guns dont affect crime

M

MDman

New member
I seem to be getting the impression from some of you that guns actually prevent and lower crime rates. I feel this to be an inaccurate statement. There is the argument that criminals are deterred by gun owners, but how are these criminals suppose to know who is armed and who isn’t? all the studies I have seen seem to show that gun ownership and crime rates are totally independent of each other.

The argument that armed communities prevents mass murders and crime seems to be just as foolish and shallow as the argument to ban guns to prevent mass murder and crime.

I am curious on your opinion and views about this, I don’t mind being proven wrong
 
I suspect by your asking this (on any firearms forum) that you've already made up your mind, but I'll offer my two cents anyways.

Just pulling numbers out of my butt...

but, if only 3% of the population were armed, it'd not have as good of a chance of changing predatory behavior as compared to if 33% - or more - of the population were armed.

A possible armed victim gives the reasonable bad guy second thoughts. As for the unreasonable bad guy, well, it offers the victim a fighting chance.

While this may not change crime statistics, it changes who may be the victim.
 
MDman, Statistics proved that, at least here in Florida, violent crime fell after and has fallen steadily since the passage of Florida's CWP law.

The most telling proof that guns in the hands of the law abiding prevents crimes is from the criminal himself. When asked while in prison serving their sentences what the biggest fears were for breaking into someones home the top two response were the armed homeowner and dogs.

Another example of guns preventing crime. My boss has operated 2 pawnshops for up-wards of 25 years without being robbed. I have been with him for 14 plus or minus years without even an attempted robbery. Just a few blocks away from our stores are several other pawnshops which get robbed regularly despite having 2-3 times the employees and less gold displayed......and the same money to loan out. The chain stores that get robbed had much better surveillance for many years (we have improved ours). They have better conventional prevention ie checks and balance systems like less gold displayed, money locked away, more people, people in the back behind the scene, etc. By all rights we should be robbed before them. The only difference with our stores is the presence of a sidearm on every employee. Everyone is ready to defend themselves and subsequently the others. We have been checked out by robbers but never robbed.
 
I believe they help to a certain degree. Statistics can be manipulated to read as the writer wishes by simply including or excluding data to support their argument.
Homicide increased 2.89% and burglary 6.48% increased in 2006 from 2005(according to the PERF violent crime report), but aggravated assaults dropped 2.2%.
 
how are these criminals suppose to know who is armed and who isn’t?
Click to expand...

In states with little to no CCW, there's a much higher chance that the victim won't be armed.

The local comparison I use is Nashua NH and Lowell MA, cities of comparable size not far from each other across the border. Violent crime in Nashua is low. Violent crime in Lowell is not only much higher, it's exponentially higher.

In NH, any law-abiding citizen can carry concealed with a $10 shall-issue permit. In MA, a permit is much harder to get, is only may-issue, and you even need a permit to carry pepper spray.

In other cities, opposite mirror events have occured. In a club in MA, a madman attacked with a gun and killed unarmed people. In a club in NH, in Manchester, a madman attacked with a gun, and was shot by a CCW holder. Nobody besides the attacker was hurt.

Which place likely has more inviting, unarmed targets?
 
MDman,

Go to some place like Kennesaw, GA and try and commit a crime against a person there, then come back and tell us about it.................if you survive.
 
Crime prevention is a Red Herring argument

Whether private ownership of firearms reduces crime or not is irrelevant. The anti-gun types don't care about logic anyway. They just don't want you to own a gun.
We have a Constitution, the Second Amendment of which designates our right to keep and bear arms..period.
Either repeal the Amendment or move on.
 
I read somewhere, but can't remeber where. I think it was a reference to Kennisaw and the CCW wave in the 80's and 90's

That crime does go down initially and then starts to rise again but to a level under what it used to be before
The people suffering the increase don't remember the good ole days and say that guns do not lower crime
But all in all News Shooter is correct
 
you are a burgler. there are two houses that look nice to break into, you see a nra sticker on cars and a window of one house and nothing in the other household. deterrent? i would think so.
 
you also hear a dog barking in one with a sign in the window that says i can make it to the fence in 2.6 seconds, can you? deterrent, most likely.
 
I would not say "... News Shooter is correct ...", I would say that he errs.

The right to self defense is a natural right possessed by all peoples even if some of their governments should unjustly abridge that right. The 2nd Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, it only codified a preexisting right within the Constitution, and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment can not possible deprive a free people of their natural right.

To think otherwise is to believe that our unalienable rights can be created or destroy by the actions of men, that our unalienable right are not unalienable at all, that they can be enlarged or reduced, that they are malleable and subject to the momentary winds of political fashion. This is the antithesis of the conceptual framework that justified the American revolution as expressed so eloquently in our Declaration of Independence.

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment can no more dispossess the American people of their right to keep and bear arms than the repeal of the 1st Amendment can deprive them of their liberty of conscience, their right to worship, or not to worship, God as they desire.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
I am very reluctant to say that statistics "prove" anything, since they are so suceptible to manipulation that goes undetected by the layman. Still, the studies I have seen (Kleck, Lott & Mustard,) indicate that upon a state changing to a "shall issue" law for CCW permits, there is a "statistically significant" immediate drop in violent crime for that state followed by (as someone mentioned above) an uptick, with the crime rate stabilizes at a rate still lower (in a "statistically significant" sense,) than the original rate.

I don't think criminals "know" who is armed and who is not. But those who enter the dark professions are, by nature, gamblers. Those who notice more people fighting back in attempted muggings may decide that the risks are now too high, and opt out into a less risky line of work (for instance, property crimes, or a non-criminal 'line of work' altogether.) Others may decide that, despite the increased risks, the expected rewards mean that crime will still pay off for them. (Not everyone is armed, and even those who are armed might get caught in 'condition white', as it were.)

In addition to the usual statistical surveys on guns and violence, I'd recommend Robert H. Gertner & Randal C. Picker, Game Theory and the Law, for a larger discussion on the application of game theory to these kind of discussions.
 
Mass shootings do go down with lawful firearms present - or there would be no school shootings, places where lawful armed self defense is outlawed. Proof? Go to Israel, which began a program of armed plainclothes volunteers. No school shootings for 25 years, and the one that did happen, stopped by an armed civilian. Here, we wet ourselves at the thought of our delicate little darlings being anywhere near someone legally carrying a self defense weapon, just so we can weep over thier graves when the defenseless are cut down en masse. A CCW permit holder was IN the building at VT, disarmed by school policy.
Does the abscence of firearms lower crime rate? Nope. Go to prison, and see what violence is done with sharpened sporks, molded melted plastic baggies, pencils, etc. Not one gun anywhere, total control. Should be Utopia...
 
Whether private ownership of firearms reduces crime or not is irrelevant. The anti-gun types don't care about logic anyway. They just don't want you to own a gun.
We have a Constitution, the Second Amendment of which designates our right to keep and bear arms...period.
Either repeal the Amendment or move on.
Click to expand...

how guns relate to crime is very relevant, for what I would assume obvious reasons. anti gun types are people with opinions that are possible to change, and could be done so with the right studies, proof and reasoning.

I am aware of the Florida case, but I was under the impression that the nations crime rate as a whole was decreasing as well.

Crime exists in both places with a very high and low gun ownership rate. And actually I think Israel works to my views better. consider the number of armed citizens in Israel and Palestine, would you feel safe in either place? I would like to make it clear I do not believe less guns equal less crime, rather that guns do not affect the number of crimes committed.
 
"I feel this to be an inaccurate statement."

OK, you FEEL something.

What actual tangible PROOF do you have that converts your feelings into verifiable reality?
 
We have a Constitution, the Second Amendment of which designates our right to keep and bear arms..period.
Either repeal the Amendment or move on.
Click to expand...
That is a really bad way to go about things. If we can't justify a reason for the second amendment to exist then it doesn't deserve to in the first place. Simply daring them to repeal it is not a good tactic. Maybe it's fine for the baby boomers that are a decade or to from the grave but barring any unforseen circumstance - and with the advances in medicine being made today and in the near future - it's possible, if not likely, I'll live to the end of the century. A lot can happen in that amount of time and I don't want to lose my rights just because the older generation doesn't care anymore and is willing to be stubborn about it because they don't have as much to lose.

Better idea is to convince them why the right to bear arms is important so that we have more people on our side of the argument. Pushing them, screaming trite and ridiculous mantras like "from my cold dead hands RAWR!" and demanding that everyone be allowed to mount a gatling gun on their front porch is only going to make them fight harder against us.
 
I guess my primary point

getting away from the Second Amendment is that TRUE anti-gunners are not going to be swayed by any kind of argument. Been there and done that.
You can beat them back with all the logic and stats you want and they don't care. They simply want to disarm you.
 
And there are very few that simply want to disarm people because they want to oppress us or harm us. The vast majority of antigunners are anti-gun because they see us as the bigger threat. Those minor few that actually have the intention of oppression and tyranny are doing a better job of convincing the population that guns are bad. Logic and reason is the only way to win.
 
Does the presence of firearms deter crime? Judge for yourself;

In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:

  • 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
  • 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
  • 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

England, since banning most firearms, has seen a serious increase in "hot burglaries" -- i.e. burglaries when the residents are inside the home. Because residents cannot adequately defend themselves, criminals in small groups of 2-4 force entry, terrorize the occupants to get their swag and depart. Residents have been beaten, raped, robbed, pets killed and children injured.

In the U.S., burglars often take steps to ensure the house is empty before burglarizing it, fearing that they could be shot by the resident. They take extra care to avoid being seen in the area so as to avoid being shot or captured by a gun-toting neighbor.

Crime can exist anywhere there is opportunity to commit the crime and the odds of "getting away with it" are good, even if only for several months.

When looking at crime stats, remember there are other factors besides just guns that figure into the crime rate per 100,000 people. The density of the population, their economic and employment status, the number of males between 15 and 30 and so on. Even the local attitude towards "victimless crimes" such as drug usage, prostitution, gambling, etc. have an impact on crime rates.
 
I do not have the numbers, (but going off of what Bill has said,) while there has been an increase, aren’t their crime numbers still lower than ours here in America?

Also I realize crime statistics are the worst of all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top