More Guns, Less Crime

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

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.

But the argument you and Auto are making does something even worse. It actually counts guns that are owned by people who never have committed a crime in areas where there is little to no crime as being the ones that cause more crime. You just repeat the mantra, "more guns, means more crime" while ignoring this important fact.

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.

This is a copout (as Mestemia pointed out). You and Auto are arguing that more guns means more crime and here we have crystal clear example of more guns being introduced into a community. Your argument necessarily leads to Kennesaw having an increase in crime, but that didn't happen. More guns didn't lead to more crime. This completely refutes your argument.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Please show me where I said this.
Joe seems to be having trouble with the concept that "higher" is the opposite of "lower."

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

Only if you think that anyone who has trouble with "higher" and "lower" is conservative.

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.

And once again it's all about Rev Rick and his need to feel comfortable. So what if a few kids get killed in the process? Who cares about whether society as a whole is safer? What matters is that Rev Rick feels safer--whether he actually is or not.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Joe seems to be having trouble with the concept that "higher" is the opposite of "lower."

Are you seriously arguing that less than two is statistically significant?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Why did you not apply this argument to Joe Stocks, who is trying to use statistics to argue that guns reduce crime?

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

Speak for yourself, Rick. My political views are based primarily in the facts (and the Constitution.) If the facts showed that guns reduced crime, I would support gun rights. The reason I oppose them is that the facts show the opposite.

Don't assume that everyone is as irrationally ideological as you and Joe.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi 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.

It's a difference of 100%, which is statistically significant. If you extrapolate from 100,000 to 1 million, you get a difference of 40 to 20. That is, 20 people who died in North Dakota who didn't need to, just because they own more guns than in Manitoba.

In any case, at best, if you grant this, just for the sake of argument, then you certainly can't argue that the numbers support your point. You're the one with an assertion to defend. Where are your statistics that show that more guns mean less crime?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Why is more local important? Explain it to me. I don't see it. Whether you do your analysis on the village, city, county, state or national level, the issue is the same: do more guns mean more crime, or less? Choose whatever unit you can find statistics for, Joe, and let's find out. Choose two counties that are otherwise similar, except for gun ownership, and let's see which one has the higher crime rate. I assume you have these statistics at your fingertips, since you think they're important and prove your point?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

You need to compare places that are otherwise similar, except for rate of gun ownership.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Alceste,

But the argument you and Auto are making does something even worse. It actually counts guns that are owned by people who never have committed a crime in areas where there is little to no crime as being the ones that cause more crime. You just repeat the mantra, "more guns, means more crime" while ignoring this important fact.

NO, Joe, they're not ignored. They're included as one form of gun ownership. Have you ever taken a statistics class or read a book on it? Because you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of the subject. That doesn't surprise me; most people don't. That's O.K., until you try to use them to support your point.

Joe, I'm repeating that more guns means more crime because it does. That's what the numbers show. Wherever gun ownership increases, so does crime. Those are the facts.

This is a copout (as Mestemia pointed out). You and Auto are arguing that more guns means more crime and here we have crystal clear example of more guns being introduced into a community. Your argument necessarily leads to Kennesaw having an increase in crime, but that didn't happen. More guns didn't lead to more crime. This completely refutes your argument.

Did the gun ownership rate in Kennesaw go up or down? Did the crime rate in Kennesaw go up, down, or stay the same? Because to support your argument, it would have to go down.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,



Are you seriously arguing that less than two is statistically significant?

Yes, Joe, that's why it was reported. 4 is twice as big as 2. That's statistical significance. Do you know anything about statistics?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Who is arguing this? What I'm arguing is this: the more people who own guns in a given area, the more crime, more homicide, and more accidental gun deaths. That's it. Do you disagree?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

In any case, at best, if you grant this, just for the sake of argument, then you certainly can't argue that the numbers support your point. You're the one with an assertion to defend. Where are your statistics that show that more guns mean less crime?

What has been the crime rate in Manitoba in the last say 30 or 40 years?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

I believe it was less than 4, correct?

 

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

I am making that argument. Those are the facts. There is more crime in the U.S. than in Canada, primarily because there are more guns in the U.S. It's not a question of who is responsible; it's a simple fact. There is more crime in Detroit than in Windsor, more crime in Chicago than Toronto, more crime in San Francisco than Vancouver, and more crime in North Dakota than Manitoba. As you can see, there is also more crime in the Yukon than Manitoba, and more guns in the Yukon. There is a direct correlation between increase in gun ownership and in crime. Those are the facts, no matter how fine you slice the geographical area under comparison.

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

Joe: it's a comparison. North Dakota's crime rate is higher than Manitoba. That's what we both agreed we would look at. There is no such thing as something being "high" or "low" except in comparison to something else. What are you comparing North Dakota to? I thought we agreed to compare it to Manitoba.

I will look for that and get back to you.

Still looking for this information, the basis of your entire argument.

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.

*sigh* The question is, when gun ownership goes up, does crime go up or down. Do you agree that that is the question?

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.

What on earth are you arguing, then, and why did you title your thread "More Guns Less Crime?" Can you please state your point clearly and succinctly, as I have? Because right now I have no idea what it is. Are you arguing in favor of gun ownership? Why?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

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 isn't. There is no such thing as "high" or "low" crime except in comparison to somewhere else. "High" and "low" are terms of comparison. Compared to Chicago, North Dakota has a low crime rate. Compared to Manitoba, it has a higher crime rate. North Dakota is otherwise similar to Manitoba. Why does it have a higher crime rate?

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.

All the gun owners in North Dakota together commit a certain percentage of crimes, which contributes to North Dakota having a higher crime rate than Manitoba.

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

You believe wrong.

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.

Not a ton more, about twice as many--around the same as the difference in crime rate. See a trend?

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).

Really? In that case you're going to have to tell me again what your point was, because I haven't seen a single statistic in this thread to prove the point that more guns means less crime.

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.

I don't know, you tell me. I think they steal them from people who bought them legally. This is kind of obvious: the people who commit crimes are criminals. That's what criminal means.

However, law-abiding gun owners frequently have gun accidents, often resulting in death, so they have a problem as well.

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.

Here's an idea! Let's look at the facts and find out whether it's unnecessary or not! Let's compare places with more guns to those with fewer guns, and see which has a higher crime rate. Oh, we already did that, and even though you agreed to go by the results, you discarded them when they didn't support your position.

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.

And what are those consequences? Why didn't you just say that? What is your point?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. let's try this again, and see if we can get Joe to stay honest this time. That's what science is, Joe, a method for keeping ourselves honest.

You already agreed that the way to test your hypothesis was to look at two similar places that differ in their rate of gun ownership, and see which has a higher crime rate. What two places would you like to look at? It has to be somewhere we can get statistics on.

Here's some suggestions, and I actually don't know the answer for any of these:

Lagos, Nigeria
Seoul, South Korea
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Shanghai, China
Chicago, U.S.
Manila, Phillipines
Osaka, Japan
Cairo, Egypt
Toronto, Canada
London, U.K.

That's a variety of large cities around the world. If you will agree to accept the results as evidence as to how the effect of gun ownership affects crime, specifically homicide, I will knock myself out on Google and find out what I can about gun ownership, crime and homicide in each of these places.

I do not know the answer, and I will commit myself in advance to the results. Whatever the correlation is between gun ownership and crime and homicide, I will accept as strong evidence of that causal relationship. You?

Or do you have somewhere you want to suggest? Some counties, perhaps?

btw, both San Francisco and Vancouver are counties, would you like to compare them?

 

[alpha&omega]

i live in canada and we now have to register all fire arms,have to take a course pal,possesion and aquision to buy bullets,than core to hunt,i believe the education is good but,rifles in canada are owned by hunters and farmers,illigal guns will always be there,but we honest ppl have so many hoops to jump through to get em legally,the problem with guns is criminals,in canada theres mostly rifles but the problems are illigal automatic pistols used by gangs from ilegal imports,its a social issue not a gun issue!

 

[McBell]

Seems to me that there is some factor other than the number of guns and gun laws at work here.

 

[Autodidact]

Seems to me that there is some factor other than the number of guns and gun laws at work here.

There are many other factors. There is also the factor of gun ownership; that's the one the thread is about.

 

[McBell]

There are many other factors. There is also the factor of gun ownership; that's the one the thread is about.

And since you are concentrating solely on one facter, you are both missing the realities the stats are actually showing.

I presented a link to Gun Town USA where the heads of house hold are required by law to have guns.
And their crime rate is next to nothing with ZERO gun related crime.
Then you look at Washington D.C. who had a complete gun ban and stilled earned the title Murder Capital USA.

So it is clear, at least to me, that merely comparing the number of guns to the number of crimes is not enough to get to the truth of the matter.

 

[Autodidact]

And since you are concentrating solely on one facter, you are both missing the realities the stats are actually showing.

I presented a link to Gun Town USA where the heads of house hold are required by law to have guns.
And their crime rate is next to nothing with ZERO gun related crime.
Then you look at Washington D.C. who had a complete gun ban and stilled earned the title Murder Capital USA.

So it is clear, at least to me, that merely comparing the number of guns to the number of crimes is not enough to get to the truth of the matter.

1. It's a start.
2. It's absurd to compare a small town to Washington D.C. That's bad methodology.
3. Would you mind re-posting that link? Thanks.