Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
A week or so ago I got myself involved in a thread about gun control. As was expected, a lot of people from the UK and Australia had a lot to say. It seems the idea that people are buying into is that less guns = less crime.

Despite trying over and over to show that crime rates and gun ownership rates do no correlate, I was unable to convince these people to even CONSIDER that guns are not the reason violent crimes happen.

Fast forward to today, and I stumble upon this study from Harvard that demonstrates exactly what I was claiming. If gun ownership and violent crime DO correlate, the relationship is this: The more guns in civilian hands the lower the rate of violent crimes.



They found that a country like Luxenbourg, which bans all guns has a murder rate that is 9 times higher than Germany, where there are 30,000 guns per 100,000 people. They also cited a study by the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and it failed to find one gun control initiative that worked.



Some countries, like Russia, where guns are heavily restricted have INSANE violent crime rates.



Russia has a ban on hand guns and their murder rate is 30.6%, whereas in the United States the rate is a much lower 7.8%. And during the 1990s, gun ownership grew significantly in the United States, while violent crimes dropped by 30%. In England, after they banned handguns, the rate of violent crimes soared.


Considering that most gun crimes in the US (I believe something like 98%) are committed with hand guns, this statistic is particularly interesting.

And, as I've claimed and shown in multiple gun control arguments, violent crime has gone down by nearly 30% in the last 20 years in the USA, while gun ownership has gone up.

The VERY interesting thing about this study is that it doesn't seem to be acknowledged by the MSM. As of now, the only sources for this study that I can find are somewhat "fringe" media outlets. This further lends to the theory that there is an agenda to disarm the civilian population. You have to ask yourself, if we can show over and over that gun ownership and violent crime are not related in a negative way, why do they want to disarm us?

Source

Source II

Source III


edit on 23-9-2013 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It is my belief that gun collectors do not pose as much of a risk to national security as those with a single handgun or rifle or shotgun. It is also my belief that such weapons have no place in a super-sized city, with all the stresses city life brings with it.


Check out this USA Today article from Feb 2013.

Rest assured there are LEGITIMATE reasons for owning a firearm if you live outside a super-sized metropolis.

Hunting

Self protection

Recreational Target Practice ~

See interesting hunting chart below for example. Not many city folks go out hunting and when they do it's most likely outside the city.




posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


In a metropolitan area, where you are much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, wouldn't it make more sense to carry a weapon for self defense than in a rural area where you are very UNLIKELY to be the victim of a violent crime?

Source






The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.

Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females.

Although most violent crimes in urban (60%), suburban (68%), and rural (70%) areas were committed without a weapon, firearm usage in the commission of a violent crime was higher in urban areas when compared to suburban or rural areas (12% urban versus 9% suburban and 8% rural).

Between 1993 and 1998, 19 in 20 suburban and rural households owned motor vehicles; however, in suburban households the theft of motor vehicles (13 per 1,000 households) was twice the rural rate (6 per 1,000 households) during this period.

Property crimes were generally completed at higher rates against urban households than against suburban or rural households.

Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger (respectively, 53%, 47%, and 34% of violent crime victims).



Not only are you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in an urban or suburban area, that crime is more likely to be committed with an illegal firearm. Wouldn't it make more sense to be legally carrying in an area where you are more likely to have to defend yourself or your family against an armed criminal?
edit on 23-9-2013 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Gun's sole purpose is to make it easier to kill things.

Have a google of how many kids were killed by guns in the UK and Australia in the last 10 years, then compare that to the US. Sad eh?

Sure in those countries, people get drunk and fight too, it's still a crime and it goes on those stats, but there are no funerals after.

You'll probably never understand what those UK and Australians are trying to make you see tho, because deep down you'd rather scour the net for questionable statistics that make you sound right than not have your own way. You like guns more than you care about dead kids and you've not only conditioned yourself into thinking this doesn't make you ever so slightly evil, but you're even trying to persuade others into thinking like you!

I don't care how safe guns make your home, how much of a man carrying one makes you feel or what you think your rights are, dead kids are never going to be cool and for every responsible gun user, there's 100 normal people who lose their temper and use them in anger.

Nothing personal, I just don't dig on making it easier for stupid people to kill others and think anyone who doesn't realise this is too stupid to be given a gun



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 



Gun's sole purpose is to make it easier to kill things.

Precisely, there are many reasons to encourage individuals to possess firearms, this among them. I personally believe that concealed carry has the most useful implications as it presents a universal deterrent effect without actually requiring everyone to carry.
edit on 23-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


2 wrongs do not make a right. Similarly 2 guns do not likely mean nobody gets shot.


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Beavers
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Gun's sole purpose is to make it easier to kill things.

Have a google of how many kids were killed by guns in the UK and Australia in the last 10 years, then compare that to the US. Sad eh?

Sure in those countries, people get drunk and fight too, it's still a crime and it goes on those stats, but there are no funerals after.

You'll probably never understand what those UK and Australians are trying to make you see tho, because deep down you'd rather scour the net for questionable statistics that make you sound right than not have your own way. You like guns more than you care about dead kids and you've not only conditioned yourself into thinking this doesn't make you ever so slightly evil, but you're even trying to persuade others into thinking like you!

I don't care how safe guns make your home, how much of a man carrying one makes you feel or what you think your rights are, dead kids are never going to be cool and for every responsible gun user, there's 100 normal people who lose their temper and use them in anger.

Nothing personal, I just don't dig on making it easier for stupid people to kill others and think anyone who doesn't realise this is too stupid to be given a gun



See? You've gone and ignored every valid piece of evidence I've presented here. You keep going back to the emotional argument that it is easier to kill with a gun.

It's also easier to defend yourself with a gun.

You also attempt to insult me by insinuating I need to carry to feel like a man. I assure you, I feel like a man regardless of whether I'm carrying or not. You claim that I like guns more than I care about children. You are pathetic in your attempts to try and blur the argument.

I guess if you can't argue with reason and fact, you result to emotional pleas and logical fallacy. Come back when you can back up your claims with facts.

Your statistic is backwards. You claim that for every responsible gun owner there are 100 irresponsible gun owners. It's quite the opposite, which a very quick look at a comparison of gun owners and gun crimes would prove to you.

I am very glad you posted. You are a perfect example of the type of person I was talking about. You have grown up afraid of firearms, you have constantly believed the lies that guns are the reason people get hurt. You will not even consider looking at the actual, recorded, provable facts regarding the issue.

Again, thank you for providing an example of the type of mindset that continues to blur the reality of the situation. For your example I give you a shiny gold star.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Before i start, im all for gun protection at home(from invaders)..

So should Good Muslims in the middle eat put a suicide vest on themselves to stop the bad Muslims from using it? I mean the bad Muslims would fear the good Muslims and they won't blow up.


I think the gun people are expecting a hero scenario where they would leap into action and save the day!

These criminals do not just come out of a nowhere expects around people not to be armed, they probably knew the risk associated with robbing someone.

Don't forget, the theater shooter was a person you were defending before he went on a rampage. Who else are you defending?



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


I refer your very first paragraph right back at you.

And my last


Yes, emotional, because dead people cause emotions and protecting my family from stupid people is more important to me than your dangerous hobby or need to feel like a man.

In the countries you speak of, children might get a black eye when they mess with the wrong crowd but they don't come home in a box after watching batman. This happens everyday all over the US... Focus on that statistic rather than the one I plucked out of thin air whilst making a point.

I bet you won't though, you just want guns and don't care about the dead kids that come with them



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by greencmp
 


Before i start, im all for gun protection at home(from invaders)..

So should Good Muslims in the middle eat put a suicide vest on themselves to stop the bad Muslims from using it? I mean the bad Muslims would fear the good Muslims and they won't blow up.


I think the gun people are expecting a hero scenario where they would leap into action and save the day!

These criminals do not just come out of a nowhere expects around people not to be armed, they probably knew the risk associated with robbing someone.

Don't forget, the theater shooter was a person you were defending before he went on a rampage. Who else are you defending?


See, you haven't thought this through..

You make a valid point against your argument. These villains DO NOT come out of nowhere except to attack unarmed, innocent people.

This is why the vast majority of mass-shootings take place in gun-free zones.

Thanks for your help. You also get a bright, shiny star!



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by greencmp
 


Before i start, im all for gun protection at home(from invaders)..

So should Good Muslims in the middle eat put a suicide vest on themselves to stop the bad Muslims from using it? I mean the bad Muslims would fear the good Muslims and they won't blow up.


I think the gun people are expecting a hero scenario where they would leap into action and save the day!

These criminals do not just come out of a nowhere expects around people not to be armed, they probably knew the risk associated with robbing someone.

Don't forget, the theater shooter was a person you were defending before he went on a rampage. Who else are you defending?

The theater shooter apparently drove past several bigger theaters that were closer to his place of residence specifically to target that one because it was 'gun-free'.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Beavers
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


I refer your very first paragraph right back at you.

And my last


Yes, emotional, because dead people cause emotions and protecting my family from stupid people is more important to me than your dangerous hobby or need to feel like a man.

In the countries you speak of, children might get a black eye when they mess with the wrong crowd but they don't come home in a box after watching batman. This happens everyday all over the US... Focus on that statistic rather than the one I plucked out of thin air whilst making a point.

I bet you won't though, you just want guns and don't care about the dead kids that come with them







Once again, you ignore that there are many countries that have an armed civilian population, and very low rates of violent crimes. On the other side of the coin, there are many countries where the civilian population has been disarmed, yet the murder rate is nearly five times that of the USA.

It's ok, I understand that you've been programmed to ignore logic, fact and reason regarding this particular issue. I'm only trying to show you the truth.

Anyway, it's blatantly obvious you're going to continue with personal insults and emotional attacks, rather than consider the facts of the issue. For that reason I am done with you.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't lead a horticulture. =D



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Beavers
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


I refer your very first paragraph right back at you.

And my last


Yes, emotional, because dead people cause emotions and protecting my family from stupid people is more important to me than your dangerous hobby or need to feel like a man.

In the countries you speak of, children might get a black eye when they mess with the wrong crowd but they don't come home in a box after watching batman. This happens everyday all over the US... Focus on that statistic rather than the one I plucked out of thin air whilst making a point.

I bet you won't though, you just want guns and don't care about the dead kids that come with them


Frankly, if anybody appears to not care about 'the kids' it is you. We just care about keeping them alive and not using them when they are dead.
edit on 23-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
More people with guns = more idiots with guns = more potential for death by guns.
Not just by the "bad guys", also the cowboy types, and dumb gun owners allowing their children access because their stupidity.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Jefferton
More people with guns = more idiots with guns = more potential for death by guns.
Not just by the "bad guys", also the cowboy types, and dumb gun owners allowing their children access because their stupidity.


Again, the statistics show the total opposite.

The entire point of this thread was to show this FACT.

I realize that they keep telling us, over and over ad nauseum that more guns = more crime, but that is not the case.

I realize that Harvard is full of idiots and buffoons, so I challenge you to review crime statistics and do your own comparison. I'll help you get started.

www.fbi.gov...

www.gov.uk...

www.abs.gov.au...

www.nationmaster.com...

I know it's a lot to ask to request that you do the footwork in researching the conclusions you DESIRE to come to, but you should do yourself a favor and just.. do it for once.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Jefferton
More people with guns = more idiots with guns = more potential for death by guns.
Not just by the "bad guys", also the cowboy types, and dumb gun owners allowing their children access because their stupidity.

It seems that there isn't a single statistic that is outside of your ability to ignore.

The number of guns has dramatically increased and accidental deaths are falling.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
You need to factor in cultural views and attitudes as like here in the UK we have never been a gun worshipping culture compared with the USA

would shipping every person here in the UK a fully automatic 50cal with DU ammo suddenly stop crime...hell no..chavs+white lightening cider and never having to live with firearms would mean people would start to settle stupid arguments in a rather final way over something as daft as an argument over the height of a hedge etc



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


I didn't ignore your fact, I quantified it by telling you that these crimes are punch ups instead of regretful murders, which will end with a few bruises instead. Sure, there are more of them but would you rather your child came home with a bruise or in a box?

Then I told you to look up how many kids die from gun crimes in those other countries and to compare it to US. - you didn't and you won't - and I truly believe it's because you don't care about the truth, you just want your own way and gave no interest in the ultimate consequences!

So you've pretty much ignored me not ignoring and then countering your point, then ignored my counter point and called me ignorant


Sorry for insulting you, I just get frustrated at people who are willing to put my children at risk for reasons that don't come close to justifying the risk.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


For the record, some of us who fully support gun ownership still think DU ammo is bad.

I'm not sure why we have to talk about the issue in these extremes, no one is advocating giving WMD's to civilians. We're talking about personal protection against criminals.

There are millions of gun owners in the US, and it's RARE that people settle petty disputes with firearms. I imagine folks in the UK are just as responsible as Americans so I don't personally see that happening to the extent you claim.

I do agree we have different cultures. My country used the firearm to win it's freedom from England, so yes the gun is a part of our culture...



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I'll just leave this here.
Draw you're own conclusions.

www.wnd.com...


As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

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.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.





top topics
 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join