That is a bad generalization to make. Criminals have the same distribution of intelligence as the community in general. That means some are really really dumb, others are extremely gifted, but most are just average. If those gifted criminals do happen to get caught, it's not because they are stupid, or even made a mistake. It's because the state has far more resources to expend in catching them than the criminal has to expend at not getting caught.

Incidentally, that's also why organized crime figures are so difficult to bring to justice. They aren't necessarily any smarter than anyone else, they just have a greater resource pool upon which to draw. Sometimes, their resource pools even exceed those of the law enforcement agencies tasked with bringing them down.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

XD-GEM wrote:

There's a difference between "alleged" and "proved." Lott's raw numbers from every county speak for themselves.

For a good example of "fraudulent," see Michael Bellesiles.

Click to expand...

I wonder if Bellesilses might have moved to Connecticut where his (lack of) style seems common.

Click to expand...

That would certainly explain a lot.

imported post

chris in va wrote:

I think criminals are just stupid in general. Can't be very bright as they'd be able to hold a decent career otherwise.

Doesn't seem to matter if someone's armed or not. They'll just keep at it until they find someone that won't shoot them.

Desperation also drives a lot of felons. Drug addiction, power, adrenalin etc.

Click to expand...

I'd have to dissagree with you about the generalization of crooks being stupid. Sure, some are, and they usually have very short carreers. I'd say that laziness would be a more pronounced trait among criminals. They dont want to work on their school work in order to get a decent job. Or they don't want to be confined to a 40 hour work week. What ever their reason, they plain don't want to work for a living, like the rest of us. Oh yeah, there's also the addicts that can't hold down a job because they're too messed up on drugs or alcohol.

For most criminals, it does matter if their target is armed or not. But they'll keep at it until they pick a potential victem that does shoot them. That tends to be a carreer ender.

The addicts and adrenalin junkies may fall into the "not so smart" category. They tend to take more risks.

imported post

Statistics may very well show that a state merely having the freedom to carry weapons doesn't decrease crime or increase the amount of crime prevented or stopped by citizens protecting themselves, but I think statistics show(& common sense)pretty clearly that in cases where citizens ARE armed to protect themselves much, much more crime is prevented or stopped. I don't havea link to statistics, but I think we all know it's true. Even in other countries... Take Switzerland. Back when they were still a great example for the rest of the world, basically every able bodied male was in the militia (the MILITIA, NOT the MILITARY), and even after he retired he likely stayed armed. In a country where almost every house has at least one adult male who is armed and trained to fight militaries, do you think there's as much random crime, or crime at all? No, there isn't. At least, not crime that infringes on others.

imported post

stealthyeliminator wrote:

I don't havea link to statistics, but I think we all know it's true.

Click to expand...

Common knowledge is nearly always wrong.

imported post

stealthyeliminator wrote:

Statistics may very well show that a state merely having the freedom to carry weapons doesn't decrease crime or increase the amount of crime prevented or stopped by citizens protecting themselves, but I think statistics show (& common sense)pretty clearly that in cases where citizens ARE armed to protect themselves much, much more crime is prevented or stopped. I don't havea link to statistics, but I think we all know it's true. Even in other countries... Take Switzerland. Back when they were still a great example for the rest of the world, basically every able bodied male was in the militia (the MILITIA, NOT the MILITARY), and even after he retired he likely stayed armed. In a country where almost every house has at least one adult male who is armed and trained to fight militaries, do you think there's as much random crime, or crime at all? No, there isn't. At least, not crime that infringes on others.

Click to expand...

When you're facing down a bad situation, statistics don't really amount to much though.

I'm not really surprised that statistics wouldn't show a change based solely on citizens being "allowed" to arm themselves for their own protection. There will still be an ample supply of people waiting around to be victims believing that they should just give the criminals what they want and the police will take care of the record keeping later.

The more important question that never seems to be addressed by gun control supporters is how many of the people who choose not to be a victim because they have taken responsibiltiy for their own safety don't end up being one.

imported post

les_aker wrote:

I'm not really surprised that statistics wouldn't show a change based solely on citizens being "allowed" to arm themselves for their own protection. There will still be an ample supply of people waiting around to be victims believing that they should just give the criminals what they want and the police will take care of the record keeping later.

Click to expand...

I don't think it should be viewed that way. If you want to help people, you need to know where they're coming from. The prevailing attitude is, "it'll never happen to me." It isn't until you give them the "what if" scenario that they'll respond with the police comments.

You can't really fault them for that attitude either. In many areas the chances of being the target of a crime are extremely small. How many people on this board make sure to buckle up 100% of the time? Does everyone where helmets on motorcycles? Does everyone lock the gates totheir pools? Does everyone eat health? Do they work out? etc etc. These things have a much higher probability of causing a dangerous situation, but many people don't bother to protect themselves for the same reason many people don't go armed... "it'll never happen to me." So before you judge people for choosing to not carry a gun, run through your life and check on all the things that present a major daily danger to yourself and those around you.Be sure that you're protecting yourself as well as possible from those things before knocking someone else for not protecting themselves against something that has a relatively infinitely smaller chance of happening.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

les_aker wrote:

I'm not really surprised that statistics wouldn't show a change based solely on citizens being "allowed" to arm themselves for their own protection. There will still be an ample supply of people waiting around to be victims believing that they should just give the criminals what they want and the police will take care of the record keeping later.

Click to expand...

I don't think it should be viewed that way. If you want to help people, you need to know where they're coming from. The prevailing attitude is, "it'll never happen to me." It isn't until you give them the "what if" scenario that they'll respond with the police comments.

You can't really fault them for that attitude either. In many areas the chances of being the target of a crime are extremely small. How many people on this board make sure to buckle up 100% of the time? Does everyone where helmets on motorcycles? Does everyone lock the gates totheir pools? Does everyone eat health? Do they work out? etc etc. These things have a much higher probability of causing a dangerous situation, but many people don't bother to protect themselves for the same reason many people don't go armed... "it'll never happen to me." So before you judge people for choosing to not carry a gun, run through your life and check on all the things that present a major daily danger to yourself and those around you.Be sure that you're protecting yourself as well as possible from those things before knocking someone else for not protecting themselves against something that has a relatively infinitely smaller chance of happening.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent point, AWDstylez. I agree that there are multiple risks present, most of them with a much greater chance of happening than needing a firearm. I think we need to recognize not only all possible risks, but also realize the chances of them occurring vs. the severity of the outcome if we are NOT prepared. The odds of being in an auto accident are higher than my needing a firearm, but the possible outcome of an auto accident or a mugging/violent attack are both similar - injury or death to myself or my family. So, I choose to be as prepared as I can for either. That doesn't mean I won't be injured or killed even if I carry a gun or wear my seatbelt, but it's proven in both events my odds of survival increase significantly.

Now compare this with something like wearing personal safety equipment (gloves, goggles, earplugs) when working with power tools in the garage. Compared to auto accidents and/or robbery/violent crime, I'll guess there's a much higher chance of an injury occurring that gloves or safety glasses would have completely prevented.Compared to the previous examples,what's at risk? A cut finger or wood chip in an eye? Risky, but much less risk than death, so many (including myself sometimes) don't bother to be prepared and take preventative measures.

I've seen this with a relative:She doesn'tthink it's necessary for anyone to carry a gun all the time, but this is the same person thatdoesn't choose to wear a seat belt a lot of the time. They only recently started wearing one more because they got a ticket for it, not because they changed their thinking.

I think it comes down to risk management. Those that recognize the risks, choose to take steps to prevent them AND plan for the eventuality of their occurrance are the ones that will be much better off.

...Orygunner...

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

I suppose you can disprove his results?

Click to expand...

Do your own research. He's been a proven fraud for a long time now.

Click to expand...

Then provide the evidence for your claim. I'm not going to doyour research for you. Ifyoumake a claim thenyou need to provide the evidence.

Itis real easy to make a ridiculous remark and then demand that some one else prove you wrong. It is up to you to prove it right.

I think that you are confusing John Lott with Michael Bellesiles, who was forced to resign after it was shown that his book was a complete fraud and an intentional lie.

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

I think it comes down to risk management. Those that recognize the risks, choose to take steps to prevent them AND plan for the eventuality of their occurrance are the ones that will be much better off.

Click to expand...

Where things usually run into trouble is when someone steps into the picture and decides s/he knows how everyone else should handle their own personal risk management, with enforcement provided by a convenient Nanny-State. Before you know it, you've got an unlimited number of idiots trying to impose their own brand of "safety" on everything in sight with an ever increasing application even when it's obvious that it's unnecessary and/or just not working. The most recent example I can think of is the proposed total ban on cell phone use in cars because forcing people to use hands-free devices didn't reduce accidents.

That's why the operative word in "Gun Control" is control.

imported post

les_aker wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

I think it comes down to risk management. Those that recognize the risks, choose to take steps to prevent them AND plan for the eventuality of their occurrance are the ones that will be much better off.

Click to expand...

Where things usually run into trouble is when someone steps into the picture and decides s/he knows how everyone else should handle their own personal risk management, with enforcement provided by a convenient Nanny-State. Before you know it, you've got an unlimited number of idiots trying to impose their own brand of "safety" on everything in sight with an ever increasing application even when it's obvious that it's unnecessary and/or just not working. The most recent example I can think of is the proposed total ban on cell phone use in cars because forcing people to use hands-free devices didn't reduce accidents.

That's why the operative word in "Gun Control" is control.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Personal safety is just that, personal. Gun safety is taken as non-personal, which it is,by those in favor of gun control, hence their desire to control your behavior. What you deem as safe may not be what I deem as safe. That doesn't matter if your actions don't effect me, but your lack of safety with a gun very well could effect me in a big way. That's how gun control is justified.



However, what I was talking about originally is the people in this community that constantly make sheeple comments and degrade non gun carrying citizens because they're supposedly incompetent and unprepared for all the, supposed, tremendous danger around them. What's funny is that the people spewing that garbage are the same people that are over weight, don't wear seat belts, don't wear helmets, go outside during thunderstorms, etc. It's a bit hypocritical. No oneon this earth other than bubble boy is in any place to criticize anyone else's choice to not carry gun in an attempt to prevent something with little-to-nochance of occurring, when they themselves do nothing to protect themselves from things that, relatively speaking, are very likely to occur.

People on this board spend hours and days of their lives running through scenarios that, realistically, are about as likely as winning the lottery, twice. They spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on firearms training preparing for these situations which are nearly guaranteed to never occur. I wonder how many of those people have attended a defensive driving course or racing school. How many of these people that carry four back-up guns, and enough weapons and tools to go to war, wear helmets when they drive.

Without taking the time to really look in depth, just dividing the total of US car accidents by the population, and ditto with the total violent crimes.... You have a 2% chance of getting in a car accident in a given year. By contrast, you have a 0.3% chance of being the victim of a violent crime, and that's a national average with the ghettos and @#$% holes bringing it up significantly. So I just figured I'd throw that out there. If everyone is really so concerned about safety, maybe before the next tactical class sign up comes around, consider skipping it and putting the money towards race school or a defensive driving course.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

However, what I was talking about originally is the people in this community that constantly make sheeple comments and degrade non gun carrying citizens because they're supposedly incompetent and unprepared for all the, supposed, tremendous danger around them.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's not fair to lump everyone, or even most people into one group defined by the lowest common denominator.

What's funny is that the people spewing that garbage are the same people that are over weight, don't wear seat belts, don't wear helmets, go outside during thunderstorms, etc.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute, isn't that lumping everyone into one group defined by the lowest common denominator?

It's a bit hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is.:shock:

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter if your actions don't effect me, but your lack of safety with a gun very well could effect me in a big way. That's how gun control is justified.

SNIP...

Click to expand...

Actually your concerns over what MIGHT happen are irrelevant and they do not actually justify gun control. They are USED to justify gun control and there is a big difference. In this country prior restraint is not supposed to be the law of the land. IF it was we would not be having this conversation asthe Internetwould be illegal.


AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

What's funny is that the people spewing that garbage are the same people that are over weight, don't wear seat belts, don't wear helmets, go outside during thunderstorms, etc. It's a bit hypocritical. No oneon this earth other than bubble boy is in any place to criticize anyone else's choice to not carry gun in an attempt to prevent something with little-to-nochance of occurring, when they themselves do nothing to protect themselves from things that, relatively speaking, are very likely to occur.

Click to expand...

This is a totally gratuitous assumption. Please provide citations in support of your assertions concerning the use of seat belts, the weight tables, helmet wear, and thunderstorm activities of members of this forum. Otherwise admit that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

You cannot possible know what people on this forum do in their cars or anywhere else. I suspect this is just more of your projection of YOUR habits on member of the forum to justify your ridiculous positions. Moreover you are thankfully not in the position of deciding what the risk others must assume should be. Your math is flawed and your methods of assessing the risk to any particular individual are based on faulty reasoning that fails to take into account the locations where people must live and work.

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

Without taking the time to really look in depth,

Click to expand...

SNIP...

Click to expand...

Failing to look in depth at things is a hallmark of your posts and positions.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

There are Bad Guys that are smarter than us.

Click to expand...

Most of them are identifiable by their congressional lapel pins.

imported post

Getting back to the OP question.

I have to ask what statistics the OP is looking at that causes him to think there may not be a significant change?

I believe that the simplist wya to determnine change is to look at statisics that are based on "per Capita" numbers that compare specific geographical areas over specific time periods.

Looking at overall totals of violent crime for an area doesn't give a fair picture. There are fluctuating variables that can hide any increase or decreasein violent crime for any given area, if you don't use per capita numbers.

Let's say we look at a state to determine if violent crime has increased/decreased. We'll use hypothetical numbers here, OK.

Over all, X state had 2500 violent crimes in 2005. In 2008, the overall number of violent crimes was 3100. Now, just based on these figures alone, it appears that violent crime has increased dramatically, right?

Now let's look at this from a per capita angle.

The State of X had a population of 15 million in 2005. IF I've figured this right, given the 2500 VC's in that year,that would come out to 16.6 violent crimes per 100,000 population (per capita). By 2008 the popaulation ofthe Statehas grown to 21 million. The per capita figures would come out to 14.7 VC's per 100,000 polulation. Now it appears that the violent crime rate has decreased slightly. Now if the population had only risen to 19 million by 2008 the per capita numbers would be 16.3 VC per 100,000. This last scenario doesn't look like VC has changed any at all does it, even though the overall number of VC did go up from 2500 in 2005 to 3100by 2008. Well, maybe not.

The population of State X increased by 26.7%between 2005 (@15 mil)and 2008 (@19mil). The total number of violent crimes in 2008 was 24% higher than the total number in 2005. The violent crime rate didn't quite go up as much as the population.

But if the population had gone up to 21 mil, a 40% increase, using the same crime rate of increase of 24%, it would appear that something was going right on the crime front, if we assume that crime rate percentage of change would follow closely to population percentage of change, with all other variables being the same.

Feel free to chack my math and make any corrctions needed. Math wasn't my strong suite. :banghead:

I have offered above the most simplest of statistical means of reference to look at to get a rough idea of any changes in crime. As has been already stated by someone else in this thread there are many variables that one has to look at to get a more detailed handle on what is going on. Population growth is just one aspect that has an effect on crime rates. That is why we must use per capita statistics.

I think we would all agree that population density has a strong bearing on crime rates. I think we'd also agree that variances in socio/economics also affects crime rate changes.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

There are Bad Guys that are smarter than us.

Click to expand...

Most of them are identifiable by their congressional lapel pins.

Click to expand...

Whazzat, 500 or 5,000? Out of 300 million the fraction of Bad Guys, tagged and released, caught and not, is quite a bit larger.

Sorry, lapel pins as game control tags was an after thought.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

This is a totally gratuitous assumption. Please provide citations in support of your assertions concerning the use of seat belts, the weight tables, helmet wear, and thunderstorm activities of members of this forum. Otherwise admit that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

You cannot possible know what people on this forum do in their cars or anywhere else. I suspect this is just more of your projection of YOUR habits on member of the forum to justify your ridiculous positions. Moreover you are thankfully not in the position of deciding what the risk others must assume should be. Your math is flawed and your methods of assessing the risk to any particular individual are based on faulty reasoning that fails to take into account the locations where people must live and work.

Click to expand...

Shall we take a poll to prove me right? I've listened to comments and seen pictures. I don't need any more proof of anything.

As for flawed reasoning in my statistics, I said NATIONAL AVERAGE. If you'd like to go out and collect samples from each and every place that each and every person goes to in their daily lives, and then compile that massive mound of information into something usable... go right ahead. It won't prove anything.




As for concerns of what "might happen,"I'll do as I always do and bring it back to drunk driving, to which, as always, there is no counter-argument against because there cannot be. What MIGHT happen does, in fact, matter very much.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Getting back to the OP question.

I have to ask what statistics the OP is looking at that causes him to think there may not be a significant change?

I believe that the simplist wya to determnine change is to look at statisics that are based on "per Capita" numbers that compare specific geographical areas over specific time periods.

...

I think we would all agree that population density has a strong bearing on crime rates. I think we'd also agree that variances in socio/economics also affects crime rate changes.

Click to expand...

Task Force 16, my OP title and OP text referred to the crime rate, which is the amount of crime related to the population. I agree that it's the best way to determine how much crime there really is, because total numbers can be misleading.That much be why the Brady Campaign likes to use totals rather than rates in their propaganda.

My core point in the OP was that there are no statistics that prove that changes in gun control for better or worse effect the crime rate significantly. You can examine the crime rate for a state and say: "LOOK! Their crime rate went DOWN 5% since adopting Concealed Carry!" But expanding the research to the surrounding states, you'll find the crime rate in the other states all went down by about the same amount, so it really doesn't prove anything.

I think there are so many factors related to crime that there's no way to pick any one cause and have a significant impact. Economic issues, social issues, the criminal justice system issues all have significant impact on crime rates. Are there ANY studies out there that try and encompass all factors that affect the crime rate? If so, they MUST show that guns and gun control are one of the smallest factors in it!

Look at right now. In my region, the economy is down, unemployment is up, and armed robberies of retail establishments is way up (I suspect other crime is up too, but it doesn't make the news much).Purchases of firearms is also way up. I suspect it probably isn't much different anywhere else in the country.When the statistics come out for 2008-2009, I'll bet the Brady Campaign is going to cherry pick the statistics for only thistime periodto show only the relationship between gun sales and crime and ignore the economy and unemployment.

...Orygunner...

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Are there ANY studies out there that try and encompass all factors that affect the crime rate? If so, they MUST show that guns and gun control are one of the smallest factors in it!

Click to expand...

This guy is as legit as it gets. If you haven't heard of him, you can easily look up his creditials. He has an amazing knack for making you look at things from another perspective. I thought his book was mostly garbage because many sectionswere full of holes, but his blog entries since then are usually great.

You really need to read the section in the book on gun control. He says exactly what you're saying, gun-control doesn't lower crimeand lax gun laws don't either,but with statitics to back it up. Sorry, I can't find any quotes online. He devotes an entire chapter to it though. Might be worth checking out if you're interested, your library is guaranteed to have a copy.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/forget-about-having-your-friends-over-for-dinner-in-missouri-its-your-enemies-you-want-to-invite/

Not directly related, but fits in with the rash of "change the image" topics we've been getting.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/guns-in-america/



Oh and while I'm on Steven Levitt, he's some link for all you John Lott whiners...



http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2006/john-lott-continues-to-embarrass-with-freakonomics-lawsuit

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=643

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=954

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/31/opinion/oe-wiener31

http://timlambert.org/lott/

Summary:

If you Google “John Lott” and “research fraud,” you get nearly150 results, starting off with a 2003 article published inScience magazine by Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief, whichcriticizes Lott’s “cooked data.” You get an article by Yale LawSchool professors Ian Ayres and John Donohue, published in the StanfordLaw and Economics Working Paper series, who have run the numbers.“In most states,” they wrote in 2002, right-to-carry laws “havebeen associated with more crime,” not less. Most important, you getthe exhaustive 2004 report from the prestigious NationalResearch Council, which found “no credible evidence” supporting Lott’sthesis – pretty much what “Freakonomics”said.

Click to expand...

Lott's lawsuit was thrown out by the judge, if anyone was wondering.

So enough quoting John Lott and enough whining about me not providing "citation".

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Look at right now. In my region, the economy is down, unemployment is up, and armed robberies of retail establishments is way up (I suspect other crime is up too, but it doesn't make the news much).Purchases of firearms is also way up. I suspect it probably isn't much different anywhere else in the country.

Click to expand...

I see similar things occurring here. What I haven't seen is an increase in CC/OC by the people who were purchasing firearms and weren't already carrying them as a means of providing for their own protection. At least within the narrow group of people that I know who either purchased a first firearm or added firearms for what they considered a defensive reason, I don't see a lot of people making the leap to understanding that their life is just as important standing on a street corner as it is at home.