This is why gun law(s) will NOT work with criminals

[RandomWords]

How many criminals actually remind themselves: hey, maybe I shouldn't rob this house. They might have guns. The answer is no. They say to themselves: mo$%er fu@%93s, we got these guns b4ic4es. Let's rob the 1st house we see.

Criminals are people like anyone else, they think and reason like normal people - sure - some of them are complete retards that will do like you said; but others will think about it. Just like they will see a sign that says "Beware - Dogs" and take pause; or an alarm system and pause.- it's likely that what they want is at many places as well and they will go to the easiest place to get it. Violent angry protesters are a lot more unthinking than that - more so than even the dumbest criminal.

They will stop at nothing to get what they want, you'll need something to defend yourself. About kids getting ahold of it, it's the fault of the parent, not the gun.

and if they do stop at nothing to get what they want then I don't see how limiting guns will help anyone. Sure, there are accidental shootings - but there are accidents everywhere all the time - should we ban all cars because someone accidentally killed themselves or someone else??? How is it any different? Or ban all alcohol like MADD would like because some idiots drive drunk and kill others??? How is that any different?? - the results would even be the same - people would still get alcohol.

and as for the mass shootings - especially with someone looking to die at the end anyways - they could easily strap themselves with a homemade bomb(s). Or lock the building down and set everyone on fire. Personally - I would rather them have a gun... along with other people in said building to shoot them back.

I also put kids shooting themselves - on the parents. My kids don't touch our real guns without our supervision. They are kept in a safe that has quick access without them having the knowledge to gain access until we deem them trained and responsible enough to know such things. It is the same precaution you would take with a security alarm - you wouldn't tell your kid the code because they would tell everyone they meet or their boyfriend/girlfriend so they could come in, etc... stupid parents.

 

[HumblePie]

The best part is, a lot of what I've read about actually stopping criminals from getting guns is stopping gun dealers from breaking already existing laws. Adding new laws won't stop Jim Bob's Gun Shop from dealing out the back door, because he is already breaking those laws.

The only way to fully stop gun crime is to use that magical gun eraser that all those "gun free" countries have used.

Here's your magic Gum eraser!

 

[blake0812]

Criminals are people like anyone else, they think and reason like normal people - sure - some of them are complete retards that will do like you said; but others will think about it. Just like they will see a sign that says "Beware - Dogs" and take pause; or an alarm system and pause.- it's likely that what they want is at many places as well and they will go to the easiest place to get it.



and if they do stop at nothing to get what they want then I don't see how limiting guns will help anyone. Sure, there are accidental shootings - but there are accidents everywhere all the time - should we ban all cars because someone accidentally killed themselves or someone else??? How is it any different? Or ban all alcohol like MADD would like because some idiots drive drunk and kill others??? How is that any different?? - the results would even be the same - people would still get alcohol.

and as for the mass shootings - especially with someone looking to die at the end anyways - they could easily strap themselves with a homemade bomb(s). Personally - I would rather them have a gun... along with other people in said building to shoot them back.

I also put kids shooting themselves - on the parents. My kids don't touch our real guns without our supervision. They are kept in a safe that has quick access without them having the knowledge to gain access until we deem them trained and responsible enough to know such things. It is the same precaution you would take with a security alarm - you wouldn't tell your kid the code because they would tell everyone they meet or their boyfriend/girlfriend so they could come in, etc... stupid parents.

Nailed it.

 

[irishScott]

I'd be interested to see how it compares to towns with similar geographic and demographic data. Median household income there is much higher than in the rest of Georgia.

True, but this was in response to whether a criminal would wonder if a house was armed before robbing it. In an area where gun ownership is extremely high I would think such things would have to be taken into account and could prove to be a deterrent.

I agree that socioeconomic factors are the primary cause though.

 

[fskimospy]

True, but this was in response to whether a criminal would wonder if a house was armed before robbing it. In an area where gun ownership is extremely high I would think such things would have to be taken into account and could prove to be a deterrent.

I agree that socioeconomic factors are the primary cause though.

It's certainly possible. I wonder if anyone has run any regressions controlling for demographics, economic factors, overall national crime decline, etc.

 

[irishScott]

Not really, even Gallup's numbers show a 12 point decline in the percentage of American homes that have guns in them. Considering only half said they had it to begin with, that's a pretty huge decline. Also, both sets of numbers seem to show a pretty similar story.

Yeah, and according to Gallup's numbers we had 17 point drop in ownership from 1994 to 1999, followed by an 8 point increase 2 years later. Just saying that a local decline does not indicate a long-term trend. To my knowledge there is no significant correlation between gun ownership % and gun crime numbers.


Also there's the ABC/Washington Post poll I posted via edit that shows a mere 3% drop in ownership between 1999 and 2012. We need more data.

 

[irishScott]

It's certainly possible. I wonder if anyone has run any regressions controlling for demographics, economic factors, overall national crime decline, etc.

If I ever become a billionaire conducting such studies will be one of my pet projects. The main reason the gun debate sucks so hard is the lack of reliable numbers to point to. All anyone can really do is stitch together some limited studies and say "look at this correlation!"

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, and according to Gallup's numbers we had 17 point drop in ownership from 1994 to 1999, followed by an 8 point increase 2 years later. Just saying that a local decline does not indicate a trend. To my knowledge there is no significant correlation between gun ownership % and gun crime numbers.

A local decline doesn't indicate a trend but the slope of the line is pretty clear: down.

Although I haven't run the numbers myself, I'm willing to bet there is actually a very strong correlation between declining gun ownership % and declining crime rates in general, at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the declines in crime were CAUSED by decreasing gun ownership. (I find it unlikely that they would be)

Still, that would seem to suggest that fewer households owning guns does not cause a strong uptick in crime.

Also there's the ABC/Washington Post poll I posted via edit that shows a mere 3% drop in ownership between 1999 and 2012.

True, but the bulk of polling that I've seen has shown a decline in gun ownership.

 

[smackababy]

If I ever become a billionaire conducting such studies will be one of my pet projects. The main reason the gun debate sucks so hard is the lack of reliable numbers to point to. All anyone can really do is stitch together some limited studies and say "look at this correlation!"

How is that different from any other issue really? Everyone gets "their" data and makes assumptions that are usually pushing an agenda, not actual facts.

 

[irishScott]

How is that different from any other issue really? Everyone gets "their" data and makes assumptions that are usually pushing an agenda, not actual facts.

Which is why should I ever become wealthy enough to fund the effort I'd conduct the same study/studies several times using different sets of assumptions (in part to "reverse engineer" the results of both sides). I'd also invite observers from prominent lobbyist groups on both sides to be present at all stages of the studies to ensure fairness.

My goal would be discern reality, not push an agenda. I've always said that I'm extremely pro-gun largely because I think the numbers show most proposed gun control legislation to be useless at best and damaging at worst, whereas many pro-gun laws appear helpful at best and neutral at worst. If the numbers showed that, say, an Assault Weapons Ban actually substantially lowered gun deaths (you know, when pigs fly) I'd switch sides. The last thing I want to be is wrong, because if I'm wrong then I'm doing more harm than good promoting guns. I don't think I'm wrong at present but I'd like more certainty one way or another, and present numbers just don't provide that.

 

[openwheel]

Depends on where you live. I imagine a would-be criminal in Kennesaw Georgia would stay away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia





Current population is about 30,000.

So what you are saying is: move to Kennesaw Georgia.

 

[Knowing]

I totally said that. Riiiight...



By Knowing's definition of a "mass shooting", this story qualifies too.

Any metric is going to include noise, there's no reason not to include that event.

How many criminals actually remind themselves: hey, maybe I shouldn't rob this house. They might have guns.

Unless criminals are actually less human then I would imagine that they would mitigate risk the same as any other person. For example, if they knew one home had guns they'd probably elect to victimize someone else.

 

[smackababy]

Any metric is going to include noise, there's no reason not to include that event.



Unless criminals are actually less human then I would imagine that they would mitigate risk the same as any other person. For example, if they knew one home had guns they'd probably elect to victimize someone else.

Anyone who thinks crime is some random "feel like <insert verb for doing some crime> someone today, first <noun that can be criminalized by the verb above> is going to get it!"

It is far more likely, the take advantage of the best opportunity that comes their way. Why would they try and rob a house with known gun advocates, dogs, alarm systems when it is far easier (and much less of a risk) to rob the house down the street without any of those?