0
JohnRich

More Guns. Less Crime. Again.

Recommended Posts

It helps for you to understand some history here, and what has and hasn't been claimed. The concept "more guns, less crime" was never meant to say guns cause lower crime rates. It was meant to refute the oft heard chorus of anti-gun folks that guns cause crime. That isn't true, as demonstrated over the last few decades. No, it didn't happen every year in every town, but NO ONE IS CLAIMING GUNS MAKE THE CRIME RATE DROP. It's simply refuting the nonsensical claims by others that guns make the crime rate go up.

This isn't a causal relationship. It's a correlation that smacks down gun-banners' claim of a causal relationship in the other direction.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

He points out that only looking at the last data point (10 shot) is piss poor science. Which is the same point I have tried to make to John.



You're still ignoring message #27: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3954047;#3954352

This is just more evidence that my detractors will only see what they want to see,
rather than what I actually say.

But I must congratulate you on making a post about me, without including a personal insult. That's better.



uh, did you miss the "piss poor science" bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It helps for you to understand some history here, and what has and hasn't been claimed. The concept "more guns, less crime" was never meant to say guns cause lower crime rates. It was meant to refute the oft heard chorus of anti-gun folks that guns cause crime. That isn't true, as demonstrated over the last few decades. No, it didn't happen every year in every town, but NO ONE IS CLAIMING GUNS MAKE THE CRIME RATE DROP. It's simply refuting the nonsensical claims by others that guns make the crime rate go up.



Please. People claim it all the time, both out in the world and in this forum. John did it right here - read the subject header. He wants to claim he didn't make the conclusion, that he just left it for the reader to do so. That's a cop out at best, puts him at Kellerman's level of intellectual honesty.

The crime reduction claim comes hat in hand with CCW proposals. And then the opposition gives its usual "blood in the streets" threat which has never come true, but they continue to promote. When our side does the same thing, it legitimizes the Brady BS.

I'm quite content to say that the evidence is pretty strong to say that giving us our constitutional right to bear arms does not hurt society, though even if it were not true isn't a valid reason to deny rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



Hmm

I have not seen any of that in this thread


Then look for the questions I asked. Simple A+B=C claims on a topic like this are typically poor conclusions. I also provided links to searchable murder history in two cities going back three years.



Whooosh[:/]



Actually, that jet is flying over your head, if I understand his line of attack correctly.

He points out that only looking at the last data point (10 shot) is piss poor science. Which is the same point I have tried to make to John.



Then I think you both have the incorrect perspective of this thread
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As I said before, data is data and in this era of information it should all be collected and displayed.



There are numerous examples of gun control and gun freedom, all over the world. And along with those, numerous corresponding rates of low crime and high crime. There is no correlation between the two, over time, anywhere.

There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.

What more data do you need?

Guns do not cause crime. Period.

Some people just can't bring themselves to admit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the data was rock solid conclusive then it would be verified and published.



With so many examples going in so many different directions, how would you ever expect to conclude that "guns cause crime"? What possible data could be discovered that would discount all the examples to the contrary?

And since no such data exists against guns, and all we have is evidence that there is no correlation, then what do you think the public policy should be about gun ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he's doing hypothesis testing right, then he'll make an assumption (either that gun laws do or don't correlate with crime), and try to disprove it, not prove it. That's one way to avoid cherry-picking too much. Doing it that way promotes intellectual honesty.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are numerous examples of gun control and gun freedom, all over the world. And along with those, numerous corresponding rates of low crime and high crime. There is no correlation between the two, over time, anywhere.



If so, then why bring it up here as if there IS a correlation?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If so, then why bring it up here as if there IS a correlation?


See Kennedy's message #101.



Oh, but I disagree. How many times and by how many posters on this forum have people said such-and-such crime could have been prevented if only a person was carrying a concealed weapon?

People frequently make the claim they're "safer" because they're armed.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, but I disagree. How many times and by how many posters on this forum have people said such-and-such crime could have been prevented if only a person was carrying a concealed weapon?
People frequently make the claim they're "safer" because they're armed.



First of all, you're talking about gun carry, while the topic of this thread is gun ownership in general. Those are two different things.

Next, what applies to some individuals at the personal level, does not necessarily represent the nation as a whole.

So they can both be true. Individual circumstances vary greatly, while national statistics smooth out those differences. Individuals can be safer carrying a gun and stop a crime from happening against them. And there can also be no correlation between gun ownership and crime rates in national statistics.

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening. There are news stories every day of homeowners defeating intruders with their guns. But there are bigger factors that drive crime rates beyond that deterrence, such as demographics (the percentage of the population in the crime-prone age group), population density, poverty, drugs, and so on. There ARE statistics which show that the rate of burglaries in occupied homes is much higher in England than America, because burglars there do not fear encountering armed resistance.

You seem to be arguing that there IS a correlation between guns and crime, and that gun carry by law-abiding citizens DOES drive down crime. I'm certain that's not what you really meant to do, given your record of arguing against guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening.



There we go again; unsubstantiated claim attempting to link gun ownership with crime stats.

I rest my case.

Quote

I'm certain that's not what you really meant to do, given your record of arguing against guns...



Just to be clear and to reiterate it for about the bajillionth time, I'm not against gun ownership. I've said so several times before. Where we alway seem to go off track though is if that means complete and total unrestricted gun ownership. We've already proven the NRA is for a certain amount in that they don't want guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. After accepting that as a fact, it's then just a matter of degrees.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening.


There we go again; unsubstantiated claim attempting to link gun ownership with crime stats.
I rest my case.


how would you determine and track crimes prevented ?


Ask JR. It's not my claim.

I will say this, if a person is being mugged and a concealed carry person pulls out a gun to "stop" the crime, THE crime hasn't been prevented. It's possible that ANOTHER crime, for instance murder, has been prevented, but it's also just as likely it wasn't unless you go so far as to say all muggings end up as murders, which I'm fairly certain they don't.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening.



There we go again; unsubstantiated claim attempting to link gun ownership with crime stats.



1) Read a few recent news headlines:

Pizza Delivery Driver Shoots Robber
http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-deliverydrivershootsrobber-092010,0,7259881.story

Intruder shot by victim
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x233410569/Alleged-intruder-shot-by-victim

Homeowner Shoots Man Who Retaliated After Car Towed
http://www.click2houston.com/news/25047480/detail.html

Man seriously wounds intruder during botched home invasion
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/man_seriously_wounded_during_botched_hxD5IQ6m7iUWnqn5g5YnhL

Armed citizen shoots a violent mugger in self defense
http://www.examiner.com/self-defense-in-national/armed-citizen-shoots-a-violent-mugger-self-defense

2) Then review my previous speech here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3895417;#3895417

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Were any of those crimes prevented or were they, simply and at best, stopped from escalating further? In a couple of cases, I don't even think they prevented further escalation.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

THE crime hasn't been prevented. It's possible that ANOTHER crime, for instance murder, has been prevented, but it's also just as likely it wasn't unless you go so far as to say all muggings end up as murders, which I'm fairly certain they don't.



First of all, "THE" crime is in fact prevented in many instances. A robber, for example, may be forced to flee without completing the robbery. Therefore, the intended crime of robbery becomes only an attempted robbery, or an assault. It's a good thing that an armed victim can downgrade an intended crime to a lesser offense. I'd rather have a woman file charges against a criminal for assault, then rape.

And you admit yourself that in at least some cases, without armed deterrence, what starts out as, for example, a burglary, may turn into a rape, assault or murder. While indeed it doesn't happen every time, it certainly happens sometimes. And therefore, when all those homeowners have guns to stop the burglar in his tracks, they are no doubt stopping some greater crimes from occurring in many instances.

We can't foresee the future and say what has been prevented in every case, but we can certainly look at the statistics between armed defense, and unarmed defense, and show that citizens are much more likely to survive being a crime victim when they have a gun, than without one. And therefore, crimes HAVE been prevented. The statistics say so. See this previous post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3800620;#3800620

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

People frequently make the claim they're "safer" because they're armed.



They are fooling themselves if they think being armed makes them safer. What being armed does do, is level the playing field and making it harder for them to be preyed upon by the criminal. But they are not safer (sorry John).

I can't speak for you, but I sure as heck don't want to live in a society where I am not allowed to defend myself. But ironically I do. I live in a country where I am not allowed to defend myself. I live in a country that wants me to bend over backwards and take it up the ass from the criminal who wants to prey on me. I have been on the wrong side all these years. I should be a criminal. Where I live criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens do. Where I live the police need a warrant to raid the home of a suspected criminal, but the same police are allowed to enter a home anytime they want no warrant needed if I happened to have been stupid enough to have registered a firearm with the government.

It is ass backwards up here. [:/]


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Were any of those crimes prevented or were they, simply and at best, stopped from escalating further? In a couple of cases, I don't even think they prevented further escalation.



The whole range of possibilities applies. Some may be stopped before commission. Some criminals may not be stopped until after the crime has been completed. Some may be prevented from escalating to something worse.

Are you suggesting that armed citizens who nip crimes in the bud, or stop them from escalating to more serious crimes are a bad thing? I certainly hope not.

And if the criminal is dead, he's certainly not going to commit any more crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

THE crime hasn't been prevented. It's possible that ANOTHER crime, for instance murder, has been prevented, but it's also just as likely it wasn't unless you go so far as to say all muggings end up as murders, which I'm fairly certain they don't.



First of all, "THE" crime is in fact prevented in many instances. A robber, for example, may be forced to flee without completing the robbery. Therefore, the intended crime of robbery becomes only an attempted robbery, or an assault. It's a good thing that an armed victim can downgrade an intended crime to a lesser offense.

And you admit yourself that in at least some cases, without armed deterrence, what starts out as, for example, a burglary, may turn into a rape, assault or murder.



We can continue to play out this what if game.

What if as a result of fearing armed victims, the mugger starts shooting people in the back (or just whacking them on the head with a crowbar)? And then raping them?

Attempted robbery is still considered a violent crime, so it replacing actual robbery doesn't change the crime statistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What if as a result of fearing armed victims, the mugger starts shooting people in the back (or just whacking them on the head with a crowbar)? And then raping them?



Because statistics show that it hasn't happened. Over the last 20 years, 46 states have passed concealed carry laws, allowing citizens to go around armed for self defense. If your scenario were adopted by even a small percentage of the criminals, then crime would have skyrocketed. But that hasn't happened. Instead, violent crime is at a 35-year low. So it seems that rather, criminals fear armed defense so much, that they have switched to property crimes rather than people crimes, to avoid the possibility of being shot.

Quote

Attempted robbery is still considered a violent crime, so it replacing actual robbery doesn't change the crime statistic.



It changes things for the victim, because they may have saved themselves from physical harm, and they didn't lose their wallet. Those are good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What if as a result of fearing armed victims, the mugger starts shooting people in the back (or just whacking them on the head with a crowbar)? And then raping them?



Because statistics show that it hasn't happened. Over the last 20 years, 46 states have passed concealed carry laws, allowing citizens to go around armed for self defense. If your scenario were adopted en masse by criminals, then crime would have skyrocketed. But that didn't happen. Instead, violent crime is at a 35-year low. So it seems that instead, criminals fear armed defense so much, that they have switched to property crimes rather than people crimes, to avoid the possibility of being shot.



Quite plausible. But proving it statistically is a whole different matter. And that has been the point of this thread.

BTW, you're back to claiming that guns stop crime again, just as you started. In the middle you insisted it was just that it was irrelevant to crime rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They are fooling themselves if they think being armed makes them safer. What being armed does do, is level the playing field and making it harder for them to be preyed upon by the criminal. But they are not safer (sorry John).



I don't follow you. See my link in message #118. A gun gives you a better chance of fending off an attack and minimizing the consequences. I call that "making you safer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0