More Guns = More Crime?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

News:

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide

According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."

The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.

Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates."

Source: CFIF.org

This is quite a good argument - I'll come away from voting though, through lack of decent choice. The reason it's a good article is the simple conclusion;

'...is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors.'

Now people may see that's justification to prevent a gun ban. More importantly, others may see it as the reason there should be a gun ban. Perhaps not in culturally advanced countries, but in America? Definently.

For all the numerous great things about America, it's cultural issues where the nations gun control problems stem.

That's the area that should be addressed. Gun control is simply the tip of the iceberg. Need I mention examples from Afghanistan and Iraq to reiterate my point?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[normiss 642]

Your kind sure like our guns and waring ways in WWII.
you're welcome...we lost a fuckload of nationals over other peoples countries and atrocities.

sometimes I wish we WOULD stay in our own country.
man would the rest of the world be FUCKED!
isolationism is handy when you want it to be I suppose.

you honestly don't think the current illegality of drugs and out socio-economic divide are a large part of our crime problems?

[vortexring 0]

Isolationism is simply going from one extreme to the other - and doesn't provide any solutions.

What positive areas of foreign policy America has achieved throughout the world wasn't the point.

The point was cultural issues - both at home and abroad. These relate far more to what's happening internationally than to gun control in itself.

Tell Dave the helmets main role for the pilots was to allow them to communicate as the headsets were built into them.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[airkid 0]

... i do not believe that an increase in gun control would decrease our nation's crime rate nor would a decrease in gun control increase our nation's crime rate... i do however believe that gun control regulates the intensity of crimes committed.

[1969912 0]

Quote

... i do not believe that an increase in gun control would decrease our nation's crime rate nor would a decrease in gun control increase our nation's crime rate... i do however believe that gun control regulates the intensity of crimes committed.

What do you mean by intensity?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[DrewEckhardt 0]

The absolute rate of gun ownership has nothing to do with crime rates or the severity of crimes comitted, although passing gun laws.

Confrontational crimes (robbery, burglary of occupied homes, rape) increase when it becomes more difficult for average citizens to own and carry guns.

Confrontational crimes decrease and criminals commit more crimes against property (simple theft, burglary of unoccupied homes) when it becomes easier for average citizens to own and carry guns.

[Scoop 0]

Quote

Your kind sure like our guns and waring ways in WWII.
you're welcome...

BWAHAHAHA

Was that the war you joined 2 years late? That was big of 'you'

[normiss 642]

nicht sprecken zie Deutsche, nein?

bitte shonn

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Your kind sure like our guns and waring ways in WWII.
you're welcome...

BWAHAHAHA

Was that the war you joined 2 years late? That was big of 'you'

It seems amazing that the UK was paying war loans back to the US 61 years after the war ended. We paid the final instalment in December 2006. Up until 1941, US companies were making a tidy profit selling arms to both sides. If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, it's a fair bet the US would have continued to cash in on the destruction of europe. But Japan did attack, America stopped arming Germany and entered the war. So it's completely, like, awesome that they came to lend us a hand. It's even more awesome that they won't shut up about how awesome it was.

[normiss 642]

as if England's "colonization" of the planet was a perfect attempt to take over the world without making any money off of it?

how much of the colony is left these days anyway?

how different was the British approach to treating Northern Ireland like Gaza???? your government almost seemed to enjoy sitting along watching the Irish kill each other.

none of our governments are perfect...but Europe could't finish WWII without our help. We sacrificed a lot in order to do that. I don't think any country should forget WWII.

[JackC 0]

Awesome.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

as if England's "colonization" of the planet was a perfect attempt to take over the world without making any money off of it?

how much of the colony is left these days anyway?

how different was the British approach to treating Northern Ireland like Gaza???? your government almost seemed to enjoy sitting along watching the Irish kill each other.

none of our governments are perfect...but Europe could't finish WWII without our help. We sacrificed a lot in order to do that. I don't think any country should forget WWII.

The Russians killed more Germans in WWII than did all other nations combined. I don't think anyone should forget that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

none of our governments are perfect...but Europe could't finish WWII without our help. We sacrificed a lot in order to do that. I don't think any country should forget WWII.

The Russians killed more Germans in WWII than did all other nations combined. I don't think anyone should forget that.

What's your point?

[vortexring 0]

At the end of the day we could still be slagging off each and every nation. End of the day? Week/month/world - it doesn't matter.

Why not discuss the mistakes in foreign policy we're still making to this day?

Edit: Are these errors in a relationship with current underlying cultural issues?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[quade 3]

Quote

Confrontational crimes decrease and criminals commit more crimes against property (simple theft, burglary of unoccupied homes) when it becomes easier for average citizens to own and carry guns.

Grand statements. PROVE it. My guess is that you nor anyone else can actually PROVE it. If it were actually possible to prove it, I doubt the discussion would be required.

My theory? People want to carry guns because they're afraid. If you're not afraid, you really have no reason to carry a gun. I'm not afraid, therefore, I've never carried a gun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

People want to carry guns because they're afraid. If you're not afraid, you really have no reason to carry a gun. I'm not afraid, therefore, I've never carried a gun.

Do you wear your seat belt because you are afraid?
Do you have life insurance because you are afraid?
Do you own a fire extinguisher because you are afraid?
Do you wear a reserve parachute because you are afraid?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because you like to be prepared for emergencies?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Confrontational crimes decrease and criminals commit more crimes against property (simple theft, burglary of unoccupied homes) when it becomes easier for average citizens to own and carry guns.

Grand statements. PROVE it. My guess is that you nor anyone else can actually PROVE it. If it were actually possible to prove it, I doubt the discussion would be required.

Oh, there are studies which prove exactly that, all right. But you're not going to believe them, so why should we bother trying to convince you?

Do you have an open mind on receipt of information which challenges your personal beliefs? Or will you just resort to hurling more personal insults?

Can you PROVE that what he says is false?

[Scoop 0]

Quote

maybe, just maybe, it's because you like to be prepared for emergencies?

... because you're AFRAID of the consequences of entering such an emergancy without one you mean.

[quade 3]

Quote

Can you PROVE that what he says is false?

John --

It's impossible to prove a negative.

I can't PROVE that UFOs have never landed on earth, there is always going to be the possibility that they have, but the overwhelming odds are against it just based on the physics.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,470]

>Do you wear a reserve parachute because you are afraid?

Sometimes I don't! On some jumps I make, having a reserve would be pointless - so I don't use one. Of course you have to be a lot more careful about packing, gear maintenance etc.

>Or maybe, just maybe, it's because you like to be prepared for emergencies?

Indeed. I've been mugged and I didn't need a gun to stop the guy; in fact I'm glad I didn't have one. But if you want to carry one - and you think the potential good outweighs the potential bad - then by all means do so.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Can you PROVE that what he says is false?

It's impossible to prove a negative.

I can't PROVE that UFOs have never landed on earth, there is always going to be the possibility that they have, but the overwhelming odds are against it.

This is not UFO's.

All you have to do is show us a study that correlates gun ownership rates with crime rates, and demonstrates that more guns always = more crimes, everywhere it occurs. Do you have such evidence? If so, now is the time for you to "put up".

Then again, since no such studies or proof exists that I know of (and I'm well informed on this issue), maybe it is sort of like UFO's after all. But that is because it's a false theory, not because gun and crime statistics don't exist. And since they do exist, if your theory could be proven true, the anti-gun folks would surely have done so, because it would make a powerful argument for them.

So, have you got any such report, or not?
Or do you just have a UFO false sighting theory?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

maybe, just maybe, it's because you like to be prepared for emergencies?

... because you're AFRAID of the consequences of entering such an emergancy without one you mean.

In that case, then being "afraid" is a good thing, because it makes us safe, by telling us that it's a good idea to wear our seat belts while driving, to have a fire extinguisher in our homes in case of fire, and to wear a reserve parachute while skydiving.

Thus, the negative connotation that anti-gun Quade tried to attach to being "afraid", is another false theory.

[rehmwa 2]

The "you are AFRAID" argument is a nice bit of stock trollery.

In reality - people can own guns for many reasons:

1 - maybe some are afraid and should be
2 - maybe some are afraid and delusional
3 - some just think guns are neat
4 - some just like to own stuff
5 - some like to shoot them because they like loud noises
6 - some like to shoot them because they like learning the control
7 - some shoot them because it's just like meditation to slow the breath, concentrate, and focus while very calm (strangely enough, some anti-gun types search for this exact feel through other means)
8 - some like the engineering that goes into it
9 - some like history and guns are way to represent it
10 - etc etc etc etc

generalizing one reason to all is either:
1 - projecting one's own insecurity on an issue
2 - pure trollery

either way, it's silly

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can you PROVE that what he says is false?

It's impossible to prove a negative.

I can't PROVE that UFOs have never landed on earth, there is always going to be the possibility that they have, but the overwhelming odds are against it.

This is not UFO's.

All you have to do is show us a study that correlates gun ownership rates with crime rates, and demonstrates that more guns always = more crimes, everywhere it occurs. Do you have such evidence? If so, now is the time for you to "put up".

John, social science can't prove anything. Data collection always represents a severe simplification of the data to translate it into simple numbers/metrics.

So you can't conclusively prove for/against the statement that criminals avoid confrontation with armed people. Lots of anecdotal information supports it, but flat out proof is harder to establish.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Was that the war you joined 2 years late? That was big of 'you'

FDR got around the American isolationism much earlier with the Destroyers for Bases in 1940 and the Lend Lease in early 1941. Short of the provocation of a direct attack, the US was not going to enter this war.

Hell, we joined the first war 3 years late, and in that one probably to ensure we could collect on debts. On that one I think the country was more guilty of selling to both sides, and it wasn't a given that we would oppose the Germans.