More Guns, Less Crime

[Joe_Stocks]

Hello everybody,

The positions that I take on gun control are greatly influenced by John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

I will quote passages from the book, then give some comments on them.

Criminals are motivated by self-preservation, and handguns can therefore be a deterrent. The potential defensive nature of guns is further evidenced by the different rates of so-called "hot burglaries, " where a resident is at home when a criminal strikes. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun control laws, almost half of all burglaries are "hot burglaries." In contrast, the United States, with fewer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13 percent. Criminals are not just behaving differently by accident. Convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than about running into the police. The fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot." Page 5

A couple things here. Gun control advoctaes aren't big believers in deterrence. This is a huge difference between those that advocate strict gun control and those that don't.

There are a couple assumptions that, I guess we can call them, 'concealed carry' advocates make: 1. There will always be criminals. 2. They will always be armed. 'Concealed carry' advocates generally work with these two points in mind. While I believe that gun control advoates may find (1) and (2) somewhat controversial or false.

That being said, 'concealed carry' advocates believe that criminals are fundamentally rational. Meaning that they will respond to incentives and costs.

Lott continues...

Does gun ownership save or cost lives, and how do the various guns laws affect this outcome?

To answer these questions I used a wide array of data. For instance, I have employed polls that allow us to track how gun ownership has changed over time in different states, as well as the massive FBI yearly crime rate data for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. I use additional, more recently available data from 1993 and 1994 later to check my results.

Overall, my conclusion is that criminals as a group tend to behave rationally - when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed. Higher arrest and conviction rates dramatically reduce crime. Criminals also move out of jurisdictions in which criminal deterrence increases. Yet criminals respond to more than just actions taken by the police and the courts. Citizens can take private actions that can also deter crime. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crimes, and the reductions coincide very closely with the number of concealed handgun permits issued. Mass shootings in public places are reduced when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. Page 19

I think this passage speaks for itself and is the reason why people like myself support concealed carry laws and believe they reduce crime.

 

[Autodidact]

So Joe, do you think that statistics about rates of gun ownership and crime rates would be relevant or helpful? What about the crime rates of places with stricter gun control laws versus greater gun rights? Are you aware of any such statistics? For example, how do crime rates in the U.S., where there is less gun control, compare to Canada, where there is more? Do you know?

 

[fire]

Just supposing that every legal citizen with a drivers license, that isn't a convicted felon, was required by law to pass a competency test with guns, and carry a concealed gun. Now if caught in public with out your gun, you receive a 30 day jail sentence. People who are convicted felons and sentenced not to carry a gun, and are caught with a gun are sentenced to 20 years in prison. A person convicted of shooting a criminal in the act of a crime will be exonerated.
What do you think would happen to the crime rate? and why?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

So Joe, do you think that statistics about rates of gun ownership and crime rates would be relevant or helpful? What about the crime rates of places with stricter gun control laws versus greater gun rights? Are you aware of any such statistics?

This is exactly what Mr. Lott has done. He did an analysis of every county in the U.S. And he found that those counties with strict gun control laws tended to have higher crime rates that those with more liberal gun control laws. And that coincided with gun ownership and concealed to carry permits. I quoted where Mr. Lott got his information from. You are free to look into greater detail if you would like or read the book.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Fire,

Just supposing that every legal citizen with a drivers license, that isn't a convicted felon, was required by law to pass a competency test with guns, and carry a concealed gun. Now if caught in public with out your gun, you receive a 30 day jail sentence. People who are convicted felons and sentenced not to carry a gun, and are caught with a gun are sentenced to 20 years in prison. A person convicted of shooting a criminal in the act of a crime will be exonerated.
What do you think would happen to the crime rate? and why?

While I disagree with such a policy, if I am not mistaken a town in Goergia did something like that where people were required to carry a gun and crime was close to zero, although I am not sure how much crime there was there in the first place.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The UK has strict gun control.
The incidence of "Hot Burglaries" is very low indeed. ( contrary to what the book suggests)
Buglers very rarely carry guns.
Shootings are highest amongst groups and communities that habitually carry guns.
the largest such group here is afro-Caribbean youths.

The most common weapon of choice in this country is the knife.

Gun and knife laws are very similar here as both are banned.
nearly all Knife crime is between youth groups.

Most shootings are by people known to the victim.

 

[Engyo]

I am curious. I live in Houston, Texas. Texas is a very gun-friendly state, and Houston is a very gun-friendly town. Folks who kill to protect family, home and business are routinely exonerated (Joe Horn being the most recent example). In addition, Texas incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other state, and Texas has the highest execution rate of any state.

Why then do Houston and Texas NOT have very low crime rates? The logic I keep hearing suggests this should be happening, but it isn't playing out that way. Any thoughts?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Terry,

The incidence of "Hot Burglaries" is very low indeed. ( contrary to what the book suggests)

Could be, Lott did his analysis from the late 70's to the early 90's. "Hot burglaries" could have fallen off or something like that. Do you have a link showing this?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Enygo,

Why then do Houston and Texas NOT have very low crime rates? The logic I keep hearing suggests this should be happening, but it isn't playing out that way. Any thoughts?

One thought would be to look at the crime rates of the different counties of Texas. As for Houston, one could look at the gun ownership rates of the residents of Houston. It could be that law-abiding residents of Houston are simply not choosing to own a gun for protection and thus are more vulnerable to be attacked by armed criminals.

 

[fire]

I am curious. I live in Houston, Texas. Texas is a very gun-friendly state, and Houston is a very gun-friendly town. Folks who kill to protect family, home and business are routinely exonerated (Joe Horn being the most recent example). In addition, Texas incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other state, and Texas has the highest execution rate of any state.

Why then do Houston and Texas NOT have very low crime rates? The logic I keep hearing suggests this should be happening, but it isn't playing out that way. Any thoughts?

Just a theory, but still a possibility. Maybe the gap between the haves and have-not's is getting to big, coupled with disrespect for the police because they are perceived as being protectors of the corrupt haves, is causing criminals to take chances that could end their miserable lives.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Hi Terry,



Could be, Lott did his analysis from the late 70's to the early 90's. "Hot burglaries" could have fallen off or something like that. Do you have a link showing this?

I don't know where he could have got his figures, as there don't seem to be enough cases to keep stats on it. I know of many people who have been burgled, including myself many years ago. But I have never known one who was in at the time.

Though you might count the two French students who were knifed to death in their flat the other day. It seems to have been a return visit, targeting them for their cards and computer toys.

All in all hot burglaries seem to be something that we do not worry much about.
Perhaps because our houses are mostly much smaller than in the USA, and we would hear them. Burglars seem to avoid confrontation here as there are so much easier pickings.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Terry,

I found this:

Lawyers Guns & Burglars, Dave Kopel

The part about the UK seems well sourced.

 

[Dunemeister]

It just seems to me that there's a better way. Certain alarm systems are getting more popular in Canada, in particular one that goes by the name of "Alarm Force." When there's an unauthorized entry (which, as the article states, typically occurs at night), a two-way voice system activates, confronting the home invader. At the same time, a 911 call is automatically sent out. The system is really cheap, about 300 bucks per year, and insurance companies give huge discounts on home insurance when the system's installed. This is far preferable to having everyone and sundry packing heat.

 

[McBell]

It just seems to me that there's a better way. Certain alarm systems are getting more popular in Canada, in particular one that goes by the name of "Alarm Force." When there's an unauthorized entry (which, as the article states, typically occurs at night), a two-way voice system activates, confronting the home invader. At the same time, a 911 call is automatically sent out. The system is really cheap, about 300 bucks per year, and insurance companies give huge discounts on home insurance when the system's installed. This is far preferable to having everyone and sundry packing heat.

Of course, you still have to buy the system and have it installed.
How does this system work when the power is out?
Wonder how well it woks away from the domicile...

 

[Dunemeister]

Of course, you still have to buy the system and have it installed.

Installation's free.

How does this system work when the power is out?

Apparently, it includes a power backup for that contingency.

Wonder how well it woks away from the domicile...

Of course it doesn't.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,



This is exactly what Mr. Lott has done. He did an analysis of every county in the U.S. And he found that those counties with strict gun control laws tended to have higher crime rates that those with more liberal gun control laws. And that coincided with gun ownership and concealed to carry permits. I quoted where Mr. Lott got his information from. You are free to look into greater detail if you would like or read the book.

Counties? Counties? That is so silly. We don't legislate by country, Joe, we legislate mostly by state and country. O.K., now let's compare Canada and the U.S. The U.S. has about 3 times as many guns per capita as Canada. Is Canada's homicide rate 3 times higher than the U.S.? It should be, according to your logic, right? But wait, actually the U.S. is around 3 times as high as Canada. That's right--more guns, more homicide. Hmmm...what conclusion should we draw?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Counties? Counties? That is so silly. We don't legislate by country, Joe, we legislate mostly by state and country.

It actually makes more sense to do it this way. For example, I live in Wisconsin. A murder in Milwaukee will of course contribute to the murder rate of Wisconsin and the U.S. but it wouldn't tell the story of crime in the rest of Wisconsin. That is why county data is much more helpful here. You can also look at gun ownership in the different counties as well. And cities and counties do indeed have their own laws and statutes regading firearms.

O.K., now let's compare Canada and the U.S. The U.S. has about 3 times as many guns per capita as Canada. Is Canada's homicide rate 3 times higher than the U.S.? It should be, according to your logic, right? But wait, actually the U.S. is around 3 times as high as Canada. That's right--more guns, more homicide. Hmmm...what conclusion should we draw?

Thank you for proving my point. Let's break it down a little bit. Simply saying that we have more guns than Canada is misleading. Who has these guns? Do you actually believe that Americans living in rural areas who have guns are raising our crime rate? Of course they are not. It is the criminals that own guns in higher crime areas like urban areas. And where are gun control laws the most strict? In urban areas. This proves my point and is why a county by county analysis is more helpful. Urban areas have higher concentrations of criminals with guns and that is coupled with law-abiding citizens being essentially unarmed do to strict gun control laws. And what happens? Higher crime rates in areas where gun control is more strict and where criminals own a lot of guns.

 

[Autodidact]

Contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe, there is abundant evidence that enforcing gun control laws reduces the gun homicide rate.

One of the most remarkable examples was a 1992-93 Kansas City experiment by the National Institute of Justice. There, police officers in a large section of the inner city agreed to work overtime to remove illegal guns from the streets. During these overtime shifts, they were given no other responsibilities but to search for and confiscate illegal weapons. This heightened enforcement (of existing gun laws) lasted 29 weeks. The study compared the crime rate during this period to the prior 29 weeks; it also compared the "target area" with a "comparison area" which experienced no changes in its normal police duties. The population of the target area was almost entirely nonwhite and had a crime rate 20 times the national average.

The results were dramatic. Seizures of illegal guns in the target area climbed 65 percent above normal, while they actually declined somewhat in the comparison area. Meanwhile, gun crimes declined 49 percent in the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods compared. The rates for other types of crime did not change, but -- most significantly -- there appeared to be no spillover of crime from the target area into surrounding areas. (For more details of this study, see Appendix A below.)

NIJ Research in Brief, The Kansas City Gun Experiment, by University of Maryland Criminology Professor Lawrence W. Sherman, who directed the study in collaboration with Dennis P. Rogan and James W. Shaw.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

It actually makes more sense to do it this way. For example, I live in Wisconsin. A murder in Milwaukee will of course contribute to the murder rate of Wisconsin and the U.S. but it wouldn't tell the story of crime in the rest of Wisconsin. That is why county data is much more helpful here. You can also look at gun ownership in the different counties as well. And cities and counties do indeed have their own laws and statutes regading firearms.

A little bit. Most legislation is by state.

Thank you for proving my point. Let's break it down a little bit. Simply saying that we have more guns than Canada is misleading. Who has these guns? Do you actually believe that Americans living in rural areas who have guns are raising our crime rate? Of course they are not. It is the criminals that own guns in higher crime areas like urban areas. And where are gun control laws the most strict? In urban areas. This proves my point and is why a county by county analysis is more helpful. Urban areas have higher concentrations of criminals with guns and that is coupled with law-abiding citizens being essentially unarmed do to strict gun control laws. And what happens? Higher crime rates in areas where gun control is more strict and where criminals own a lot of guns.

Showing that a country with fewer guns and more gun control has dramatically fewer homicides proves your point? ***? It's misleading to say we have more guns than Canada? We have several times more guns; it's factual. Let's try controlling for other factors. How about we compare Toronto, Canada's largest urban area, and Detroit, which is nearby and comparable. Sound good? I don't know the answer and am willing to see if I can find out. What do you think we're going to find, Joe? Which city has more guns per capita? Which city has a higher crime rate?

It seems that all your logic shows is that urbanizaton causes crime and crime control. You haven't shown the slightest link between gun ownership and decreased crime. That may be because there isn't one; the reverse is the case.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

How is a program to remove illegal guns refute anything? Concealed carry laws don't target illegal guns, but allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals with guns. And if I am not mistaken Missouri passed a concealed carry law, but I am not sure of the gun ownership rates of those in KC.