Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[Kerberos]

Your personal soap opera aside, what is your point? That there will be more crime if there are more people??

Large cities are primarily where the wealth is. I'd not be surprised if crime tends to follow it more often than not.

The point is that Shanek has only proven a correlation not a causation. If there is more violent crime in urban environments and the states with the strictest gun laws are more urbanized, then any correlation between gun laws and crime levels that doesn't correct for this (and other) effect(s) proves nothing.

 

[shanek]

Large cities are primarily where the wealth is. I'd not be surprised if crime tends to follow it more often than not.

It's very difficult to add cities into the mix. It's not just a matter of getting the crime data for the cities; it's about getting all of the gun laws for each city as well. There are states with shall-issue permits that have cities that restrict the carrying of firearms. You have to get all of that into the mix, and it's very complicated.

By the way, that is exactly what Lott did. And he still found the effect that more guns=less crime. And Claus knows that, too.

 

[shanek]

The point is that Shanek has only proven a correlation not a causation.

You're misusing this fallacy, yet again. The correlation/causation fallacy is only a valid criticism when there is no mechanism connecting the two.

Here, we have a mechanism: the fact that criminals don't want to go up against an armed victim. The correlation is support of the existance of that mechanism.

 

[Kerberos]

You're misusing this fallacy, yet again. The correlation/causation fallacy is only a valid criticism when there is no mechanism connecting the two.

Here, we have a mechanism: the fact that criminals don't want to go up against an armed victim. The correlation is support of the existance of that mechanism.

Your simply wrong, it is practically always possible to cook up some mechanism for any correlation, the fallacy is in discarding the possibility that other factors, such as in this case urbanization, could account for it.

 

[shanek]

Okay, then, let's do the top twenty US cities by population. According to the US Census Bureau, they are, in order:

New York, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
San Diego, CA
San Antonio, TX
Dallas, TX
Detroit, MI
San Jose, CA
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
San Francisco, CA
Columbus, OH
Austin, TX
Memphis, TN
Baltimore, MD
Milwaukee, WI
Ft. Worth, TX

Sometimes, a city in a restrictive state will pass shall-issue permit laws of their own; other times, a city in a permissive state will pass strict gun control legislation. So I found data for these cities at packing.org. I found the following:

Restrictive: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose

Permissive: Austin, Columbus, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego

Now, aggregating data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for cities in the above categories:

Restrictive states: Total violent crime rate per 100,000: 1,049; murder: 14.38; forcible rape: 31.70; robbery: 428.10; aggravated assault: 574.77

Permissive states: Total violent crime rate per 100,000: 887; murder: 12.18; forcible rape: 40.54; robbery: 340.87; aggravated assault: 493.92

So the permissive states had a lower overall violent crime rate by 15%. They also had a 15% lower murder rate, 20% lower robbery rate, and a 14% lower aggravated assault rate. Only forcible rape was higher, by 28%.

Property crimes were higher in the permissive states by 69% (3561 per 100,000 in the restrictive states and 6028 in the permissive), confirming the above contention that criminals in areas where they might meet armed opponents switch to crimes where that possibility is remote.

Any more lame excuses?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Crime in New York has fallen dramatically over the last 15 years, yet they still have restrictive gun control. Seems you don't need more guns to get less crime...

 

[Flex]

Boy,

I hate to post a reply to such a informative and clear thread as this one. But while the topic seems to have wandered a bit, there is one thing that should be pointed out as part of the present discussion.

The link between gun control laws and crime rate is far from clear, or even shown. It is possible to show correleation, and even propose a mechanism, but the connections themsleves need to be shown before proof is established. After all, there are plenty of nutty conspiracy nuts out there who have all their facts right, correllation between these sets of facts, and even have a mechanism to explain how these facts are connected, yet we generally don't believe them because there is little evidence that the connections they claim actually exist. Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that gun control laws have no effect on crime. I simply do not see that the evidence presented here, or other places I have looked, shows that gun control laws are a significant factor in the crime rate.

In fact, it is very possible that gun control laws not a significant factor in the crime rate. I live near Detroit and I don't know that the various levels of gun control laws implemented over the years have really had any effect on crime. Instead crime seems to be related more to economic status than to concerns over the law.

I may be booed at by some of my fellow liberals, but I don't think that we can solve any crime problem by either restricting the ownership of guns or allowing the ownership of guns. I like the idea that a gun should be registered, simply because it is a tool that allows the easy use of deadly force. But the barriers for registration should be low, and as far as I can tell in Michigan they are.

Comparing gun control with crime rates seems to me to be a bit of red herring.

My $0.02.

Cheers,

-Flex

 

[shanek]

The link between gun control laws and crime rate is far from clear, or even shown. It is possible to show correleation, and even propose a mechanism, but the connections themsleves need to be shown before proof is established.

The connections are there. Criminals themselves say they're much less likely to commit a crime against a person who may be armed. And I'd think that would be obvious.

In fact, it is very possible that gun control laws not a significant factor in the crime rate

Overall, probably true. But I think I've shown more than sufficiently that the possibility of meeting an armed opponent causes criminals to move from violent crimes over to property crimes where they're unlikely to meet anyone at all.

But the barriers for registration should be low, and as far as I can tell in Michigan they are.

Michigan is very permissive. However, Detroit itself is very restrictive, banning the carrying of guns in buildings other than private residences and other restrictions.

 

[varwoche]

Now, aggregating data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for cities in the above categories

How did you aggregate? Did you weight by population?

 

[Flex]

Michigan is very permissive. However, Detroit itself is very restrictive, banning the carrying of guns in buildings other than private residences and other restrictions.

Which is why I limited my statement to registration, not other restrictions imposed by a municipality.

Sure, criminals say that they would rather rob unarmed people than armed people. I don't know that anyone questions that. What is not shown is that criminals, say, move to states where there is gun control in order to commit crimes. Detroit is a perfect example. Heavy gun control laws, but a decent percentage of the population is actually armed, illegally, but armed nonetheless. It is part of the culture here in Detroit. Would anyone say that Detroit is a model city? Or that there is a great difference in the types of crime, violent or property crimes? Both are pretty high in Detroit and a good bit of it still goes unreported.

The argument, as I see it, from one side is that gun control reduces crime because criminals are less likely to rob unarmed people.

On the other side, gun control prevents criminals from getting guns.

Both are logical arguments, but unproven.

The point is that the focus on the argument is the possession of guns. The problem is that I have seen little evidence that either side is correct. That is, evidence that bears strong scrutiny. Actually this is a nice argument because both sides spend a great deal of time picking apart the evidence presented by the other side. It's pretty easy to get a handle on it.

Is there was compelling evidence for either viewpoint, an agreement could be reached.

So let's say, as is true, than an agreement cannot be reached. Maybe it's time to look at the effect both sides are attempting to reach, the reduction of crime, and see if maybe, just maybe, gun control laws have little impact on crime itself.

So, if the problem is crime, and gun control laws don't seem to work to deter or increase crime, maybe we should be discussing other reasons crime itself exists? Hmm?

As I see it, for the above reasons, gun control is a political issue which has no net effect on crime.

-Flex

 

[merphie]

On the other side, gun control prevents criminals from getting guns.

Both are logical arguments, but unproven.

I don't see the logic. Why would a criminal obey a law preventing them from owning a firearrm? Why would they buy one from a store when it can be tracked?

It doesn't make sense to say restricting guns would prevent criminals from getting guns. No more than restricting drugs has won the "drug war".

 

[Flex]

I don't see the logic. Why would a criminal obey a law preventing them from owning a firearrm? Why would they buy one from a store when it can be tracked?

It doesn't make sense to say restricting guns would prevent criminals from getting guns. No more than restricting drugs has won the "drug war".

Absolutely correct.

I admit to simplifying a bit. The logic rests on a few suppositions. First: all guns can and will be controlled. Obviously that's a flaw right there. It sounds good, but impossible to achieve either overnight or within many many years. Second: guns as controlled will only be sold by dealers who will lose their licence to sell such guns if they break the rule. This may be a little easier to enforce, but still not very practical. There are others, but if you grant the assumptions, the logical path works.

On the other side, the logic (which you didn't question) also has flaws with it's basic assumptions. First: giving everyone a gun does not mean that they will have it available, or even use it, when confronted by an armed criminal. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the idea that people walking around with guns are going to deter crime. I don't expect anyone except a complete fool to 'draw' when someone else has the 'drop' on them, which would be the case in a situation with a simple mugging. There are exceptions, people who are not fools and still draw, but I suspect that in most of those cases, there is additional motivation other than just losing your wallet. It's a bit different when talking about a home invasion. In this case, I would expect that the homeowner would be more likely to get the 'drop' on the criminal. Or are people still going to be more likely to make a bit of load noise and hope the fellow runs away (which is what I expect most of us would realistically do).

But besides that flaw, the main leg of the argument is that free access to guns deter crime. Well, we have examples all over the states and all over the globe with a great variety of gun control laws ranging from no restrictions at all to no weapons allowed. Crime rates around the world do not track with these variety of laws. Denmark was mentioned earlier in the thread, very tight gun control laws, but little gun crime. I'm certain that if a criminal wanted to get a gun in Denmark he could, but if free access to guns controlled crime you would expect to see a lot more criminals with guns in Denmark. I lived in Turkey for a couple years, a very law-abiding nation, with very strict gun-control laws. You were allowed a percussion-cap shotgun. That's it. The only legal weapon to register. There are other factors in Turkey limiting gun crime.

I haven't really looked at the variety of the gun control laws verses the level of crime in the states closely. I see that ShaneK has, but I don't know whether his data is cherry-picked to show his point or not. It's not that I distrust ShaneK, but he has come out strongly on one side of this issue, and that may be coloring his presentation.

If crime, whether its burglary, housebreaking, breaking and entering, battery or assault is the problem, and gun control has little impact on the problem why are we wasting time talking about it?

Or are people still convinced that gun control has a large impact on crime? As someone ealier pointed out, crime seems to be higher in big cities, maybe there is a cultural aspect to living in cities that promotes crime? It doesn't seem to be gun control.

I hope my point is a little clearer now. I don't agree with either side.

-Flex

 

[shanek]

How did you aggregate? Did you weight by population?

Yep. Total crimes ÷ total population * 100,000.

 

[shanek]

What is not shown is that criminals, say, move to states where there is gun control in order to commit crimes.

I don't know that to be the case. I've never heard anyone claim it, and I certainly never did.

The argument, as I see it, from one side is that gun control reduces crime because criminals are less likely to rob unarmed people.

Less likely to rob armed people.

On the other side, gun control prevents criminals from getting guns.

I'd like to see any kind of evidence for that.

Is there was compelling evidence for either viewpoint, an agreement could be reached.

Well, that's a rather naïve view...It's obvious that the motivation for many people is their own political agenda, not arriving at the truth.

So let's say, as is true, than an agreement cannot be reached. Maybe it's time to look at the effect both sides are attempting to reach, the reduction of crime, and see if maybe, just maybe, gun control laws have little impact on crime itself.

All of the evidence I have seen shows that they either have no effect or a detrimental effect. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it improves anything.

Even if gun control laws have no effect whatsoever on the rates of crime, they do stop me (as a law-abiding citizen) from having a means to defend myself from crime.

 

[merphie]

Absolutely correct.

I admit to simplifying a bit. The logic rests on a few suppositions. First: all guns can and will be controlled. Obviously that's a flaw right there. It sounds good, but impossible to achieve either overnight or within many many years. Second: guns as controlled will only be sold by dealers who will lose their licence to sell such guns if they break the rule. This may be a little easier to enforce, but still not very practical. There are others, but if you grant the assumptions, the logical path works.

The dealers in the US will go to Federal prison for breaking a rule. All customers must have a background check in order to buy a gun. Was this something along the lines of what you were talking about in the second statement?

On the other side, the logic (which you didn't question) also has flaws with it's basic assumptions. First: giving everyone a gun does not mean that they will have it available, or even use it, when confronted by an armed criminal. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the idea that people walking around with guns are going to deter crime. I don't expect anyone except a complete fool to 'draw' when someone else has the 'drop' on them, which would be the case in a situation with a simple mugging. There are exceptions, people who are not fools and still draw, but I suspect that in most of those cases, there is additional motivation other than just losing your wallet. It's a bit different when talking about a home invasion. In this case, I would expect that the homeowner would be more likely to get the 'drop' on the criminal. Or are people still going to be more likely to make a bit of load noise and hope the fellow runs away (which is what I expect most of us would realistically do).

Another exception would be something distracting the criminal allowing the victim to draw his weapon. This has happened many times. I don't think I would only think of muggin. We must consider what effect guns would have overal. It may not help mugging, but what about home invasion as you mentioned? I would consider it a success if robbies start occuring during the day while the owner was away. Then there is no chance of anyone getting hurt. In Oklahoma you can not use a gun against someone commiting a property crime. I am all for it if the crime against person goes down.

I believe having CCW permits does deter crime in some fashion. I believe the overal effect is a positive one.

But besides that flaw, the main leg of the argument is that free access to guns deter crime. Well, we have examples all over the states and all over the globe with a great variety of gun control laws ranging from no restrictions at all to no weapons allowed. Crime rates around the world do not track with these variety of laws. Denmark was mentioned earlier in the thread, very tight gun control laws, but little gun crime. I'm certain that if a criminal wanted to get a gun in Denmark he could, but if free access to guns controlled crime you would expect to see a lot more criminals with guns in Denmark. I lived in Turkey for a couple years, a very law-abiding nation, with very strict gun-control laws. You were allowed a percussion-cap shotgun. That's it. The only legal weapon to register. There are other factors in Turkey limiting gun crime.

I think anyone who wants a gun (Allowed under current laws) should be allowed to have one. This doesn't mean we pass them out like condoms. It means we have the freedom to choose.

No one has really posted crime rates on Demark. I am willing to assume they may have a low crime rate, but we can not assume it is because of their gun contol laws just as we can not assume the drop in the USA is due to free access. It works both ways.

According to the FBI, alot of shootings and other crimes are gang related. Maybe we have a gang problem? Perhaps our strict drug laws are causing the gang problem? How does Denmark and Turkey compare in this area?

I haven't really looked at the variety of the gun control laws verses the level of crime in the states closely. I see that ShaneK has, but I don't know whether his data is cherry-picked to show his point or not. It's not that I distrust ShaneK, but he has come out strongly on one side of this issue, and that may be coloring his presentation.

I have found similar results as Shanek has. I have done a lot of research due to dicussions on this forum. So far I have not seen any evidence to suggest tight gun control laws have any effect on crime. There is some suggestion that guns being available does help crime. Especially if you look at the paper by Lott.

If crime, whether its burglary, housebreaking, breaking and entering, battery or assault is the problem, and gun control has little impact on the problem why are we wasting time talking about it?

It's not a waste because people are constantly trying to ban guns for woo-woo reasons.

Or are people still convinced that gun control has a large impact on crime? As someone ealier pointed out, crime seems to be higher in big cities, maybe there is a cultural aspect to living in cities that promotes crime? It doesn't seem to be gun control.

Which cities? DC? New York? Chicago?

I hope my point is a little clearer now. I don't agree with either side.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. I am glad you took the time to talk about it. That is far better than some people on this forum.

 

[Nicodemus2004]

Wow. Calm, polite, informed conversation of various points in a complex issue. This is how it should always be. Thanks merphie , Flex & shanek. Good presentation of real data.

 

[shanek]

Wow. Calm, polite, informed conversation of various points in a complex issue. This is how it should always be. Thanks merphie , Flex & shanek. Good presentation of real data.

Thanks...and in a gun control thread, too! Who knew it was possible?

 

[merphie]

Wow. Calm, polite, informed conversation of various points in a complex issue. This is how it should always be. Thanks merphie , Flex & shanek. Good presentation of real data.

I always thought that is how rational people should act. Especially if we are to call ourselves skeptics.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're misusing this fallacy, yet again. The correlation/causation fallacy is only a valid criticism when there is no mechanism connecting the two.

Here, we have a mechanism: the fact that criminals don't want to go up against an armed victim. The correlation is support of the existance of that mechanism.

WTF....??

You are so wrong. It is a fallacy unless you have established the mechanism. You have only assumed that you have done so.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sometimes, a city in a restrictive state will pass shall-issue permit laws of their own

Anybody believes that shanek still has me on ignore?

other times, a city in a permissive state will pass strict gun control legislation. So I found data for these cities at packing.org.

Where? The only city I can find is NYC.

Restrictive: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose

Permissive: Austin, Columbus, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego

Yet, packing.org does not merely group the legislation as "restrictive" and "permissive", but in the following groups:

Resident Permit/License
Non-resident Permit/License
Shall-issue Permit/License
Must apply in person
Info in Permit/License Public
Permit/License age minimum

What is "restrictive" and "permissive" among these? The question is pertinent, because you list Milwaukee as "restrictive", yet Milwaukee (Wisconsin) has these data:

Issuance of Permit/License
Resident Permit/License: no
Non-resident Permit/License: no
Shall-issue Permit/License: unk
Must apply in person: unk
Info in Permit/License Public: unk
Permit/License age minimum: unk

which seems rather "permissive" to me.

You also list Memphis (Tennessee) as "permissive":

Issuance of Permit/License
Resident Permit/License: yes
Non-resident Permit/License: yes
Shall-issue Permit/License: yes
Must apply in person: yes
Info in Permit/License Public: no
Permit/License age minimum: 21

which seems rather "restrictive" to me.

I'm confused. Perhaps you could inform us precisely where you have found this data?

Now, aggregating data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for cities in the above categories:

Restrictive states: Total violent crime rate per 100,000: 1,049; murder: 14.38; forcible rape: 31.70; robbery: 428.10; aggravated assault: 574.77

Permissive states: Total violent crime rate per 100,000: 887; murder: 12.18; forcible rape: 40.54; robbery: 340.87; aggravated assault: 493.92

So the permissive states had a lower overall violent crime rate by 15%. They also had a 15% lower murder rate, 20% lower robbery rate, and a 14% lower aggravated assault rate. Only forcible rape was higher, by 28%.

Property crimes were higher in the permissive states by 69% (3561 per 100,000 in the restrictive states and 6028 in the permissive), confirming the above contention that criminals in areas where they might meet armed opponents switch to crimes where that possibility is remote.

Any more lame excuses?

Well, you are not posting any direct links to your sources, so it's a bit difficult to check your numbers (your record of cheating makes this necessary, I'm afraid). Perhaps you could be persuaded to reveal this?