esmith
Veteran Member
No I specified "violent crime rates"
There seems to be an argument put forth that the increase in firearm ownership increases the number of violent crimes. However, as the data shows this is an invalid argument.
-
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!
Republican House Whip Shot!
- Thread starter Falvlun
- Start date
There seems to be an argument put forth that the increase in firearm ownership increases the number of violent crimes. However, as the data shows this is an invalid argument.
ROFL! Please continue to amuse us by pointing out exactly how the data shows that to be an invalid argument.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
New research from multiple sources have refuted the debunked 1997 John Lott and David Mustard claims that right-to-carry laws would decrease crime. I can't say that any study is 100% accurate, but it certainly seems reasonable. If anyone can get a firearm in the US without a background check (gun show / private sale loophole), how would an increase in the number of guns curb violent crime?
"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.
These findings build on and strengthen the conclusions of Donohue's earlier research, which only used data through 2006. In addition to having nearly two decades' worth of additional data to work with, Donohue's findings also improve upon Lott and Mustard's research by using a variety of different statistical models, as well as controlling for a number of confounding factors, like the crack epidemic of the early 1990s.
These new findings are strong. But there's rarely such a thing as a slam-dunk in social science research. Donohue notes that "different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect." Teasing out cause from effect in social science research is often a fraught proposition.
(From More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement)
james bond
Well-Known Member
All good people will not own guns. They should, but they're not expected to. Not everyone will qualify for CCW. Maybe they just have it so they can protect themselves and will run away from a life and death situation. There should be more to CCW like protecting others, but that's a lofty guideline. One can't legislate that, but there is a Good Samaritan law. The Second Amendment gives us the right to own guns. However, the government is trying to limit this right. Certainly, it's not anything goes, as we have enough protections already.
That sort of argument seems like a given.
I imagine that if firearms are owned they are likely to be used. Do have data that shows increase in firearms decreases violence?
esmith
Veteran Member
I wasn't clear enough but using quotes around "good" and "bad" was to suggest the ambiguity of such definitions.
The second amendment suggests the notion of a militia, no more. Over the years, that has been translated to various meanings for both sides of the debate. That amendment needs to be modernized to clearly define gun ownership.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, I don't buy into your "alternative facts" but prefer data coming from international studies and those that use FBI stats.
Secondly, the wording you use is deceiving even if you didn't mean it that way because what I had mentioned included accidental deaths and would also include suicides, both of which when combined are much more common in countries that have a greater proliferation of guns.
OTOH, your "logic", to draw a parallel, is like saying that we'd have a fewer number of automobile accidents if we only had more cars.
BTW, I notice that you still can't bring yourself to blame Trump for anything when on another thread where we were discussing the issues dealing with harsh rhetoric that you will not acknowledge Trump has and still continues to use, so I'm afraid your credibility on these political topics is pretty much shot-- you're partisan to the point of refusing to even acknowledging a reality that most of the world now knows.
But I have admit that you, Trump, and Putin make such a loving bromance and menage de twa.
esmith
Veteran Member
Well, I don't buy into your "alternative facts" but prefer data coming from international studies and those that use FBI stats.
Secondly, the wording you use is deceiving even if you didn't mean it that way because what I had mentioned included accidental deaths and would also include suicides, both of which when combined are much more common in countries that have a greater proliferation of guns.
OTOH, your "logic", to draw a parallel, is like saying that we'd have a fewer number of automobile accidents if we only had more cars.
BTW, I notice that you still can't bring yourself to blame Trump for anything when on another thread where we were discussing the issues dealing with harsh rhetoric that you will not acknowledge Trump has and still continues to use, so I'm afraid your credibility on these political topics is pretty much shot-- you're partisan to the point of refusing to even acknowledging a reality that most of the world now knows.
But I have admit that you, Trump, and Putin make such a loving bromance and menage de twa.
Unfortunately again you have misconstrued what I was saying. And the FBI stats back-up the fact that the felony crime rate has gone down and the number of firearms in the US has increased. No I am not advocating that the increase of the number of firearms brought the felony crime rate down. What I am saying is that the facts prove that just because the number of firearms in the US has increased does not cause a rise in the felony crime rate.
tytlyf
Not Religious
That's your problem, fake news. We've warned you for years about your sources. You don't care obviously. That's how Trump got elected, other people who don't care about facts and evidence.
esmith
Veteran Member
So you are saying that Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased is fake news. Hmm seems that the source of their chart is from the CDC and Congressional Research Service
Care to comment
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, you don't think people who buy guns should have to pass a background check?
Argument two looks more solid to me. "Data shows that states with the top rates of gun possession have nearly three times the rate of gun murders compared to states with the fewest guns."
You're missing the nuances, esmith.
esmith
Veteran Member
So what is your response to the below. Now remember I'm not saying that increased firearm ownership is the reason homicides have gone down. I'm saying that the argument that increased firearm ownership does result in increase homicides.
james bond
Well-Known Member
BS. The Second Amendment gives the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Everyone should have their own armory. They should learn how to use a gun and use it safely. Safety is paramount. Then comes defense against your enemies.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Heh. Just where do you get your reading comprehension?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
None of your "sources" are credible. Wiki? Hardly. Your trial link is from 2015, and is dead. The rest is Alt-Right bs.
Sorry about that.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Well, the flaw as I see it is the often ignored section: "Well Regulated". The NRA and it's goons conveniently ignore that bit.
Note that "well regulated" does not mean full ban, but rather, limited rights and/or access to firearms.
I own guns, but I think stricter regulations would be a good idea.
esmith
Veteran Member
Well what regulations would you like to see being put into place? What would be the positive outcome of your regulation?
Grumpuss
Active Member
Wow. Neither of the two is "Alt-Right" anything. Wikipedia is neutral and more laden with facts than you'd ever dream to be, and Bob Woodward is a mild conservative these days.
Why don't you try opening your mind a bit, instead of attacking the sources you ask for?