This is normally true unless its the gubment selling the guns. Then you can be sure they will wind up in the hands of much more interesting folks. And all for politcal gain no less! Very nicely done BATF.Originally Posted by James50
John Lott's book of the same name "More Guns, Less Crime" does indeed seem to support that conclusion. As a liberal with a roomful of guns, who has studied Lott's work, it is of course not as simple as the bumper-sticker folks would have us believe.
First, the decrease in violent crime, according to his extremely thorough mathematical development, appears to decrease from about 480 violent crimes per 100,000 people, to about 420 violent crimes per 100,000 people. This is after concealed carry is enacted and given a few years to sink in. See page 260 of his book. So, sure. 13% decrease in violent crimes. However, even he points out that robbery type crimes where the victim is not present tend to rise a bit during the same time.
The other thing is that, just observing my own city of Albuquerque, the shooting that we have here ... NONE have been stopped by civilians carrying concealed. So the best we can hope for is that there is a small discouragement effect on criminals who fear that there may be a person present carrying concealed. But it doesn't stop the hardened criminal who just doesn't care.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
... and yet another explanation might be the social differences between Xers and Millies. If this reamains in effect during an era of more intensely violent youth,we'll see the real impact. I suspect that easy availability is less a deterence and more an opportunity.Another possible conclusion is that more guns mean less crime.
James50
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I'd say it is all of the above.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
...and...
-People often assume that the differences between late Prophet/early Nomad generations vs. late Hero/early Artist generations occur by magic. They occur because (for example) the Jonesers grew up in a time when rules were slack and bad behavior was tolerated or even pandered to. Thus, crime paid. The flip side will be when the innocent are protected (or allowed to protect themselves) and crime is swiftly punished.
"3 strike your out laws" have had a dramatic effect too. Many career criminals have been removed from the streets.
More dogs means less crime. "German shepherd" rhymes with "leopard".
Less alcohol consumption means less crime. Less drug activity means less crime.
It could also be that in hard times, the perception that people have less to steal implies less crime motivated by greed.
It's hard to figure what motivates crime except the basest of drives and what deters it that doesn't involve fear.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
It is my impression that the number of guns in private hands has been steadily increasing for more than 40 years, during which time crime increased enormously, then decreased. Thus one could not possibly assert a straight-line correlation of "more guns, less crime." One could argue, I suppose, that in the last 10-15 years the number of guns passed a critical point and began to cause a decline in crime, but. . .I would suggest that the giving way of Xers to Millies among the highest crime-prone age cohorts has a lot more to do with it.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Lott's analysis is built up around the "concealed-carry" laws. His hypothesis is that once CC is enacted in a state, the criminals are aware that perhaps their victim could be armed and therefore the crime level should drop because of this knowledge. Most of his data is presented in before-and-after forms.
His approach is very complex and seemingly very rigorous. It would take a LOT of work (pun intended) to critique his work. This leads one to the conclusion that if one is not willing to do the work, then one has to at least give the man a grudging respect. I suspect that most anti-gun folks will do neither. Most folks have no knowledge of statistical analysis to begin with, and of course most folks prefer their own untested "opinions" to testing them.
Stuff like this has a terrible dependence upon reliable data collection (hard to come by), and an unfortunate dependence on correlation studies in which the distracting variables can be sorted out. It's not easy work and it's not always very convincing even when done well. Based on my own limited exposure to the technicalities of work like this, it appears to me that Lott gave it the old college try ... or else the NRA, et.al. paid him well to produce a superior scam.
Actually, I've always been kind of drawn to Freakonomics' idea that it was Roe v. Wade that produced the ongoing decline in crime ... the decline began about the time that the aborted fetuses would have become old enough to commit crimes.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Does this mean that he claims to show that crime fell more in states that enacted C C laws than in those that did not? Even that would have to be controlled for other factors. We don't have those laws in New England and we have comparatively very low crime. Those laws tended to be enacted in states with very high crime, that would therefore show a bigger drop. . .well, I look forward to hearing from you.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Rather than me running back and forth trying to find specific answers to your legitimate questions about Lott's work, it would probably be more efficient for you to check out his book in person. I can tell you that he makes the attempt to control for many, many parallel variables that could confound his conclusion that guns cause a decrease in violent crime (though, as I mentioned before, the decrease doesn't seem like all that much to me).
My copy of Lott is a third edition in which he updates his orginal research for the second time. If memory serves, I think I may have heard about a fourth edition.
Working in the street as an EMT on 911 calls, I do see the occasional needless death due to firearms. But I'm not convinced, as so many of my rabid liberal brethren are, that any attempt to remove guns from our unique American society would help, or could even be successful given our culture and history with gun ownership.
I honestly don't have much of a dog in this fight. I know that as a "liberal," my stereotypical, knee-jerk reaction is supposed to be anti-gun. But I'm not really anti-gun. I'm actually more interested in the epistimological phenomenon of folks being either rabidly for or rabidly against guns. A couple years ago I got tired of listening to the rabid back and forth and decided to check out the facts as best I could for myself. Someone on this forum suggested Lott to me after I complained about the dearth of objective data. Lott is certainly convinced that he is right, but again, his foundation seems pretty sound.
Although I admit that from a personal freedom perspective, I do like at least having the option of defending myself should that highly unlikely circumstance present itself. As an outdoorsman in the Rocky Mountain west, I worry more about threats from my fellows when I'm out in the wilderness than I do when I'm in the city.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
I have read that Gun Control started out from suburban white people being scarred sh*tless by the Black Panthers promoting gun ownership in the African-American community. St. Ronnie Reagan was an early supporter of such "Gun Control".
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Appeals court upholds DC gun restrictions
The Boston Globe reports Appeals court upholds DC gun restrictions
The courts are taking the route I more or less expected given the wording of the Supreme Court's declaration that an individual right exists. The appeals court is upholding a ban on assault weapons. I expect to see similar limits on magazine size and other factors particularly abused and abusable. However, they are maintaining that the individual right exists. Local jurisdictions cannot deliberately make it hard to register weapons with the intent or effect of disarming the populace. Some cities are apt to try to nickel and dime an individual right out of existence, and are not apt to succeed.
I think this post belongs here.
I just heard a very moving report on NPR about the reign of terror that has begun in Alabama. It has become illegal to offer a contract to illegal aliens to work, and anyone can be asked for proof of citizenship at a traffic stop and, if it isn't forthcoming, be arrested and deported. This applies to the many illegals who have kids who are American citizens. Hundreds of illegals are literally fleeing the state, and their kids have stopped going to school because they're terrified that they will return home and find their parents gone for good. I heard all this from a white school administrator who was obviously a humane guy and very upset about the whole thing. I certainly couldn't tell you the last time something like this happened in the United States, and it makes me sick.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
The last time something like this happened in the United States was some time in the 1930s. I know this only because I was a folk music fan from the 50s on.
http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/Deportee.htm
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
Using the admittedly thin data available, Mikebert did a multivariable analysis several years ago. In the end, the CC created a brief decline after it was enacted, then the effect declined. Remember, there were states that didn't enact CC, and they acted as the control for the analysis.
That said, this is not a simple analysis, and the NRA has consistentlty acted to stop the Federal governement from doing this is a thorough way. The CDC tried, and were defunded. If it's good news for guns, then why not do the analysis?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
And the morons are complaining that the fruits and vegetables are rotting in the fields. Gee, I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because the pay for the pickers is so low only illegal immigrants are willing?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Well, Odin, take note. This is not an economically driven issue in Alabama. The growers hate the law. They claim the hispanics have much better work ethic than locals. So apparently, this law is, to put it bluntly, a matter of pure hatred. Greed has nothing to do with it.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Just reading Lott's book shows that the difference is really not a big deal. I don't think the NRA would like that to become general knowledge. They'd prefer to have the "bumper sticker" results, i.e. "More guns, less crime." Analysis takes the wind out of their sails.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
It is neither greed nor hate. The issue for me is simply legal vs illegal immigration. It is too easy to assume motives for others that do not exist. You are correct that most of the hispanics that I have observed do have a strong work ethic.
It has been proven down through the years that for the most part these immigrants, whether legal or not, are for the most part taking jobs that multi-generation Americans now tend to consider beneath them--landscapers, food servers, et al. This is true even in this tight economy. This has not been one of my bigger soapbox issues, but will state that immigrants, regardless of their land of origin, should become full-fledged US citizens just like our ancesters did.
Some years ago I was a general manager for a local office of a large corporation. I don't remember the year, but there was this sudden change in the law, and we had to start keeping extensive records of SSN, and other items of ID that "proved" that new-hires were not "illegals." Since then it's become apparent that, for the most part, except in ceremonial cases, very few employers have been dinged for hiring undocumented foreigners. Even the current governor of Colorado, Hickenlooper, was busted for hiring undocumented foreigners in his restaurant before he was elected.
It seems clear to me that neither side of the aisle really wants to deal with this.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
I want to be clear about my ideas on gun control. I will research the topic more when I have time. The stats to me are clear that those nations which have strict gun control have fewer gun deaths and fewer murders and violent crimes overall. I am not in favor of a lot of violence to prevent the violence of guns, such as at Waco or Ruby Ridge, and I was not in favor of government actions on those occasions. A ban on guns depends on the consensus of the people, and if too much violence is necessary to take away peoples' guns, then a ban is unworkable. This is a judgement call. But it depends on the weapon and the locality. Strict controls on guns are practical and necessary in urban areas. They should be restricted to those people who have a specific purpose to have them and are trained. In rural areas, guns might be useful to control wildlife invasions on ranches, although other methods of control might work and are more ethical. I don't consider having guns for target shooting or sports or collecting to be a legitimate purpose. But in the absence of consensus, I'm not sure much harm occurs if people in rural areas are allowed guns for this purpose, if they are trained. There is some need for guns for hunting, when ecological experts and authorities allow it for the purpose of fixing the ecological damage that we humans have caused in the first place. Wild pigs in California is one example I am familiar with. Most people today don't rely on hunting as a source of food; there's plenty of meat available at the market, and anyway we ought to eat less meat, for ethical, health and environmental reasons. Good reasons I'd say. Obviously I think semi-automatics, machine guns and other weapons of war or anything besides shotguns and pistols should be illegal for civilians, and pistols should be mostly illegal.
I also do not consider "self-defense" a legitimate reason for people to own a gun in any locality. I really understand why people who are in fear think it is legitimate. However, a rational consideration shows how impractical it is. If your home is invaded by person with a gun, and you use a gun to protect yourself against the invader, then it is a shootout at the OK coral. Unless you are well-practiced with guns, which most people are not unless it is their line of work, it is likely the robber will be more in practice than you and will win the shootout. If the invader does not have a gun, then if you shoot that person then you are guilty of murder because you have superior firepower. There are other means available that will work just as well: alarms, mace, dogs, locks, escape, living in safe areas, and calls to the police. And what if you shoot someone by mistake whom you thought was an invader? What if your children play Russian Roulette and shoot themselves? What if it a fit of rage or intoxication you pick up the gun and shoot your friends or family? If you hide the gun and take the ammo out, to make the gun safe, then this defeats the purpose of having it available in the first place to repel an invader. Sometimes guns work to repel invaders, but other means work better and with fewer side effects.
There's always more research to be done on this topic. But it seems many Americans whether left or right have an obsession and love affair with guns. It is part of our wild-west intoxicated culture. We think it is macho or something. It is a kind of culture we should outgrow, and soon. Others think we can protect ourselves from oppressive government firepower with guns. We are blind and deaf to the fact that we have so many more mass murders than anywhere. Assassinations are more frequent than elsewhere too. Gun control would prevent these disasters. Guns from the USA are a major cause of horrific violence in northern Mexico, and guns are mostly more strictly controlled in other countries, so exports are an unlikely problem.
I am in favor of the strictest gun control that we could agree on. I hope it will come back into favor again soon, after the right-wing pall over our country passes on. And what the second amendment says is a matter of interpretation, which will depend on our attitudes toward guns.
I believe that would have been after the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which granted amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who had resided continuously in the US since 1/1/82. In exchange for the amnesty, controls on employers were supposed to have tightened up. IIRC, what happened instead was a cottage industry sprung up providing fake documentation.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
I don't really have the time to argue this in toto but I will say that I find it interesting that you seem to imply that people living in urban areas should have fewer rights than people living in rural areas. Does "public safety" always trump freedom or does this only apply to particular points of view with which you are in disagreement?
You also mentioned pig hunting by which I assume you mean feral hogs. Would it surprise you to know that in heavily forested areas hunting feral hogs with firearms is almost impossible? Generally it is still done the way it has been for thousands of years; with dogs and a knife.
