Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
The people who own guns.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Guns, Less Crime
- Thread starter Joe_Stocks
- Start date
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
But, who specifically are they? Do they have criminal records? How did they become gun owners? Did they get one from the gun store, a friend, stole one?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Sorry, you're not making sense. You're saying that including all the people who own guns in low-crime areas inflate the numbers of crimes? You realize that's exactly backwards, right?
Look, it's not that complicated, Joe. You titled the thread More Guns Less Crime. You are making an assertion that increasing gun ownership is correlated with decreasing crime. How can we test your hypothesis. I suggest that we look at two places that are otherwise similar, but differ in their rate of gun ownership, and see which one has a higher crime rate. Does this sound like a good way to verify your hypothesis to you?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
How the heck should I know, and less care. We're not studying that. We're studying whether your assertion that more guns cause less crime is (1) true or (2) false. It appears to be exactly the opposite of reality. Detroit has more guns, and more crime. Windsor has fewer guns, and less crime.
I'm guessing that annoying reality will not affect your views in any way, including your view that more guns mean less crime, when they actually mean the opposite. This may mean that you are a Republican.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Auto,
I apologize if I am not being clear. What I am saying here is that in nationwide or statewide statistics the gun owners who aren't committing crimes are lumped in with the 'gun owners' that are committing the crimes. For example, the gun owned by a man up in Superior, Wisconsin is included in the statistic of the total guns even though he has never committed a crime. Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin a murder occurs and people make the argument that you are making; look at the number of guns in Wisconsin, they need to be reduced. This argument overlooks the point that the vast majority of gun owners are not the ones doing the killing.
But we must define 'gun ownership.' Criminals who get guns from friends or due to theft cannot be put into the group: gun owners.
As long as we define who the gun owners are and not lump people who happen to have guns into that category.
Sure.
I apologize if I am not being clear. What I am saying here is that in nationwide or statewide statistics the gun owners who aren't committing crimes are lumped in with the 'gun owners' that are committing the crimes. For example, the gun owned by a man up in Superior, Wisconsin is included in the statistic of the total guns even though he has never committed a crime. Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin a murder occurs and people make the argument that you are making; look at the number of guns in Wisconsin, they need to be reduced. This argument overlooks the point that the vast majority of gun owners are not the ones doing the killing.
But we must define 'gun ownership.' Criminals who get guns from friends or due to theft cannot be put into the group: gun owners.
As long as we define who the gun owners are and not lump people who happen to have guns into that category.
Sure.
Alceste
Vagabond
More guns = more gun crime is a no brainer. It's so obvious it's baffling that anyone would argue otherwise. When the criminals come busting into your house in the US, what is the first thing they steal? How do you think the criminals get their guns in the first place? Canadian criminals who have guns get them from the US criminals who got them from busting into the houses of law-abiding citizens like Joe Stocks, who believe their guns make them manly, strong and brave.
I'm telling you, if I were a criminal in the US and I wanted a gun, the first thing I would do is stake out a house with an American flag hanging outside the door, wait for everyone to leave and pop through the window. Voila. Free guns for everybody!
I'm telling you, if I were a criminal in the US and I wanted a gun, the first thing I would do is stake out a house with an American flag hanging outside the door, wait for everyone to leave and pop through the window. Voila. Free guns for everybody!
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
*sigh* This is really elementary statistics. Just counting, really. When you say that you're counting the number of gun owners, you count them all, the ones who commit crimes and the ones who don't. Then you count the crimes. The resulting statistic, crimes per gun owner, expressed as a percentage, counts the number who do commit crimes as well as the ones who don't. The higher the percentage, the more of the former, and fewer of the latter. In other words, to put it in really simple terms, yes, the number of non-criminal gun owners is counted, Joe.
But don't complicate this. You say that more guns cause less crime. Is this true, or false? How can we find out? I say compare places with more guns to those with fewer guns, and see which one has more crime. What do you say? Would that work?
Yes, they can. The own guns. Hence, they are gun owners.
I will treasure this extremely stupid quote forever. Please read it over to yourself slowly and enjoy the same laugh that I did.
Alceste
Vagabond
I just want to jump in here and say that obviously the studies are comparing the statistics for legal, authorized gun ownership to the statistics for gun crime. What do you think they did, these limp-wristed Canadian academics, go knocking on doors in the projects of America with questionnaires? "Do you own a gun? Is it an illegal gun? Are you a criminal? Thank you for your time!"
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., great. I'm going to pick Manitoba, Canada and North Dakota, U.S. and see what I can dig up. They are very similar, very proximate, and differ in their rate of gun ownership. Let's see what we can find out. If I can't find that numbers on these, we'll pick somewhere else. See you in a bit. *goes off to Google*
McBell
Admiral Obvious
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting as a victim, attacker or defender
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K.; it looks like 28% of Manitoba households own guns. North Dakota is around 50%. So that is a significant difference.
Homicide in Manitoba is around 2 per 100,000, while North Dakota's is around 4--not a dramatic difference. (from [FONT="]entitled A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003.)
[/FONT]I haven't been able to compare the overall crime rate, because the two governments count crime differently.
So, Joe, we agreed to look at this statistic. It appears that increased gun ownership either has no effect, or causes more homicides, based on this comparison. Do you agree?
Homicide in Manitoba is around 2 per 100,000, while North Dakota's is around 4--not a dramatic difference. (from [FONT="]entitled A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003.)
[/FONT]I haven't been able to compare the overall crime rate, because the two governments count crime differently.
So, Joe, we agreed to look at this statistic. It appears that increased gun ownership either has no effect, or causes more homicides, based on this comparison. Do you agree?
Alceste
Vagabond
Although you can still look at that and still say twice as many guns = twice as many homicides, even though the numbers are small. So it fits in perfectly with that graph you posted, and would seem to support its conclusion that there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun crime statistics.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So Joe, if more guns cause less crime, why doesn't North Dakota have less crime than Manitoba?
And bear in mind, Joe, I didn't cherry pick this data. I randomly chose two locations with no idea how the data would turn out. That's called science. Would you like to do the same? Pick two places that are otherwise similar except for rates of gun ownership and compare their crime rates?
The reason I can do this with such confidence, Joe, is that unlike you, my views are firmly based on reality. If it turned out that places with more guns in fact had less crime, I would change my views and become a gun proponent. If you find that the opposite is true, will you change your views and become a gun opponent?
And bear in mind, Joe, I didn't cherry pick this data. I randomly chose two locations with no idea how the data would turn out. That's called science. Would you like to do the same? Pick two places that are otherwise similar except for rates of gun ownership and compare their crime rates?
The reason I can do this with such confidence, Joe, is that unlike you, my views are firmly based on reality. If it turned out that places with more guns in fact had less crime, I would change my views and become a gun proponent. If you find that the opposite is true, will you change your views and become a gun opponent?
Last edited:
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Auto,
That is why a more in depth analysis is needed. That is why Lott did a county by county analysis or else we end up with your conclusion that the high gun ownership in rural Wisconsin is causing the crime in urban Milwaukee.
I am a little too deep then. I want to go in more depth because it avoids the mistakes that you are making.
I disagree. It is so absurd to lump criminals and their guns into this and then seek to pass legislation punishing law-abiding citizens who own guns. Criminals with guns should not be considered 'gun owners' in the strictest sense of the phrase.
The nuance was lost on you. I was making the distinction between gun owners and criminals that possess guns.
That is why a more in depth analysis is needed. That is why Lott did a county by county analysis or else we end up with your conclusion that the high gun ownership in rural Wisconsin is causing the crime in urban Milwaukee.
I am a little too deep then. I want to go in more depth because it avoids the mistakes that you are making.
I disagree. It is so absurd to lump criminals and their guns into this and then seek to pass legislation punishing law-abiding citizens who own guns. Criminals with guns should not be considered 'gun owners' in the strictest sense of the phrase.
The nuance was lost on you. I was making the distinction between gun owners and criminals that possess guns.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Alceste,
I am wondering if these statisticians take into account illegal guns or guns that are bought by a person with no or limited criminal record and then given to other criminals or guns that are stolen.
I am wondering if these statisticians take into account illegal guns or guns that are bought by a person with no or limited criminal record and then given to other criminals or guns that are stolen.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Auto,
How much crime was in Manitoba and North Dakota to begin with?
And this looks like in favors me in the argument. A lot of people owning guns and very low murder rate. That is not what you are arguing. You are saying that more guns leads to more crime. But your example proves my point. And 'more guns, less crime' doesn't mean: areas with low gun ownership have high crime. But you seem to believe that it does.
How much crime was in Manitoba and North Dakota to begin with?
And this looks like in favors me in the argument. A lot of people owning guns and very low murder rate. That is not what you are arguing. You are saying that more guns leads to more crime. But your example proves my point. And 'more guns, less crime' doesn't mean: areas with low gun ownership have high crime. But you seem to believe that it does.
Alceste
Vagabond
Well just take a moment to consider what kind of statistics Canadian academics would be likely to have access to. I'm guessing it would only be guns legally sold to license-carrying citizens. If a law abiding citizen gets his gun stolen buy a criminal and has to by another, that would count as his "owning" two guns. Of course a stolen gun still counts. It was legally acquired to begin with. If the law-abiding citizen hadn't bought it, it would not have been available to be stolen by criminals.
Where do YOU think criminals are getting their guns? Do you think they have their own factories or something? Your effort to create categories of legal and illegal gun ownership so you can then protest Auto's lumping them together suggests you think the criminals are whittling their guns from sticks or something.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Alceste,
They are criminals, they find their way around the law and get guns when they are not supposed to. How do illegal drugs make it into the U.S., after all, they are illegal?
They are criminals, they find their way around the law and get guns when they are not supposed to. How do illegal drugs make it into the U.S., after all, they are illegal?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What are you talking about? To begin with when? Before what? I just took a snapshot of one year: 2006. What are you trying to get at?
Wait a minute. The place with the higher rate of gun ownership also had a higher crime rate, and you think that shows that more guns make LESS crime? It may be that your grasp on reality is too shaky for me to discuss this with you rationally. Here, I'll try to make it really simple for you:
Manitoba: Fewer guns. Fewer homicides.
North Dakota: More guns. More homicides.
And you're trying to argue that this supports your thesis that more guns means less crime??!! I have one more question for you: Are you nuts?