Apr 21 2005
More Guns Doesn’t Mean Less Violence
It’s been a violent week in Milwaukee. More than five people have been killed since Sunday in the city - four of them with handguns - the youngest of whom was an innocent 7 year old girl hit by a stray bullet while playing outside her house.
As sensitive as ever, certain people are now calling for the reintroduction of the ‘conceal & carry’ gun laws that would mean more people on the streets would be carrying handguns because in their opinion, more people with handguns would actually lower the crime rate.
Just like having more cars on the highway would mean less accidents….
Ironically, one of the people in custody for homicide from last weekend was a guard at Walgreens who was carrying - you guessed it - a concealed handgun. He used it to kill an unarmed man he suspected of stealing a pair of sunglasses.
I mean, I know the NRA and their lackeys in polictical office are bound to push pro-gun laws, but trying to frame it as a way to lessen the amount of violence happening - during a very violent week - is just ridiculous.
It’s callous and inconsiderate to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives, and their argument is just plain wrong on top of that. More guns on the streets means more violence, plain and simple.
Your argument that passing laws keeping people from posessing guns will lower the number of guns on the streets is also just plain wrong. Generally speaking, the only ones who would abide by the laws would be the ones I would be okay with having a gun.
I don’t think it’s as heartless as you suggest, because the issue is not as clear-cut as you suggest.
mwarden - it’s like we went throught a worm hole together … we are agreeing on almost every topic Dan has discussed. Quite the contrary to how it used ot be. :)
To the topic, though, Dan there was a study done a “few” years ago (10 or so) that followed States as they adopted right to carry laws. The study found that crime rates decreased. This means fewer rapes, murders, etc. - so, your comment that more guns means less crime, plain and simple is plain wrong.
Actually here is the link to an interview from the guy ..http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
According to another study: “Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun”.
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html
If you research this topic, you’ll find the advantages of being able to own a gun far outweigh the occasional mishaps. Don’t give up your freedoms so easily!
To the topic, though, Dan there was a study done a “few” years ago (10 or so) that followed States as they adopted right to carry laws. The study found that crime rates decreased. This means fewer rapes, murders, etc. - so, your comment that more guns means less crime, plain and simple is plain wrong.
That’s because crime rates decreased nation wide and there isn’t any correlation between states who had concealment laws and an overall drop in crime rates. In fact, if you look beyond Dr. Lott, who not surprisingly is a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, FBI data suggests quite the opposite.
Although the NRA likes to trott out Lott when they need an academic to push their side of the story, a number of other researchers and academics have found his methodology and claims to be unsubstantiated at best.
Between 1992 and 1999, the violent crime rate in states which kept lawas against concealed weapons fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had concealed weapons laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%.
During that same period violent crime declined by 25% nationwide.
Also, if pro concealed weapons laws lower violent crime rates, why is virtually every law enforcement agency and industry group against them?
According to another study: “Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun”.
Um. That sounds good, but I didn’t see any documentation or references on that site to back that one up. Over 30,000 people are killed by handguns every year in the U.S. and you’re saying that between 750,000 and 2.2 million people are ’saved’ by guns every year? I not only find that very hard to believe, but again, the FBI says otherwise.
In 1998 30,708 Americans died by gunfire and only 316 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms. Maybe that quote factored in law enforcements use of guns, which I’m not talking about.
If you research this topic, you’ll find the advantages of being able to own a gun far outweigh the occasional mishaps. Don’t give up your freedoms so easily!
Well thanks for the tip, but I’ve already done a fair amount of research on this subject.
And for what it’s worth, carrying a hidden weapon has nothing to do with anyone’s ‘freedom’, so let’s leave the difficult task of carrying water for the NRA to Ted Nuggent.
So, you are just opposed to concealed weapons?
so let’s leave the difficult task of carrying water for the NRA to Ted Nuggent.
This is about the third post that you’ve accused me of supporting somebody’s agenda. Can “we” not do that anymore please?
if you look beyond Dr. Lott, who not surprisingly is a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute
Yep, he’s a conservative, he must be wrong.
Also, if pro concealed weapons laws lower violent crime rates, why is virtually every law enforcement agency and industry group against them?
Right on … er um … what happened … was … ugh …
“The Fraternal Order of Police and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America — the two largest law-enforcement organizations in the country — support Wisconsin’s move to permit concealed weapons.”
http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/05/wisconsin_could_join.php
Dan, you are such a candy ass liberal. You’ve never even fired a gun, have you?
By the way, thanks for the venison. It was freakin’ delicious.
So, you are just opposed to concealed weapons?
I’m opposed to people carrying concealed weapons, yes. I didn’t mention anything related to general anti-gun legislation, so I don’t know why you’d even ask that.
This is about the third post that you’ve accused me of supporting somebody’s agenda. Can “we” not do that anymore please?
Well I was just half kidding the other times ;) But seriously, trying to lump the ability to carry a hidden weapon and ‘freedom’ together is really off base in my opinion, and that is one of the NRA’s tactics to get their more radical members foaming at the mouth and writing out checks.
Yep, he’s a conservative, he must be wrong.
My point about him belonging to a conservative think tank was just to point out where he’s coming from, I pointed out that a large number of other researchers have called his research methodologies and claims into question. The fact that he’s wrong and the fact that he works for a conservative organization could just be coincidence.
The bigger question here is why do you think anyone should be able to hide a gun in their jacket and go to public schools, churches, stadiums, and shopping malls? And how do you, or the people proposing the law again in Wisconsin, think that would’ve stopped the recent violence in Milwaukee (for example)?
Do you think that seven year old girl would still be alive if she or her parents had guns on them?
And how do you, or the people proposing the law again in Wisconsin, think that would’ve stopped the recent violence in Milwaukee (for example)?
The argument is that increased chance of a potential bystander (or victim) carrying a gun has a similar psychological deterring effect as an increase in police force.
I’ve said this before: guns should be regulated with taxation, not direct control legislation. The right to bare arms should fund the control of its own negative consequences. Passage of the concealed weapon legislation would increase sales. Attach a tax to gun sales and earmark the money for an increased police force. The increase in guns “in the wild” would mostly end up in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and the increased revenue would make society as a whole safer (from not only gun violence, but all crime). Not to mention an increase of jobs, an increase in general spending (due both to increased gun sales and consumer confidence — especially in urban areas), etc.
Anyway, everyone has their opinions, and unfortunately this is another one of those topics where any academic review is corrupted by politics. My point was only that the charge that the people who are pushing this are callous and inconsiderate is rather unfair, because that charge is based on your stance on the political issue, which is less than clear-cut.
That’s an interesting take on it Matt, similar to jacking up tobacco taxes and using the money to fund anti-tobacco programs.
Good comment, Matt. Definitely worth considering.
The bigger question here is why do you think anyone should be able to hide a gun in their jacket and go to public schools, churches, stadiums, and shopping malls?
Dan, I really have to question whether you did the research on these topics when you say things like this. The bill to repeal the concealed weapons ban has provisions which would not allow carrying weapons into these types of places. Jails, police stations, etc are all on the “protected area” list also.
Well I was just half kidding the other times ;)
Only half?! :)
so I don’t know why you’d even ask that.
Well, you said, “More guns on the streets means more violence, plain and simple.” and “I know the NRA and their lackeys in polictical office are bound to push pro-gun laws”, So I was just trying to clarify that “more guns” actually means “more concealed guns” and “pro-gun laws” actually means “pro-concealed-gun laws”.
I pointed out that a large number of other researchers have called his research methodologies and claims into question.
Links?
And how do you, or the people proposing the law again in Wisconsin, think that would’ve stopped the recent violence in Milwaukee (for example)?
Do you think that seven year old girl would still be alive if she or her parents had guns on them?
All I know about the situation in Milwaukee is what you wrote in your post. :(
“Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” — Thomas Jefferson
Off the cuff (i.e. no research) and from someone from a country that doesn’t allow private ownership of firearms except for sports:
In countries where private firearm ownership is against the law, the rationale is that if no one has a gun to kill people with, no one will kill people with guns.
In countries where private firearm ownership for self-defense is allowed, with regulation, the rationale is that the more people that have guns, the fewer people that dare to shoot.
In the first scenario, you will simply get more cases of homicide or accidental manslaughter by other means, such as by knives, strangulation or falling from a height. In the second, there will be less cases of these, because, if you want to kill someone, why knife him when you can shoot him? For example, in Japan, a schoolgirl killed another with I-can’t-remember-what, and there was a school massacre by a man with a machete.
Incidentally, on the point of regulating guns with taxation, I remember the UK considering taxing chewing gum to pay for the cost of cleaning gum left in public places up. In my country, they simply banned it. Now you know where I’m from.
I feel that statistics often do not tell the story. There are no statistics on things that don’t happen. How many thieves do you suppose try to break in homes in the outskirts and countrysides of places like Texas where everyone knows most folks are armed and know how to use them. I grew up in the country, I knew how to use firearms and hunted by the time I was 12. I can tell you that the city bad guys really didn’t bother us much out there. I wonder why. Also the idea of banning guns seems so ridicules to me, how well has it worked banning drugs, it just created an underground drug business, that is world wide. In my view, like someone above stated, law abiding people can have guns, and I feel safer, if law abiding people can’t have guns, then those who do make me want to run for cover. And don’t tell me to call the police, they will show up after all the damage has been done. Yes, maybe they will get the bad guys, but it won’t matter to me, I’ll be dead.
i do not beleve in takeing away our rights to carry and concealll our weapons i carry my self and feel alot like the nug. him self if i feel i or my kids or my wife r in grave danger hell yes ill drop the hammer on someone……..if you take guns away the only ones who will have guns r crooks and thats not good enough for me or my family i am an avid hunter my wife is and my hole family is so bite me on controlling my guns you want them grow some balls and you come and try and take them!