More Guns, Equal, Less Gun Crime: FACT!!

Link

I Think this speaks for itself, more guns statistically seems to equal less gun crime.

Now as a British guy, I used to be very anti-gun, I was of the persuasion that the second amendment was a antiquated and wholly unnecessary silly bit of paper that should be burnt in a raging fire and never be seen again so my American cousins could never legally own a gun again and stop killing each other.

I WAS WRONG

However thanks largely to ATS and some research I have now changed by view, while I would never want a change in UK gun law I would never advocate a out right ban in American guns. This statistic's would appear to support this view as it seems that even as gun sales increase gun crime actually falls. To me my first reaction to this is that this is the opposite of what I would expect, it appears almost counterintuitive to my British way of thinking.

Yet if more guns equals less crime then a "gun ban" is what would really be counterintutive.

Yes i will agree that something needs to be done to tighten up gun regulation in America to stop people like James Eagan Holmes using guns as a means to commit mass killings. However these statistics quite clearly shows that more guns means less crime.

Anyone who tells you that "more guns, means more crime", is frankly talking rubbish and doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

The most important thing to do when're scented with any server or report is to ask who paid for it to be done...
And this is in favour of who?

Originally posted by moonrunner
The most important thing to do when're scented with any server or report is to ask who paid for it to be done...
And this is in favour of who?

Ok yes that is very true, the people who developed this infographic clearly have a bias.

But that does not make them wrong, unless that is you can find evidence that on a national level more guns means more crime.

I don't think you will find much

The problem with these statistics is that it omits vital information and assumes there is nothing else at work, even if we are to believe selected statistics.

It makes the assumption that over time, legislation and local laws and the implementation of those laws have not changed or have contributed in any way to the reduction of gun crime

It makes no reference to changing demographics and population changes over time

It makes no reference to whether the increase in firearms is related to individual ownership (per household) increases or increased ownership overall

It makes the assumption that gun ownership is the only factor worth recording as the main contributor toward a reduction in gun crime

There's probably many more ways of showing how these statistics are useless, but the main one would be any statistics presented by an interest group will be selective by nature. There's no point in presenting stats like these and claiming they are impartial and objective when they clearly are not.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I was of the persuasion that the second amendment was a antiquated and wholly unnecessary silly bit of paper

It sort of is.

Whether the main thrust of your argument is true or not, the 2nd amendment was never about arming US citizens so they could protect themselves against crime.

Ever since the nation developed armed forces, that legislation has been redundant.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, that is......

Its good to finally see someone from the UK doing their homework and finding out the FACTS instead of just repeating the nonsense that comes from the media. Unfortunately, all too often, those from foreign countries allow themselves to be greatly misled by their media and our own US media on this subject.

Granted, there are a number of factors at play here, but the basic facts of the chart are correct. The idea that more guns equals more crimes and homicides is not proving to be accurate in the US. Currently, the US is experiencing its highest level of gun sales ever, but total US homicides have dropped to their lowest levels since the late 1960s. That's in great contrast to the late 80s and early 90s, where homicides and the homicide rate were at their highest points ever. On a state by state basis, you'll find that some of the states with the highest gun ownership rates have very low homicide rates. Likewise, you''ll also find that most of the municipalities that enact strict gun control on their citizens have huge violent crime problems. Coincidence? Maybe, but not likely.

If the trend of the last 20 years continues for another 20 years, the US will have homicide rates approaching that of most of Western Europe without enacting any new gun laws or restricting anyone's rights. That seems like the most desirable outcome to me.

reply to post by spacedog1973


You're right. Correlation does not prove causation and violence in society is far more complex than this.

You should get a kick out this piece from MSNBC making the same weak connections to prove the opposite point:
CA: Did tough gun control laws cut deaths?

It's loaded with shaky connections and a lot of opinion. It tries to connect plummeting national violent crime rates with CA's gun laws. Swaps back and forth between all deaths and "gun deaths". Glosses over the states rising gang-related crime as if gang-related crime simple doesnt factor into overall crime.

Whenever a journalist or researcher or anyone for that matter starts a piece with the result they want then proceeds to cherry-pick data to support that result the work is a guaranteed fail and in the long run does a disservice to research.

If either of these "studies" have any valid information within them it's that the existence of gun laws and the number of guns in private hands is barely of consequence when it comes to increasing or decreasing all crime across the board.

reply to post by moonrunner

The most important thing to do when're scented with any server or report is to ask who paid for it to be done...

And this is in favour of who?

Maybe you’d believe the figures provided by the US Department of Justice instead. After all, the DOJ is a department of the US federal government; the same federal government constantly seeking to limit the freedoms protected by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.





Certainly the DOJ doesn’t like these numbers because these numbers don’t support their anti-gun agenda.

reply to post by CJCrawley

Whether the main thrust of your argument is true or not, the 2nd amendment was never about arming US citizens so they could protect themselves against crime.

That’s completely inaccurate. So says the Supreme Court!

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Ever since the nation developed armed forces, that legislation has been redundant.

Really? Since when did the military protect US citizens from crime? Wouldn’t that contradict the posse-comitatus act of 1878?

Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by spacedog1973

There's probably many more ways of showing how these statistics are useless, but the main one would be any statistics presented by an interest group will be selective by nature. There's no point in presenting stats like these and claiming they are impartial and objective when they clearly are not.

The stats I provided back up the OP and they’re from the DOJ. The DOJ is certainly not a pro-gun special interest group.

Maybe these pictures will help. Here is what we see in US.



An inverse picture appears in UK. As legal gun ownership decreases, violent crime increases.



Nuff said!

There was this bumper sticker I saw on a car a long time ago, it stated "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"..

Anyone with half a brain would know this to be true, unless one has no real experience with how the world works. You can read what whoever has to say about it, it doesn't make one an expert, it only means their opinion on the matter is concurrent with yours.

I know that if some disgruntled person blows a gasket and wants to cause harm to another, that the best choice of those to cause harm to are those who cannot defend themselves, the same reason disgruntled individuals start out with vandalism, kicking around animals and children, their wives, drunk people staggering down the street, homeless individuals.

Defenseless people and things are good targets for people who would do harm for the sake of doing harm.

Everyone should have the right to carry weapons for self defense simply because there are those out there who use weapons to vent their rage on others, to take advantage of others, and those people don't care about laws.

You can plainly see how individuals who don't care or don't know any better choose their targets, it's pretty obvious and the solution is to have people present who can counter the threat, not lay on the floor and beg for their lives to be spared.

There will always be people who would vent their rage on others for no good or fair reason, and there always will, there always have been. It's kind of stupid to force people to rely on help from another when the other may not arrive until it's too late, if at all.

This world is not so safe a place as many of you domesticated beasts of burden think it is.

Turn off you TV.

reply to post by seabag


You have raised some very good points,

I would point out as well however to those who say this infographic in the OP is "Bias" that at the very bottom it gives the source for the statistics.

it lists organizations like the DOJ and National safety council and so on.

so while yes one could say that the people who created this are "bias", where they are getting their information from is not quite so bias.

its really quite a simple matter of fact.

More Guns, less gun crime

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner

There was this bumper sticker I saw on a car a long time ago, it stated "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"..

Anyone with half a brain would know this to be true, unless one has no real experience with how the world works.

Excellent point! After the Sandy Hook school shooting there was a giant push for more restrictive gun control. I made the argument that stripping people of their means of self-defense isn’t going to dissuade bad people from carrying guns; quite the opposite actually.



If criminals fear there may be an armed citizen behind every door there will be far less crime. Criminals may be stupid but most don’t want to die.

The thing people who blindly support more restrictive gun control don’t seem to grasp is that criminals don’t acquire their guns legally now!!! Laws only affect law-abiding citizens!!! Less guns does not equal less crime. One need only look at the concentration of violent crime in America to see this. The cities with the highest violent crime rates are often the cities with the MOST RESTRICTIVE guns laws!!



I bet if the citizens of Chicago were armed tomorrow we'd see an initial spike in gun violence followed by a decade or more of decreasing violent crime rates.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Roe vs Wade 1973

Legalised abortions may have led to a decrease in crime 15-20 years later when that cohort would of potentially reached high crime years.

PDF :
Donohue - Levitt Hypothesis

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Roe vs Wade 1973

Legalised abortions may have led to a decrease in crime 15-20 years later when that cohort would of potentially reached high crime years.

PDF :
Donohue - Levitt Hypothesis

You're trying to muddy the waters with BS.

Explain how abortion affected the gun ownership/violent crime rates in UK with that theory. Did the abortion laws in UK change in 1988????

I love statistics! It's hard to argue against them and be credible at the same time.

I'm gonna go tell my wife I need another gun.

You are right that the UK data does not support their hypothesis.

I don't personally think there is any basis to say that more guns or less regulation equals less gun crime. Crime has been dropping for years now and across far more than gun related fields. Property crime and unarmed assault, a just two examples, have also dropped in many areas (while rising in others). No gun there, either way and no impact by gun laws either way. Yet...still a part of the overall trends by FBI Uniform Crime Stat numbers.

I *DO* think the opposite can be said though. The restriction of guns and added regulation which puts a pinch on legal citizens to own or carry DOES lead to higher crime rates. How can one be true and not the other?

Well... You can remove every gun regulation which has ever existed. The end result won't be much different in day to day living or reality in a place like Missouri or Texas than it is right now. Minor changes, I guess..but nothing much.

At the same time....xDISARMING people happens in a world dominated on the street by human predators. Strength is deterrence. Weakness invites attack. It's just that simple and anyone who has been on or around the streets will confirm the simplicity of life at that level. Removing a means of defense from LEGAL people, feeds weakness, hence....inviting predators to feed, which they quickly do. Right Chicago? Detroit?

Originally posted by CJCrawley

It sort of is.

Whether the main thrust of your argument is true or not, the 2nd amendment was never about arming US citizens so they could protect themselves against crime.

Ever since the nation developed armed forces, that legislation has been redundant.

We had armed forces before we had the constitution.
So I don't see how that can really be true...