guns dont affect crime

Until the liberals understand that there are evil people out there, willing to steal, rape, and kill whether or not guns exist, we will always have this debate.

MDman, If you are genuine in your quest for information the above should provide you with a basis from which to work. Assume that all guns are confiscated. Does this mean the criminal element in our society will go away? Perhaps a walk thru a crime riddled neighborhood with a thick gold chain around (your debate antagonists) neck will be uneventful after such a ban. I however believe that their chain will be stolen at knife point or just strong arm style. If the criminal wants to kill them instead of pulling the trigger he'll just beat them or stab them. Nothing will change except the tools used and the ability of the good guy to defend themselves.

Good cannot exist without evil and evil cannot be stopped without guns.
 
MDman, you didn't look close enough. Switzerland is listed with a FAR lower crime rate. Thier rate of firearms ownership is HIGHER than the US. South Africa, which has very, very strict disarmament laws, ranks above the US, as well as Jamaica. C'mon, the only country with tougher gun control laws than Jamaica is Taiwan, where possession of a firearm is punishable by death.
Click to expand...
That ignores not only the fact that Swiss men go through mandatory military training but that the cultures of those respective nations are very different. High rate of gun ownership is not why Switzerland has a low crime rate.
 
High rate of gun ownership is not why Switzerland has a low crime rate.
Click to expand...

Just as high rate of gun ownership is not why the U.S. has high crime.....which was adoremans point.

The question was do guns affect crime rates. Guns in the hands of the law abiding absolutely do affect crime rates. I know this because criminals are careful not to run into places that are armed (to rob). They are afraid of armed homeowners (by their own admission). These fears all add up to less crime than would have taken place had Mr bad guy had no fear. It is common sense. Those who need stats to understand this are probably lost soles on this issue anyway. The will be found soles when they are victims just like that politician.
 
The facts do not support MDman. See More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun ...
Amazon.com: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics): John R. Lott
 
Lott :rolleyes: He is as dishonest with his statistics as any anti-gun group. His claims are taken as gospel simply because they put forth ideas pro-gun groups agree with.

That doesn't make him right.
 
The only thing guns do to crime rates is make violent crime more lethal. All the rest is twisted stats and silliness from both sides.

WildorarewebacktothestatsgameagainAlaska
 
I was under the belief that criminals are afraid of gun owners, there for committing less crimes. I’ve changed my mind, I think they take that into consideration and rather then choosing not to commit the crime, they work their way around it. Like the LA bank robbers wearing body armor. I do still believe it can stop those who would only commit these crimes for "fun" just not those who do it for a living.

for what its worth, I have read some of more guns less crime. May I suggest “the false promise of gun control”?


here is my brilliant reason for why guns do not have a strong relation to crime. Crime hot spots and I guess ill call them "cold" spots exists in places with and without guns.

I keep thinking and reading, and I am seeing relations between "community" and the attitude toward the government and crime.

The only thing guns do to crime rates is make violent crime more lethal. All the rest is twisted stats and silliness from both sides.

WildorarewebacktothestatsgameagainAlaska
Click to expand...
-agreed
 
whining does such good

Mr. Lott was NOT originally 'one of us'; he was originally 'one of them'.
His findings enlightened him.

Doesn't matter.

Some people are incapable of logical thinking.

Mr. Hansen's first reply says it best.
Best.
 
MDman I suggest shifting your paradigm. Instead of looking for the statistical validity of gun's effects on crime (really ought to specify the kind of crime for the discussion to make any progress), I suggest looking at a criminal as a proficient economist. Surely they won't be wearing a tweed jack and smoking a pipe. They will engage in economically evaluating a particular type behavior.

'Fer instance. The possibility of encountering a citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon will no doubt alter the perp's ratio of reward to risk. At some point the ratio will drop to a point where the perp will decide to engage in a different behavior in order to raise the ratio to a level consistent with his economic necessity. So he changes from armed robbery of convenience stores to, let's say, armed home invasions. In a home invasion the risk (however the perp defines risk) is comparatively low compared to encountering a legally armed citizen in the ZippieMart. So now he's of onto the home invasion track achieving the results he finds acceptable at the level of risk HI represents. Now let us assume the neighborhood gets smart and people begin to keep handguns in handy locations. At that point the ratio of reward to risk just dropped because the risk just increased. Our perp now thinks it is in his best interest to modify his behavior and make an economic decision to bring the reward-risk ratio back to a level he finds acceptable. And so it goes.

Several years ago Charleston, SC experienced a sudden spike in home invasions. The state's attorney general made an announcement directing his solicitors to not prosecute home occupiers should there be a shooting during home invasion. He furthermore said it was open season in SC on home invaders. Did crime in Charleston decline? Note likely. Did the nature of crime in Charleston change? Yup!

Criminals are pretty astute economists.
 
easy way to think about this

if you were in the business of committing violent crimes (after all, this is how you make a living), if you had the choice between robbing a NFL football quarterback and a girl, who would you choose?

If you choose the NFL football player, you are not the norm. Not only that, if the ownership of firearms and victims being armed didn't make a difference to you when robbing people, you would soon be out of business due to being shot sooner or later. Successful robbers in such a circumstance, choose weaker victims either because they are physically less able to defend themselves or are not armed or switch to property crimes.

--John
 
MDman - go to a social science database and survey the large literature on the issue and then report back. If you haven't read this stuff and can cite the relevant reports, then opinions aren't worth much.

You need to cite what supports you.

There are more folks in this game than Lott, BTW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top