Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-24-2009, 01:49 PM
Mac
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Guns Equal More Crime? Not so fast says FBI

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...e-report-shows.


Quote:
Atlanta
The oft-cited credo that more guns equal more crime is being tested by facts on the ground this year: Even as gun ownership has surged in the US in the past year, violent crime, including murder and robbery, has dropped steeply.

Add to that the fact that many experts had predicted higher crime rates as the US grinds through a difficult recession, and the discrepancy has advocates on both sides of the Second Amendment debate rushing to their ramparts.

After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole.

Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of President Obama, a dramatic run on guns prompted in part by so-far-unwarranted fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House will curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.

Pro-gun groups jumped at the FBI report, saying it disproves a long-running theory posited by gun-control groups and many in the mainstream media that gun ownership spawns crime and violence. “Anti-gunners have lost another one of their baseless arguments,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told the Examiner's Dave Workman.

Some gun-control groups have long sought to establish gun ownership as a health issue, which would expose purchasers to the kind of regulation now imposed on prescription drugs and alcohol. That view embodies the idea that mere exposure to guns makes people more violent.

But more pragmatically, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have mostly targeted illegal sales and gun-show loopholes as the primary problem in America’s gun culture. They say such loopholes and lax enforcement allow violent criminals to get their hands on used, stolen, and inexpensive guns. “The guns that cause the worst problems in this country are not selling for very high prices,” Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm has said.

No correlation, researchers say
As advocates on both sides keep score, what’s the rest of America to think as they weigh the relative crime risks – and statistics – in their own neighborhoods?

The debate over whether guns spur or deter crime has been under way for decades. So far, research has come out with, in essence, a net-zero correlation between gun sales and crime rates. More likely factors for the crime rate decline have to do with Americans hunkering down, spending less time out on the town with cash in their pockets and more time at home with the porch lights on, experts say. So-called "smart policing" that focuses specifically on repeat offenders and troubled areas could also be playing a role, as could extended unemployment benefits that staved off desperation.

“We can absolutely draw a fact-based conclusion about [whether there’s a correlation between declining crime rates and increasing gun ownership], and the answer is no,” says David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control in New York. “There are very consistent findings that the acquisition and obtaining of carry permits by ordinary law-abiding people has either no or very little impact on the crime rate.”

He finds more evidence in the FBI’s new report, which shows crimes declining not only across a variety of violent and nonviolent crime classifications, but also in both gun-resistant and gun-friendly corners of the country.

“When you’re seeing declines [in violent crime] both in cities like Atlanta, which is in a relatively gun-friendly state, and in places like New York City, where it is essentially impossible for ordinary folks to acquire and carry especially handguns, then it’s not the guns that are driving the [statistics],” Mr. Kennedy says.

A possible deterrent effect?
But one prominent gun rights researcher, Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, leaves the door open to the idea that news of booming gun sales could have a deterrent effect on violent criminals.

“It’s possible that criminals hear about lots of people buying guns, and then you can see a plausible mechanism, that conceivably could have produced a reduction in murder,” says Professor Kleck. “It’s all a matter of perception, not reality, for prospective murderers."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-25-2009, 11:31 PM
KENTUCKYREDBONE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've thought for years that more guns = less crime! But I've run across some delusional people who refuse to believe it cause they are afraid of the big bad gun!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-26-2009, 04:02 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE View Post
I've thought for years that more guns = less crime!
The evidence would seem to support that theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/op...olds.html?_r=1
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-26-2009, 10:49 AM
KENTUCKYREDBONE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
The evidence would seem to support that theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/op...olds.html?_r=1




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A Rifle in Every Pot
By GLENN REYNOLDS
Knoxville, Tenn.

IT’S a phenomenon that gives the term “gun control” a whole new meaning: community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.

Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.

And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.

Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.

To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws.

Likewise, in the event of disasters that leave law enforcement overwhelmed, armed citizens can play an important role in stanching crime. Armed neighborhood watches deterred looting in parts of Houston and New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.

The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second Amendment’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.

Greenleaf’s ordinance is consistent with this approach. But it may also serve another purpose.

Experts don’t think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents. And, given that Greenleaf’s mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the town’s residents already own guns, the new ordinance can’t make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.

To the extent that’s true, we’re likely to see other communities adopting similar laws so that criminals won’t see them as attractive alternatives. The result may be a different kind of “gun control.”

Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, is the author of the blog Instapundit and of “An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology are Empowering Ordinary People to Take on Big Government, Big Media and Other Goliaths.”
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Spiritwalker's Avatar
Spiritwalker Spiritwalker is offline
Matt-4; GJJ Black Belts-0
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gastonia NC
Posts: 4,339
Default

To me it's pretty simple....

My guns will not be used in a crime.. "More guns but no additional crimes" = lesser crime precentage while higher gun ownership precentage

I carry always (honestly 80%) - a criminal tries to rob me.. or breaks into my home = one less criminal!
__________________
It is because you chose to get on the mat that makes you the winner. Think about how many people are not on that mat right now. - Luis Sucuri Togno
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-26-2009, 05:40 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritwalker View Post
To me it's pretty simple....

My guns will not be used in a crime.. "More guns but no additional crimes" = lesser crime precentage while higher gun ownership precentage

I carry always (honestly 80%) - a criminal tries to rob me.. or breaks into my home = one less criminal!
Until your home gets robbed when you're not there.

But yeah, most guys aren't out getting guns legitimately,
the bulk of them are either brought from Mexico or bought on the street and acquired from burglary.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-26-2009, 09:35 PM
Spiritwalker's Avatar
Spiritwalker Spiritwalker is offline
Matt-4; GJJ Black Belts-0
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gastonia NC
Posts: 4,339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger View Post
Until your home gets robbed when you're not there.
Then my dogs have a feast... Goo think I am looking for another pitbull my shepard/chow mix could do damage, but not eat that much..I also have an alarm system.. but that's more to alert the cops and me should I not be home.

Quote:
But yeah, most guys aren't out getting guns legitimately,
the bulk of them are either brought from Mexico or bought on the street and acquired from burglary.

That's where the problem is. Not with legal gun owners.. but criminals..

And I don't know about you, but every one I know has bought their guns legally.
__________________
It is because you chose to get on the mat that makes you the winner. Think about how many people are not on that mat right now. - Luis Sucuri Togno
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-26-2009, 11:10 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritwalker View Post
That's where the problem is. Not with legal gun owners.. but criminals..

And I don't know about you, but every one I know has bought their guns legally.
Yeah, the problem is probably 90 percent criminals.

Most people I know bought their guns legally.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-26-2009, 11:54 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE View Post
Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.
The only thing about that article that I disagree with is this paragraph, but only because they have it backwards. What it should say is that law enforcement can serve as an effective backup for an armed populace.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-27-2009, 12:13 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,838
Default

I dont think Firearms make more crimes, but I do think Firearms create more deaths in crime.

Lets face it, what is the easiest method of killing someone? you shoot them? no? its going to take less time (and so less chance of being stopped) it easier (takes less skill) you can kill from a fair distance (and thus, safer)

So if you were to carry out a violent crime, whereupon you planned on, or had to kill someone...are you more likely to be successful with, or without a gun?

The answer, is logically, WITH.

Now, it would be interesting to compare the deaths of guncrime, with the deaths of knife crime...and in a Military position, the use of explosives

I suspect Explosives probably win in a military situation above firearms, but I suspect firearms beat Knives.

So I dont think they create, or particularly promote crime...but they would make a criminals life more easy...and would also be of great benefit to a suicidal
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.