Thread: Does Gun Control Reduce Crime?

Originally Posted by Reiver

That's a fib. For example, you've already been given details about the paper by de Souza et al. (2007, Reductions in Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalisations in Brazil after Gun Control, Health Affairs, Vol. 26, pp. 575-584).


There are numerous causes of crime and guns are certainly not a primary explanatory variable. However, that provides no rationale to ignore the significant crime effects generated by gun prevalence.

However, that provides no rationale to ignore the significant crime effects generated by gun prevalence.

You have yet to show any evidence of such but have shown your emotional stance on this issue which is probably the best evidence you have shown so far. You appear to reject any and all studies that do not follow your emotional bias and only denigrate those that disagree.

One question. Do you believe that people have a right of self defense?

Originally Posted by satv365

You can be quoted as inferring that outlawing gun ownership is good policy. I argue that is contradictory to a free society. You want a free society? Or do you want a safe society? I (obviously) attempted to end this idiocy of attempting to justify our rights by somehow making it seem like America is safer where civilians own less guns. Which is not true anyhow, but this old argument is tiresome.

The point is, America is different than England. You like being told what to do and you generally do what you are told by parliament and police. We don't, won't and never will.

That's the truth of it all.

England doesn't have a parliament.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

You have yet to show any evidence of such but have shown your emotional stance on this issue which is probably the best evidence you have shown so far. You appear to reject any and all studies that do not follow your emotional bias and only denigrate those that disagree.

This is drivel. First I'm the only one here that constantly refer to the econometric evidence. That includes reference to all forms, including respectable evidence used by the gun lobby (in particular Kleck. I wouldn't use the likes of Lott as the analysis isn't high powered). Second, I'm from a gun owning background and I have no bias. My stance is purely driven by an evidence-based approach.

One question. Do you believe that people have a right of self defense?

I haven't referred to the likes of gun bans, so you're going for another tedious angle. We do know, however, that there is empirical evidence supporting the premise that a gun owner is more likely to use their guns threatening their family than in their defence

Originally Posted by Reiver

This is drivel. First I'm the only one here that constantly refer to the econometric evidence. That includes reference to all forms, including respectable evidence used by the gun lobby (in particular Kleck. I wouldn't use the likes of Lott as the analysis isn't high powered). Second, I'm from a gun owning background and I have no bias. My stance is purely driven by an evidence-based approach.


I haven't referred to the likes of gun bans, so you're going for another tedious angle. We do know, however, that there is empirical evidence supporting the premise that a gun owner is more likely to use their guns threatening their family than in their defence

Do you believe that people have the right of self defense including family members?

No, it won't reduce.

Crime occurred not only because the intention of the perpetrator, but also because of the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Reiver

.... We do know, however, that there is empirical evidence supporting the premise that a gun owner is more likely to use their guns threatening their family than in their defence

What steaming pile of crap...

Originally Posted by Reiver

That's a fib. For example, you've already been given details about the paper by de Souza et al. (2007, Reductions in Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalisations in Brazil after Gun Control, Health Affairs, Vol. 26, pp. 575-584).


There are numerous causes of crime and guns are certainly not a primary explanatory variable. However, that provides no rationale to ignore the significant crime effects generated by gun prevalence.

Of course guns are not the primary factor driving crime, it is the people. Guns are just the tools, and although they have much greater killing potential or "hit probability" than they did over a hundred years ago, they are not the primary force driving up or down crime.

What bothers me most about "gun control" per se, is that it used as an excuse to keep the public safe, but the real purpose is to take the blame and attention away from the real causes of crime: ethnic and demographic changes, and the liberalization of criminal justice systems that cause more people to commit crimes because they will be less likely punished or held accountable. Also socialistic governments will not allow their subjects to be proberly armed.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

Of course guns are not the primary factor driving crime, it is the people. Guns are just the tools, and although they have much greater killing potential or "hit probability" than they did over a hundred years ago, they are not the primary force driving up or down crime.

If guns were 'just tools' we'd be able to reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. We cannot. You're therefore coming out with cliché that ignores the specific factors associated with guns (which are also confirmed in the suicide literature, demonstrating how a significant change in behavioural patterns is observed)

What bothers me most about "gun control" per se, is that it used as an excuse to keep the public safe, but the real purpose is to take the blame and attention away from the real causes of crime: ethnic and demographic changes, and the liberalization of criminal justice systems that cause more people to commit crimes because they will be less likely punished or held accountable.

Complete bobbins! Criminology has always observed the multiple factors at play. The reference to 'liberalisation of criminal justice systems' merely demonstrates your political bias and how you use it to hide from properly constructed comment (e.g. take something like capital punishment. On the face of it we have a clear example of deterrence theory. In reality there is no clear analysis. Once we have capital punishment the marginal cost from committing additional murders falls to zero. We therefore can actually encourage murders.

Also socialistic governments will not allow their subjects to be proberly armed.

Socialistic? A standard abuse of political economy which advertises how you use your political ideology to hide from objectivity

Originally Posted by Reiver

If guns were 'just tools' we'd be able to reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. We cannot. You're therefore coming out with cliché that ignores the specific factors associated with guns (which are also confirmed in the suicide literature, demonstrating how a significant change in behavioural patterns is observed)


Complete bobbins! Criminology has always observed the multiple factors at play. The reference to 'liberalisation of criminal justice systems' merely demonstrates your political bias and how you use it to hide from properly constructed comment (e.g. take something like capital punishment. On the face of it we have a clear example of deterrence theory. In reality there is no clear analysis. Once we have capital punishment the marginal cost from committing additional murders falls to zero. We therefore can actually encourage murders.


Socialistic? A standard abuse of political economy which advertises how you use your political ideology to hide from objectivity

As you have already stated that guns are not a "primary variable" or cause of crime rate fluctuations, but then you fall back upon your suicide studies to change the subject. As I have shown in the past, suicides are more cultural than anything, as in Japan, where guns are few and suicides much more prevalent.

The real cause of the dramatic increase in US crime from the mid-1960's on up WAS the "liberalization of the criminal justice system." You may use some liberal techno-babble to describe this event, but the overall effect of civil rights laws and legislation and shifts to more liberal courts empowered criminals (mainly urban blacks) to reject authority. As local and urban ethnic communities came under their own rule, conviction rates fell and crimes increased. Leftist federal courts have injected themselves so pervasively into the death penalty process, that the use of this effective deterrent has been effectively lost. Death sentances were carried out within a few months or years from the date of conviction before the mid-1960's now take 15+ years, or never happen.

Please show one case in the US where gun control laws that focused on banning gun types or imports had any real, significant effect on reducing violent crime. Lately, violent crimes seem to be going down, yet the numbers of military rifles and high capacity semi-auto pistols are rising.

BTW, socialism is much more than an economic term or policy.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

As you have already stated that guns are not a "primary variable" or cause of crime rate fluctuations, but then you fall back upon your suicide studies to change the subject.

It doesn't matter if there are more substantial factors. It would be irrational to ignore the significance of gun prevalence. Its also far from cunning to suggest that referring to suicide is a change in subject. The point is simple: we don't have perfect substitutes with guns. This describes how behavioural factors are at play, making the "its just a tool" cliché look particularly silly.

As I have shown in the past, suicides are more cultural than anything, as in Japan, where guns are few and suicides much more prevalent.

No one has stated that guns are the only factor in suicidology. However, international analysis does again show that gun prevalence provides one means to understand differences in cross-country suicide rates

The real cause of the dramatic increase in US crime from the mid-1960's on up WAS the "liberalization of the criminal justice system."

Refer me to one empirical study that supports your premise. Please make sure its a quality source (i.e. published in peer reviewed journal). I'm not interested in any innate racism either

BTW, socialism is much more than an economic term or policy.

Socialism is a political economic term with a rather precise meaning (the complexity is over the economic paradigm capable of delivering worker control and ownership of the means of production). I know right wingers tend to use it ignorantly, typically because of some general ignorance of political economy (and the limited sources they use to derive an argument). I don't find that interesting.