Do Fewer Guns Mean Less Crime? - Page 2

Iriemon · 03-21-08, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

A gun in my hands means less crime against me, and that's all I give a rat's a$$ about. Sure, I believe in gun control. I control my gun, and you control yours.

Statistically, is that the case? How about if you add in injuries for accident statistics.

Iriemon · 03-21-08, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMartucci

This is from an article I wrote (and recently made a speech about), and I figured I'd post it here and see what everyone has to say.

---

I'm going to attempt to prove three things:

Guns and crime exist completely independently of one another
Gun control can not be fairly compared among other nations, namely the UK
Guns do far more good to society than harm

I don't necessarily disagree with your contention or conclusions about whether guns cause crime. Crime is caused by many things, and I would be very surprised to find guns being one of those factors. How many people would pick up a gun, and because of that get a sudden urge to turn to crime.

It is not that guns cause crime, the issue is whether they facilitate the conduct of crime, increase the violence of crime that does occur, and if so, whether gun control laws would reduce that.

In other words, the issue is not whether guns cause crime, which is what you addressed, but whether guns facilitate crime (or violence in crime).

Nor do I argue with statistics that show that crime and violent crime is far more prevalent in the US than other countries.

The conclusion that seem most strained to me is that the prevalence of guns is actually reduces crime. The fact that guns are prevalent in the US, and that crimes are prevalent in the US, does not suggest that prevalence of guns is very effective in reducing crime.

Source 4

Your source for this assertion is "GUNBLAST.COM THE Online Gun Magazine" where links to asserted statistics are presented. The links themselves are asserted to have come from "Second Amendment Sisters.com" which, when you peruse their website, doesn't seem to be interested in an objective presentation of the debate.

Given the old truism "there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics" (Clements), are there more objective sources that support these claims you can give us links to?

Mach · 03-21-08, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMartucci

As you can see, even though France and Canada have roughly the same amount of guns per capita, their crime rate is much lower. Thus, their low crime rate must logically depend on another factor, and not the availability of guns.

Your conclusion is not correct.
You are comparing three different populations. You would have to prove these things:
1. The U.S., Canada, and France, populations, all behave precise the same.
2. That Canada and France would have had precisely the same (or higher) crime rates without guns.
3. That the U.S. without guns would have the same or higher rate of crime.

You have demonstrated none of these things.

Quote:

Second of all, comparing nations with such widely differeing cultures and legal systems is an illogical procedure. Consider this, taken from an article written in the 90's:

Um, you just used this illogical procedure in your first point as evidence that guns don't increase crime! Why were you comparing U.S., France, and Canada if comparing such "widely differing cultures and legal systems was illogical"? Because you made a mistake.

Quote:

The fact is, the danger of guns is mostly media hype. In reality, more children die in swimming pools then from accidental shootings in the home. In fact, you are roughly 100 times more likely to die in a pool then in accidental gunplay.

This is irrelevant. Children die from guns. Adults die from guns. How many die in pools is has nothing to do with guns vs. crime.

Quote:

So in conclusion, guns and crime have nothing to do with each other.

Many crimes are comitted with guns. Obviously your conclusion is incorrect, In many cases, crimes do have SOMETHING to do with a gun, in some cases, the crime is to get a gun itself.

I have seen these same arguments in previous posts, really the same flawed logic in most cases too. I wonder if this comes from some particular gun or conservative site that is using unreasonable rhetoric to argue against gun control.

There are a lot of good arguments for gun control, I just think the lack of reasoning in these arguments makes no better than just saying "I like guns".

-Mach

SmilesAndFrowns · 03-21-08, 08:05 PM

Miss understanding what the thread is about. Its is just stating that just because there are gun are obtainable doesnt conicide with crime rates. He also trying to say, comparing the United States to a country with entirely different cultral believes and massively different laws is a horrible comparison. How can you compare Japan's Crime Rate to the United States. The culture is so incredlibly different. Apples and Oranges.

Guns are regulated just as much as they need to be right now. Maybe, we should focus on law abiding citizens protect rather then the criminals protection. A criminal isnt going to care if you outlaw guns because he's still going to get his gun. Besides making things easier for him by not having to worry about his "mark" shooting back. Just for one second consider how many protected themselves and their families from an armed burglur or home envader.

Bergslagstroll · 03-23-08, 10:30 AM

You have also consider the types of gun and that they used for. In European countries like mine Sweden, it more common to have rifles ecpecially hunting rifles, but also automatic then it comes to the nationalguard. That most of the time the guns is locked up in safety boxes and not used for personal protection. The same goes for handguns that exist mostly for sport and locked up.

Then it comes to gun for protection, it can be very dangereus in some cases. That scared people with guns can be really dangereus. They can accidently shout a innocent people they percived as a danger or hit a innocent people. Also they can self die if they end up in a struggle with their assilant over the gun. It can be also a risk that they have their guns laying around so a child get their hand on them. So if people want to use guns for protection they really need good training not only in markmanship but also how to use them under extreme stress.

Personally I think the dangereus of getting atacked is very small. And in your home it works much better to have a dog and alarm., and out walking pepperspray and a 120 db alarm if you want to protect yourself.

andyroberts75 · 03-24-08, 08:09 AM

Fewer guns DOES mean less crime. Jeff Merriman for Sheriff.

Lerxst · 03-24-08, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyroberts75

Fewer guns DOES mean less crime. Jeff Merriman for Sheriff.

CURSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

purplefaced · 03-27-08, 11:00 AM

This has always been interesting to me. I think the research of John Lott sums it best. He is anti-gun, profesed liberal, but his research shows that gun ownership is directly correlated to less gun crime. It is a very interesting read, and the raw data/numbers cannot be disputed. You may disagree on belief, but the looking at the simple data, not somone's statistics, show a different story.

Here is his website for more information: John Lott's Website

Scucca · 03-27-08, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefaced

This has always been interesting to me. I think the research of John Lott sums it best. He is anti-gun, profesed liberal, but his research shows that gun ownership is directly correlated to less gun crime. It is a very interesting read, and the raw data/numbers cannot be disputed. You may disagree on belief, but the looking at the simple data, not somone's statistics, show a different story.

Try instead Cook and Ludwig (2006, The social costs of gun ownership, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 90, pp 379-391). They are able to conclude that "an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community".

I'd also recommend the more general empirical analysis into the consequences of gun ownership. For example, Lemaire (2005, The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs, Journal of Risk & Insurance, Vol. 72, pp359-374)finds that "firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by 104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males)"

American · 04-03-08, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mach

OK, I'll give it a once over for how reasonable it is.

That's false to begin with, many crimes are comitted with guns, wanting them to be independant of one another is just words or wishful thinking. Guns are a tool, and a good tool to committ certain crimes with, which is why we have gun crimes to begin with.

That cannot be true, if one knows all relevant data, it can be statistically compared and described, with the appropriate caveats and margins of error. I think what you may mean is that most of the general published data is not sufficient to fairly compare the U.S. to other nations in terms of gun control.
That's possibly true (I haven't researched it but I have seen this stated a number of places). But please, make the distinction!

Why does Japan do OK with the most stringent gun control laws? Apparently there are other factors involved that can contradict that.

Your conclusion is NOT logical. You note that it must NOT logically depend on the availability of guns, this is false. However, you may correctly claim it does not ONLY depend on the availability of guns, a much weaker, but correct, argument.

You seem to be missing the actual point here.
If you give a tool that can be used to defend against, or commit crimes, among other things, to a population that does not committ crimes, and therefore has little need to defend against said crimes, *Why would you think adding guns would increase crime rate?*

If you take a less stable population that participates in a lot more crime, and you give them guns, you will expect to see more guns used in crimes, necessarily, and more fatalities as a result. This starts an arms race, now to defend against a crime you need a gun, since people comitting crimes have guns widely available.

This is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Lots of people die of Cancer. And...and nothing. It's irrelevant too.

-Mach

Considering the millions of guns in this country, the vase majority of them are no used to commit crimes. Therefore guns are not the important variable.

If you really think no one should have a gun, then propose an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment.