More Guns, Less Crime

[Autodidact]

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?

Because nothing illegal ever happens, especially not here in the U.S. For example, no criminal has ever stolen a gun that was purchased legally. That could never happen.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

My conclusion? Please show where I concluded anything of the kind. I concluded that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime in Windsor, Ontario and Manitoba, as compared to Detroit and South Dakota. I realize that you disagree, but that's because you think that a higher crime rate supports your argument that it would create a lower crime rate, which is obviously insane to the most casual observer. Since reality cannot penetrate a delusional system of that magnitude, it does not surprise me that you manage to continue to believe that guns decrease crime in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary.

Now, if you want to cite something specific from your guy's book, so that together we can subject it to the same penetrating level of analysis, please do so. For example, does he compare two otherwise similar counties, who differ only in their rate of gun ownership? That would be useful.

I am a little too deep then. I want to go in more depth because it avoids the mistakes that you are making.

If you want to go into more depth, by all means do so. I suggest that you first grasp certain basics, though, such as that higher is the opposite of lower.

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.

Sorry, but you're talking crazy again. The definition of "gun-owner" is "someone who owns a gun." This includes both criminal and non-criminal gun-owners. You can't define gun-owners to exclude criminals. Because, and I realize this may be hard for you to grasp, non-criminals do not commit crimes. Not to mention, of course, that we don't know who is a criminal and who isn't until we catch them, do we?

The nuance was lost on you. I was making the distinction between gun owners and criminals that possess guns.

Yes, and this is a non-existent distinction of craziness. Criminals who possess guns are called "gun-owners."

 

[Autodidact]

I'll try one more time, although frankly I despair of communicating this rather basic concept to you. You may distinguish, if you like and can, between criminal and non-criminal gun-owners. You cannot distinguish between gun-owners and criminals. That's like distinguishing between tall people and good-looking people. The two groups overlap.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

My conclusion? Please show where I concluded anything of the kind. I concluded that higher gun ownership leads to higher crime in Windsor, Ontario and Manitoba, as compared to Detroit and South Dakota. I realize that you disagree, but that's because you think that a higher crime rate supports your argument that it would create a lower crime rate, which is obviously insane to the most casual observer. Since reality cannot penetrate a delusional system of that magnitude, it does not surprise me that you manage to continue to believe that guns decrease crime in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary.

It took much prodding from myself to get you to take closer look. At first you simply wanted to make the argument that more guns in the U.S. meant more crime and less guns in Canada meant less crime. I had to show you that that means, in effect, law-abiding gun owners being responsible for crimes hundreds of miles away.

Then your more specific example actually refuted your point where we had high gun ownership in North Dakota, but low crime rates.

Now, if you want to cite something specific from your guy's book, so that together we can subject it to the same penetrating level of analysis, please do so. For example, does he compare two otherwise similar counties, who differ only in their rate of gun ownership? That would be useful.

I will look for that and get back to you.

Sorry, but you're talking crazy again. The definition of "gun-owner" is "someone who owns a gun." This includes both criminal and non-criminal gun-owners. You can't define gun-owners to exclude criminals. Because, and I realize this may be hard for you to grasp, non-criminals do not commit crimes. Not to mention, of course, that we don't know who is a criminal and who isn't until we catch them, do we?

I see what you are saying, I am arguing that we count guns that are acquired legally as opposed to illegally. So, a person who gets a gun the legal way and then commits a crime a is point for your side, but the millions that continue to be law-abiding are many points for my argument.

Yes, and this is a non-existent distinction of craziness. Criminals who possess guns are called "gun-owners."

But this is not what Lott or I are arguing. Hopefully we can agree that criminals that possess guns will most likely commit gun violence. Lott and I are arguing that people that get concealed carry permits aren't criminals and that criminals respond to this in a variety of ways.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

It took much prodding from myself to get you to take closer look. At first you simply wanted to make the argument that more guns in the U.S. meant more crime and less guns in Canada meant less crime.

Joe, that's not my argument, that's the facts. Canada has fewer guns and less crime. The U.S. has more guns and more crime.

I had to show you that that means, in effect, law-abiding gun owners being responsible for crimes hundreds of miles away.

No it doesn't. It doesn't tell us anything about who's committing the crimes. What it tells us is that more guns means more crime, not less.

Then your more specific example actually refuted your point where we had high gun ownership in North Dakota, but low crime rates.

What? What are you talking about? I didn't say that everywhere that has a lot of guns also has a lot of crime. As I said, there are many different factors at work. We are trying to isolate one. Joe, I thought we had an agreement. I thought you agreed that a good way to evaluate your hypothesis was to take two similar places with different rates of gun ownership, and see which one has a higher crime rate. We did that. It turned out that the place with the higher rate of gun ownership also had a higher crime rate. At this point, a person who is neither crazy nor dishonest would say, "Oh, I was mistaken, I will now change my views."

And how do you know that North Dakota has a low crime rate? Compared to what? Apparently, compared to Manitoba, it has a high crime rate? Nothing is high or low except in comparison to something else. My suggestion which you said you agreed with, was to compare two similar places. You didn't like the results, so you're disregarding them. What do you call that, Joe, dishonest or insane?

I will look for that and get back to you.

You don't know? This is your thread, Joe. Did you even read his book? Do you understand what he's saying? If he's not comparing similar counties with different rates of gun ownership, then what the heck is he doing? Cuz that's the only thing that would make sense.

I don't care if you go by city, county, state, or country. If you compare two similar places, I think you will find that most often, the one with the higher gun ownership rate also has the higher crime rate, in direct conflict to your opening assertion.

Nevertheless, being a Republican, I predict that you will continue to make it, in direct conflict with the facts. I, however, remain a member of the reality-based community.

I see what you are saying, I am arguing that we count guns that are acquired legally as opposed to illegally. So, a person who gets a gun the legal way and then commits a crime a is point for your side, but the millions that continue to be law-abiding are many points for my argument.

O.K., go for it. If that's the comparison you want to make, make it. I found it hard enough to find crime statistics for Manitoba, let alone legal gun ownership. How to plan to go about doing that? Ask gun-owners whether they got their guns illegally? How well do you think that would work?

I think, though, that since the U.S. has very liberal gun laws, that it also has a much higher rate of legal gun ownership.

But this is not what Lott or I are arguing. Hopefully we can agree that criminals that possess guns will most likely commit gun violence. Lott and I are arguing that people that get concealed carry permits aren't criminals and that criminals respond to this in a variety of ways.

So by title your thread, "More Guns Less Crime" you were just misleading us? Cuz I leapt to the conclusion that you were arguing that more guns cause less crime. What exactly are you trying to argue, Joe? Have you thought about it at all?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Joe, that's not my argument, that's the facts. Canada has fewer guns and less crime. The U.S. has more guns and more crime.

And your argument was refuted by your own example! LOL! North Dakoata had high gun ownership and less crime. This completely contradicts your position. Following your argument North Dakota should have high crime rates, but it doesn't.

No it doesn't. It doesn't tell us anything about who's committing the crimes. What it tells us is that more guns means more crime, not less.

How so? The guns owned by law-abiding North Dakotans are included in your argument that more guns means more crime, yet they don't commit a lot of crimes with the guns they have.

What? What are you talking about? I didn't say that everywhere that has a lot of guns also has a lot of crime. As I said, there are many different factors at work. We are trying to isolate one. Joe, I thought we had an agreement. I thought you agreed that a good way to evaluate your hypothesis was to take two similar places with different rates of gun ownership, and see which one has a higher crime rate. We did that. It turned out that the place with the higher rate of gun ownership also had a higher crime rate. At this point, a person who is neither crazy nor dishonest would say, "Oh, I was mistaken, I will now change my views."

Are you serious? Wasn't it a difference of 2 per 1000, I believe that is known as statstically insignificant.

And how do you know that North Dakota has a low crime rate? Compared to what? Apparently, compared to Manitoba, it has a high crime rate? Nothing is high or low except in comparison to something else. My suggestion which you said you agreed with, was to compare two similar places. You didn't like the results, so you're disregarding them. What do you call that, Joe, dishonest or insane?

Weren't the homicide rates pretty much the same? A difference of not even two as I look back it. This is your argument? North Dakota had about the same homicide rate and it owned a ton more guns. This proves your thesis incorrect. North Dakota should have statistically significant more homicides per 1000 than less than two. That is pretty pathetic.

You don't know? This is your thread, Joe. Did you even read his book? Do you understand what he's saying? If he's not comparing similar counties with different rates of gun ownership, then what the heck is he doing? Cuz that's the only thing that would make sense.

Be patient mother, I have the book right next to me. I'll have to read it over and quote the appropriate portions. I assume you can wait a little bit (although you are doing a terrific job of proving my point for me).

O.K., go for it. If that's the comparison you want to make, make it. I found it hard enough to find crime statistics for Manitoba, let alone legal gun ownership. How to plan to go about doing that? Ask gun-owners whether they got their guns illegally? How well do you think that would work?

I think, though, that since the U.S. has very liberal gun laws, that it also has a much higher rate of legal gun ownership.

I believe you are missing the point. When a gun-related crime occurs you say, "Aha, guns cause more crime." But I ask a more important question, "How did this criminal aquire this gun?" The question is not who owns more guns between the U.S. and Canada, of course we do. The question is much more specific, who is committing gun-related crime? Are they by and large career criminals or are they law-abiding citizens that recieved a handgun permit and then committed the crime.

See, we both agree that criminals shouldn't have guns and we probably agree on the measures law enforcement can implement to remove guns from getting into the wrong hands. But I stop there, whereas you want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens who only want to protect thmselves. I believe you take it an unecessary step further.

So by title your thread, "More Guns Less Crime" you were just misleading us? Cuz I leapt to the conclusion that you were arguing that more guns cause less crime. What exactly are you trying to argue, Joe? Have you thought about it at all?

More Guns, Less Crime is the title because it is the title of Lott's book. To be specific, it really is an analysis of concealed carry laws and their consequences regarding crime. But I am not sure that would fit in the title bar.

 

[Alceste]

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?

And where do you reckon Canadian statisticians would get accurate figures for illegal / undeclared / smuggled gun ownership in the US? Do you think they're snapping photos in the garbage filled alleyways and leaky basements of East LA and keeping a tally?

My point is that they could not be using anything but statistics for legal gun ownership, because statistics for illegal gun ownership do not exist.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Look, it's not that complicated, Joe.

I resent the suggestion that anyone holding a different opinion than yourself just does not get it.

Actually, it confirms the elitist attitude many Liberals have. :yes:


What it boils down to is, some folks want to take other folks right to bear arms away from them. It is a very small sacrifice for them when they would never allow a gun in their home no matter what the law says anyway.

People who live in cities where the police can show up in a matter of minutes don't understand the needs of rural folks who have to deal with animals more than people when it comes to guns.

Being defenseless and violated for 45 minutes to an hour is unacceptable. Unless the government can Guarantee MY SAFETY, They should not restrict a law abiding qualified person from defending themselves with a firearm.

I just want to puke when I read about irresponsible gun owners who leave their weapons available for children and unqualified people. These are the folks who need to not own guns. I am more afraid of them than the criminals! :help:

 

[Alceste]

I resent the suggestion that anyone holding a different opinion than yourself just does not get it.

Actually, it confirms the elitist attitude many Liberals have. :yes:

If you read closely, you will see that what Joe is "not getting" is the fact that the number 4 is higher than the number 2, and that the number 50 is higher than the number 28.

If you want to call the recognition of which numbers come before and after other numbers an "elitist liberal attitude", I fear for the populist conservatives.

The debate is not about whether you, personally, feel safer with a gun, or whether you should be legally allowed to own one, but only about whether, as Joe claims and Autodidact has painstakingly, expertly and thoroughly refuted, "more guns = less crime".

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you read closely, you will see that what Joe is "not getting" is the fact that the number 4 is higher than the number 2, and that the number 50 is higher than the number 28.

If you want to call the recognition of which numbers come before and after other numbers an "elitist liberal attitude", I fear for the populist conservatives.

The debate is not about whether you, personally, feel safer with a gun, or whether you should be legally allowed to own one, but only about whether, as Joe claims and Autodidact has painstakingly, expertly and thoroughly refuted, "more guns = less crime".

In a day and age when any statistic can be distorted, it is all propaganda anyway.

The real bottom line is, no matter what numbers we parade around, no one is going to change their minds on this issue.

The difference between Americans and other countries is, American gun owners equate their freedom with gun ownership. Any attempt at taking guns away from law abiding people will result in more bloodshed not less.

 

[Alceste]

The difference between Americans and other countries is, American gun owners equate their freedom with gun ownership. Any attempt at taking guns away from law abiding people will result in more bloodshed not less.

Canadian gun owners are also very attached to their guns. My grandfather is a championship marksman with a whole bunch of guns, who has traveled all over the world with his wife (who was an even better shooter) to compete.

But we're debating facts, not gut feelings, emotions, attachments and dark prophesies. Fact: the rate of crime rises when the rate of gun ownership rises. Autodidact has proven this. In the light of this fact, is it worth giving up your own gun or not? That part is where your gut feelings come in, and your awful personal experience. Not many people would fault you for wanting to have a gun after something like that. I certainly wouldn't.

But I do fault people for twisting and / or fabricating facts to disguise their gut feelings as informed, rational, scientific opinions, which is what the guy who wrote Joe's book appears to have done.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

If you read closely, you will see that what Joe is "not getting" is the fact that the number 4 is higher than the number 2, and that the number 50 is higher than the number 28.

You do realize that it was a difference of less than two, which is statistically insignificant. Which refutes Auto's claim that higher gun ownership would cause more crime.

 

[Alceste]

You do realize that it was a difference of less than two, which is statistically insignificant. Which refutes Auto's claim that higher gun ownership would cause more crime.

You haven't responded to the below, or the fact that that example (double the guns and double the gun death rate, even if both examples are low) supports their conclusions.

Here's an amazing chart. This chart has two axes, gun ownership/household vs. gun deaths, both accidental and criminal:

(It's a Canadian study, so most of the info is for Canadian provinces.) As we see, there is a starkly dramatic correspondence between the two. It seems to me that anyone who advocates higher gun ownership is advocating for more people dying from guns. I can't see any way to twist this data. Joe, you want to give it a shot?

btw, the chart is from Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

I did respond to this. It suffers the fatal flaw of not doing a more local analysis. Because as the argument now goes, millions of gun owners who have never committed a crime are causing crimes hundreds of miles away.

 

[McBell]

*Wonders why post #50 has thus far been ignored*

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

I'll quote your post again:

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

If we buy into Auto and Alceste's argument then Kennesaw should have a very high crime rate.

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia,

I'll quote your post again:



If we buy into Auto and Alceste's argument then Kennesaw should have a very high crime rate.

I cannot help but wonder if that is the very reason it was ignored.

 

[Alceste]

I cannot help but wonder if that is the very reason it was ignored.

It was ignored because you didn't compare it to anything. This is a thread of comparisons. Hence the endless quibbling of what "more" and "less" mean.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,

I did respond to this. It suffers the fatal flaw of not doing a more local analysis. Because as the argument now goes, millions of gun owners who have never committed a crime are causing crimes hundreds of miles away.

I think what you mean is it has the fatal flaw of not showing the statistical correlation you really, really want to exist - so much so that you will believe anyone who cooks the data any which way to make it suggest that owning guns makes law abiding citizens safer - even when they have been debunked and criticized by the academic community for fabricating data, as pointed out by Autodidact.

Millions of gun owners who have never committed crimes before are affecting crime statistics by having their guns stolen and used in crimes, turning to crime themselves using their own guns, or killing their family members out of rage or childish curiosity.

You can't sort gun owners into the law abiding and the criminal kind anyway. Everyone is a law abiding citizen - until they aren't.

 

[McBell]

It was ignored because you didn't compare it to anything. This is a thread of comparisons. Hence the endless quibbling of what "more" and "less" mean.

So sorry.
Try comparing it to Washington DC, complete gun ban, yet murder capital of the USA.
Or you can compare it to any of the other cities that stats have been listed for.

Sorry, but this reply sounds like a cop out to me.