Gun sales up, murder rate down in 2009

[frostedflakes]

Yes it's because of guns...

The murder rate in the US is FAR above countries of similar wealth, but that have much tighter gun control for example Germany has 10 times LESS homicides than the US.

Check out Switzerland's gun laws and crime rates. There's really not a lot of correlation, there are countries with very strict gun laws that have high violent crime rates, and there are countries with lax gun laws that have low violent crime. There's obviously a lot more at play here than guns.

 

[handyrandyrc]

Not to dampen the celebratory mood but I think in 2010 most urban centers are seeing a double-digit (percentage-wise) increase in homicides.

Source = ? for "most" urban centers with double-digit increases?

 

[Daedalus685]

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985)

That study doesn't take into account whether they would still be criminals if everyone had a gun though...

Certainly given the choice to walk on the sidewalk or across the forest to get home I'll take the side walk... but if the side walk isn't there I guess I'll be hiking. Common sense is it not?

Is it the belief of folks who refer to that study that these criminals in a society where everyone carried would no longer commit crimes? Perhaps some wouldn't but I don't see how we could know that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Not making it up. I forget what survey/study it is from though, they interviewed a lot of prisoners about if they changed their habits after a state passed carry permits.

You read that the same place were you read those polls that stated that legal immigrants from Mexico were against giving amnesty to illegals?

Seems you read a lot of things that nobody else has.

 

[Vette73]

 

[PrinceofWands]

That study doesn't take into account whether they would still be criminals if everyone had a gun though...

Certainly given the choice to walk on the sidewalk or across the forest to get home I'll take the side walk... but if the side walk isn't there I guess I'll be hiking. Common sense is it not?

Is it the belief of folks who refer to that study that these criminals in a society where everyone carried would no longer commit crimes? Perhaps some wouldn't but I don't see how we could know that.

That's ENTIRELY outside the scope of the study, and any arguments being presented here. NO ONE, at least that I've seen, has argued for EVERY person to carry a gun.

As to your scenario, it would have two probable impacts. First, it would weed out those not ready and willing to do murder or die with strong likelihood, and second, it would increase the violence and ferocity of the remaining criminal element who would then truly have nothing to lose. The end result of that, in a reasonable amount of time, would be that most serious criminals were dead (since they're outnumbered many tens of thousands to one).

That being said, I do not argue for absolute armament. Just for those that want it. I'll accept the slightly reduced crime stemming from criminals not knowing who's armed.

 

[Daedalus685]

That's ENTIRELY outside the scope of the study, and any arguments being presented here. NO ONE, at least that I've seen, has argued for EVERY person to carry a gun.

As to your scenario, it would have two probable impacts. First, it would weed out those not ready and willing to do murder or die with strong likelihood, and second, it would increase the violence and ferocity of the remaining criminal element who would then truly have nothing to lose. The end result of that, in a reasonable amount of time, would be that most serious criminals were dead (since they're outnumbered many tens of thousands to one).

That being said, I do not argue for absolute armament. Just for those that want it.

Well that is all fine... but the study is being used to show that guns certainly do help prevent crime... but all they may do is divert crime. If each criminal is only choosing to take the side walk the crime stats woudln't be affected at all.

The study is just woefully incomplete to tell us anything useful at all that we couldn't have known before hand.

Obviously if given the choice a criminal would rob an unarmed person than an armed one.. duh comes to mind. I really don't think it has any bearing on them being criminals though, and in the prospect of no more easy targets they would simply target what has become the relatively weak. Though I'd expect there might be perhaps a few that get a job instead, but who knows.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Well that is all fine... but the study is being used to show that guns certainly do help prevent crime... but all they may do is divert crime. If each criminal is only choosing to take the side walk the crime stats woudln't be affected at all.

The study is just woefully incomplete to tell us anything useful at all that we couldn't have known before hand.

Obviously if given the choice a criminal would rob an unarmed person than an armed one.. duh comes to mind. I really don't think it has any bearing on them being criminals though, and in the prospect of no more easy targets they would simply target what has become the relatively weak. Though I'd expect there might be perhaps a few that get a job instead, but who knows.

I see the use of the study differently. It informs us that the condition of the target DOES factor into the consideration of criminal activity. It shows us that there is an impact to openly being armed, or even the probability of being armed. It shows a way for the individual to protect themselves (everyone else is on their own, which is how it always was anyway).

Almost no crime prevention actually prevents the crime...all most of it does is shift it around. You can't stop criminals from committing crime once they've decided to...you can only remove the impetus to commit the crimes in the first place, or kill them to stop them. Those are the only workable options.

 

[Medu]

Check out Switzerland's gun laws and crime rates. There's really not a lot of correlation, there are countries with very strict gun laws that have high violent crime rates, and there are countries with lax gun laws that have low violent crime. There's obviously a lot more at play here than guns.

It has a murder rate that is one of the highest in western Europe and much higher than all of it's neighbouring countries.
I agree that there is much more to it than gun laws, but this thread is suggesting that lax gun laws=less crime which is complete nonsense.

NO ONE, at least that I've seen, has argued for EVERY person to carry a gun.

Spidey07 certainly seems to be suggesting just that.

 

[Daedalus685]

I see the use of the study differently. It informs us that the condition of the target DOES factor into the consideration of criminal activity. It shows us that there is an impact to openly being armed, or even the probability of being armed. It shows a way for the individual to protect themselves (everyone else is on their own, which is how it always was anyway).

Almost no crime prevention actually prevents the crime...all most of it does is shift it around. You can't stop criminals from committing crime...you can only remove the impetus to commit the crimes in the first place, or kill them. Those are the only workable options.

Guns are not crime prevention, they are crime deterrence. Crime prevention is almost never practised and would require education and prevention of the criminals becoming a criminal... which are largely due to economic and social factors.

I am merely stating that the fact that a person is afraid of an armed individual to the point they rob someone else should be blatantly obvious to all of us.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Spidey07 certainly seems to be suggesting just that.

I read every post he made, I don't see anything even close to that. I see him saying that allowing people to carry makes criminals nervous, and that if they know you're packing they're more likely to pick on someone else.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Guns are not crime prevention, they are crime deterrence. Crime prevention is almost never practised and would require education and prevention of the criminals becoming a criminal... which are largely due to economic and social factors.

I am merely stating that the fact that a person is afraid of an armed individual to the point they rob someone else should be blatantly obvious to all of us.

Widespread gun ownership is crime deterrence. Individual gun carrying is crime prevention (for that person).

 

[Medu]

I read every post he made, I don't see anything even close to that. I see him saying that allowing people to carry makes criminals nervous, and that if they know you're packing they're more likely to pick on someone else.

So the crime still happens, it just happens to someone else which means that they only way that firearms are going to reduce crime is if everyone is packing which is what I said that spidey was implying.

 

[PrinceofWands]

So the crime still happens, it just happens to someone else which means that they only way that firearms are going to reduce crime is if everyone is packing which is what I said that spidey was implying.

Gotcha. I think that's some pretty extreme extrapolation.

 

[spidey07]

So the crime still happens, it just happens to someone else which means that they only way that firearms are going to reduce crime is if everyone is packing which is what I said that spidey was implying.

I was not implying that at all. However properly concealed it would be very difficult for the bad guy to know if the potential victim is armed or not.

And then there's the castle doctrine stuff where the bad guy knows that just by stepping foot in the house he is making a potential life or death decision.