New university study: concealed weapons permits lower murder rates

[commiejoe]

I'm too lazy to google this, so maybe someone else will:

How many gun shops have been held up? (robbed at gun point)
or
How many gun shops/gun shows/firing ranges have experienced a crazed shooter? (akin to mall or school shootings)

I was just trying to think of a situation where almost everyone would be armed, and it would be common knowledge that they were armed.
If everyone was armed everywhere, what would the crime stats be like?
Switzerland?
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

 

[rearman]

Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime

Looks like when this police chief stopped blindly believing the hype and looked at the reality, he got a clue.

 

[Tex Pro]

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

 

[rearman]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

Yes, it is difficult to make apples to apples comparisons when comparing countries. But the differences go in both directions.

Comparing England (or UK) murder rates with the US: More complex than you thought

"We count and report crimes based on initial data. The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial. Yep, that says what I meant it to say."

 

[Aliblahba]

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

I completely endorse this.

 

[tomtud]

America is America. The people and its culture cannot be compared to others regarding guns. A place like Switzerland where gun ownership is high must take into account the people, it's culture and standard of living.

Maybe a way to solve gun control is to examine social issues. Examine poverty. Examine wealth distribution of public funds. Examine bullying. Examine students in school. The problem is many politicians don't have these issues in their backyards. Their children did not go to underfunded public schools. They don't live in a risky neighbourhood. Hence they are out of touch.

When some male student(s) shoot on a school campus some social psychological issues are present. Had these been identified and fixed, nobody would shoot anybody. Thugs in inner cities.......had certain social factors come into play, they would not even own a gun.

As for everybody owning a gun and concealing it.......will it lead to less murders? People would think twice. However if nobody owned guns, and all you risked was a few bruises which would heal in a few days, I fancy the latter personally.

 

[rearman]

However if nobody owned guns, and all you risked was a few bruises which would heal in a few days, I fancy the latter personally.

Of course that society exists nowhere. There is no going back in time and 'uncreating' guns. The government and criminals will always have guns. The only question is whether the law abiding should also have access to firearms or whether they should be at the mercy of the state and the criminals.

All people risked before guns is a few bruises? A society without guns is a society where the strong and the many rule over the weak and the few.

The gun is civilization.

 

[It_is_my_time]

America is America. The people and its culture cannot be compared to others regarding guns. A place like Switzerland where gun ownership is high must take into account the people, it's culture and standard of living.

Maybe a way to solve gun control is to examine social issues. Examine poverty. Examine wealth distribution of public funds. Examine bullying. Examine students in school. The problem is many politicians don't have these issues in their backyards. Their children did not go to underfunded public schools. They don't live in a risky neighbourhood. Hence they are out of touch.

When some male student(s) shoot on a school campus some social psychological issues are present. Had these been identified and fixed, nobody would shoot anybody. Thugs in inner cities.......had certain social factors come into play, they would not even own a gun.

As for everybody owning a gun and concealing it.......will it lead to less murders? People would think twice. However if nobody owned guns, and all you risked was a few bruises which would heal in a few days, I fancy the latter personally.

If no one had guns murders would still occur.

 

[Glock]

If no one had guns murders would still occur.

This is exactly correct. In fact, in the U.K. weapon-control zealots are now calling for "knife" control:

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

 

[It_is_my_time]

If no one had guns murders would still occur.

This is exactly correct. In fact, in the U.K. weapon-control zealots are now calling for "knife" control:

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

Unbelievable.

Then you will have to ban baseball bats, and then shovels and other garden tools, and then bare fists. On and on.

 

[tomtud]

Valid arguments for the pro side. Yes murders would still occur and yes the citizens will be at the mercy from the state and criminals who do have guns. Even with a gun you are still at the mercy from the state. They will always have bigger guns and more guns. There will always be in democracies the majority who rule over the minority ( the weak). Take Canada or Japan for example. This gun ownership right is not even an issue. They live just fine. In fact the majority and minority live even better without having to worry about the gun violence plagued in the US?

It's a difficult debate. Both sides have logical points. Maybe the university study can be expanded to see if these same results are applied on a larger scale.

 

[rearman]

Valid arguments for the pro side. Yes murders would still occur and yes the citizens will be at the mercy from the state and criminals who do have guns. Even with a gun you are still at the mercy from the state. They will always have bigger guns and more guns.

Yes, the state will have bigger guns and better weapons. But an armed citizenry has options. There are lots of Americans and Europeans who poo poo the idea of the citizenry resisting the government, but this ignores:
- the American Revolutionary War
- Vietnam
- Afghanistan under the Soviet Union
- Afghanistan under the US
- Iraq

History has shown us that a determined people can fight off a vastly superior military. And in those examples, the 'superpower' had the enormous advantage of having its politicians and generals separated by an ocean from the people they sought to conquer. If the American government decided to wage war on its armed citizenry, those American leaders/traitors would not be spared; and that would give many of them pause. Consider also that many in the military would desert, taking their gear and know-how to the other side.

For those interested in the relationship of the state, the citizenry and firearms, I'd urge you to watch this speech from a former Tiananmen Square demonstrator:

There will always be in democracies the majority who rule over the minority ( the weak).

The United States is NOT a democracy; it is a constitutional republic. The difference is that certain things, i.e., individual rights, are not subject to majority rule. Democracies are gateways to tyranny.

Take Canada or Japan for example. This gun ownership right is not even an issue. They live just fine.

For now. The same was true of all disarmed people who were eventually slaughtered by their government - their lack of firearms ownership wasn't an issue . . . until it was.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

Criminals are rational actors now?

 

[Combored]

Take a look at this line of gun owners who are now required by Connecticut law to register certain firearms and magazines.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...necticut-thats-giving-some-gun-owners-chills/

How many criminals stood in line to register their illegally owned firearms? Gun control is about people control.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

 

[Tail Gunner]

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

That is exactly why you never register a firearm. That is exactly what the Nazis did. They forced all Jews to register their firearms. Then they knew where all the firearms owning Jews were. It went downhill from there.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

 

[Tail Gunner]

There will always be in democracies the majority who rule over the minority ( the weak). Take Canada or Japan for example. This gun ownership right is not even an issue. They live just fine.

Are you serious? You must not follow Canadian politics at all.

The national gun registry in Canada was a major news story for over a decade and was a factor in the conservative party finally winning a majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

 

[Tail Gunner]

Even with a gun you are still at the mercy from the state. They will always have bigger guns and more guns.

Huh? The U.S. populace in the U.S. has far more firearms than the military. There are 1.4 million men and women in the U.S. military. There are about 300 million firearms in the U.S. After WWII, the Japanese military stated that was the primary reason that it did not even consider attacking the west coast.

Based on consolidated information from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are about 300 million guns in the United States.

“There’s no perfect estimate of firearms in the U.S. because creating a national registry of firearms is prohibited by federal law,” noted Alex Katz, a spokesman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “But academics and interest groups across the political spectrum broadly agree on the 300 million figure.”

http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/how-many-guns-in-the-united-states/

BTW: The purpose of small arms in a rebellion is to take control of the armories, where you can obtain more sophisticated military hardware. That is a tactic that is just as applicable today as when the Minutemen marched to Lexington and Concord.

 

[Glock]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

Tail Gunner, I can't cite you chapter and verse at this time, but I recall seeing a study that compared crime rates after controlling for demographics, and the conclusion of the authors was that crime rates were comparable in the U.S. and European countries when demographically similar people are compared. In other words, college-educated whites commit violent crimes at the same rates in both the U.S. and Europe. Likewise for other demographic groups. The overall differences in crime rate, thus, can be explained by the demographic makeup of the populations, without any need to resort to gun policies.