• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

well whaddayaknow... more guns = less crime

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
.

Another bit of research confirms what we already knew: restrictive gun laws do not reduce crime (and in fact appear to increase it).

I haven't been able to find a copy of the article, so if anyone has access to this (paid) site & could post the PDF I'd really like to read it.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#tabModule

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates

Abstract:
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.
Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.
It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.
These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.






.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Snark: Did you cw protect the previously posted post? No? Well, then all bets are off.

The premise is flawed as is many studies that try to "prove" one thing or another about gun laws and their effectiveness. The study does not account for, and can not account for, criminal possession of a gat. The study must rely upon data collected by cops and those are known to be "inflated' from time to time, as budget needs dictate. Also, any study requires honesty by the respondents and objective interpretation of the data.

But, as the OP clearly and correctly states, this ain't telling us what we don't already know. What I want to know is who paid for the study. If the tax payer, in any way shape or form, then why spend my money on something I, and the FBI too it seems, already know.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
No further studies are really needed, it's a long dead horse.

Rifles account for only around 300 murders per year, "assault" rifles are just a fraction of that 300, so they're statistically meaningless, most murders with guns are done with handguns.

Violence levels are determined by social, cultural, and economic factors. In the U.S., your chance of being murdered is about 0 if you avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places. For example, don't hang around drug gangs, or inner city blacks in cities like Chicago or DC. Black on black crime accounts for most murders.

Russia and Mexico and Brazil (off the top of my head) tightly limit legal access to guns, both have sky high murder rates. Japan basically bans guns, with a very low murder rate. Switzerland lets people have whatever they want, even machine guns that are in use by the swiss military, and they have a murder rate like Japan's. The evidence goes on and on.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
Statistics are useless without delving into the root of the issues.

I don't think more guns necessarily equals less crime, although it could contribute.

What is useful is that crime has gone down despite more guns which is contrary the propaganda of the anti's.
 
A

Antonioo

Guest
Statistics are useless without delving into the root of the issues.

I don't think more guns necessarily equals less crime, although it could contribute.

What is useful is that crime has gone down despite more guns which is contrary the propaganda of the anti's.

I defo dont think that more guns equals less crime.. its logic, if no one had guns, sure, people would still do crimes, but probably with less fatal outcomes I think. Now, when there are so many guns circulating in the US anything can happen, dont know if I trust these statistics.. I mean, one year it will look like it contributes, and one it wont.
 

Silvertongue

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
213
Location
Marion County, Tennessee
I defo dont think that more guns equals less crime.. its logic, if no one had guns, sure, people would still do crimes, but probably with less fatal outcomes I think. Now, when there are so many guns circulating in the US anything can happen, dont know if I trust these statistics.. I mean, one year it will look like it contributes, and one it wont.

The "More Guns = Less Crime" title is a bit misleading, to my eyes.

It should be "More Armed Citizens = More Guns = Less Crime."

It could also be done without the middle section.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I defo dont think that more guns equals less crime.. its logic, if no one had guns, sure, people would still do crimes, but probably with less fatal outcomes I think. Now, when there are so many guns circulating in the US anything can happen, dont know if I trust these statistics.. I mean, one year it will look like it contributes, and one it wont.

Read the book of the same name as the thread title by John Lott. Reality does not "make sense" to everyone. It just is.

Lott used economics techniques to evaluate the numbers and arrived logically at the conclusion that an armed citizenry is the biggest deterrent to crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

mdak06

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
59
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
I defo dont think that more guns equals less crime.. its logic, if no one had guns, sure, people would still do crimes, but probably with less fatal outcomes I think. Now, when there are so many guns circulating in the US anything can happen, dont know if I trust these statistics.. I mean, one year it will look like it contributes, and one it wont.
More guns logically equals less crime because more guns makes people more equal, and therefore reduces the power of the bad guy.

Guns allow people to defend themselves without having to come into direct contact with their attacker. This makes using a firearm for self-defense different from virtually all other forms of self-defense. It means that a person can stop their would-be attacker from a distance, and is therefore more likely to remain unharmed. This is in contrast with many other forms of self-defense (e.g. knives, stun guns, martial arts, etc.) that require the would-be victim to make direct contact with the attacker.

Bad guys can't prey on weaker people nearly as easily if the weaker people are no longer weak. Obtaining a firearm and learning how to use it transforms people from "weak" to "not weak." That's why a gun is known as the "great equalizer." Whether you're tall or short, strong or weak, fat or thin, young or old, male or female, there's a gun that you can fire that will help you defend yourself from bad guys.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
Read the book of the same name as the thread title by John Lott. Reality does not "make sense" to everyone. It just is.

Lott used economics techniques to evaluate the numbers and arrived logically at the conclusion that an armed citizenry is the biggest deterrent to crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Yet other economist insist crime dropped drastically because of Roe vs Wade and they made a good argument. Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner.

I am sure Lott is correct in his assessment , even if he wasn't the important message to the anti's who won't believe how much logic is thrown at them is to point out that crime has gone down despite a dramatic increase in gun ownership.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Both analyses are likely valid. The problem is that one supports fundamental rights (self-defense). The other is anti-rights (the right to live). Economics can boost an argument for rights. It cannot reasonably defeat one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
Both analyses are likely valid. The problem is that one supports fundamental rights (self-defense). The other is anti-rights (the right to live). Economics can boost an argument for rights. It cannot reasonably defeat one.

<o>

The authors of the one even made clear they are not making any moral judgments on their findings.

Personally I am not sure when a life becomes a life, I don't believe it is at conception any more than the ovum or sperm is a life before they engage each other.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
A fetus is a unique member of the human species. An ovum or a sperm is not. The logical differentiation between when the matter is not a human being and when it is is at conception.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Read the book of the same name as the thread title by John Lott. Reality does not "make sense" to everyone. It just is.

Lott used economics techniques to evaluate the numbers and arrived logically at the conclusion that an armed citizenry is the biggest deterrent to crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

i'm sorry, but i truly believe you're interpretation of Mr. Lott's book is incorrect as his analysis of the given stats lends him to state numerous times in the third edition, "...shows a reduction of violent crime but property crime has increased."
cite, pages 60, 63, 64,67, 76,178, etc.

additionally, his book actually concerns conceal carry not open carry and the stats Mr. Lott uses are issued CC permits in a given locale against the reported crime stats and he draws empirical conclusions from them.

i am a avid fan of Mr. Lott's research and writings as well as his efforts as a pro-gun advocate but i do want to make sure we compare apples with apples instead of drawing incorrect conclusions from his work(s)

ipse
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
i'm sorry, but i truly believe you're interpretation of Mr. Lott's book is incorrect as his analysis of the given stats lends him to state numerous times in the third edition, "...shows a reduction of violent crime but property crime has increased."
cite, pages 60, 63, 64,67, 76,178, etc.

additionally, his book actually concerns conceal carry not open carry and the stats Mr. Lott uses are issued CC permits in a given locale against the reported crime stats and he draws empirical conclusions from them.

i am a avid fan of Mr. Lott's research and writings as well as his efforts as a pro-gun advocate but i do want to make sure we compare apples with apples instead of drawing incorrect conclusions from his work(s)

ipse

+1
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I defo dont think that more guns equals less crime.. its logic, if no one had guns, sure, people would still do crimes, but probably with less fatal outcomes I think. Now, when there are so many guns circulating in the US anything can happen, dont know if I trust these statistics.. I mean, one year it will look like it contributes, and one it wont.
Old expression - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.....just like in England and Australia. It is the user, not the tool, that determines good or evil.

"Anything can happen" generically vague and meaningless. Gun owners tend to be the most responsible and law abiding demographic group committing less crime than LEOs.

For a good look at the facts and myths regarding guns, read Gun Facts - Debunking Gun Control
http://freedomnetwork.com/gun-facts-guy-smith/

http://www.gunfacts.info/

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
I defo dont think that more guns equals less crime.. its logic, if no one had guns, sure, people would still do crimes, but probably with less fatal outcomes I think. Now, when there are so many guns circulating in the US anything can happen, dont know if I trust these statistics.. I mean, one year it will look like it contributes, and one it wont.

I see we're still flogging this long-deceased equine. There are virtually no handguns in England, but they average 347 stabbings daily. It has long been established that the states with the strictest firearms laws also have the highest murder rates per capita. Check the FBI stats. :banghead: Pax...
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
I see we're still flogging this long-deceased equine. There are virtually no handguns in England, but they average 347 stabbings daily. It has long been established that the states with the strictest firearms laws also have the highest murder rates per capita. Check the FBI stats. :banghead: Pax...


True but what is the demographics of those states too?
 

DW98

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
274
Location
Australia
Old expression - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.....just like in England and Australia. It is the user, not the tool, that determines good or evil.

Guns aren't outlawed in Australia so to speak. We can still own rifles, shotguns and handguns (unlike the UK). I see your point though. The restrictions have not worked here, as shown in my thread in the International Section regarding snippets of crime reports from (mostly) my state.

Keep up the good work and hold onto your rights.
 
Top