Arming public reduces crime

I have a vague recollection of reading an article in the past and I am wondering if anyone has heard the story and could point me in the direction of the source. The article talked of a small government in (I think) Europe that gave each law abiding citizen a military grade rifle and a bag filled with survival gear and ammunition. This public was considered the militia and the amount of crime in the city or country dropped to almost nonexistence. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-AmericanRealist

 

I've never heard of this before, however it sounds like it would make for an amazing sociology experiment.

 

The world follows the trend that more heavily armed civilian populations are less violent (less murder)

 

I do not carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I do not carry a gun because I am evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

Carrying a gun is not comfortable.
I carry a gun because it is comforting.

FACT.

 

I don't know about that article, but I'd like to share en excerpt of an article about the crime statistics in cities that allow citizens to be armed versus cities with strict gun-control laws:

The statistics speak for themselves.

 

i dont think it does follow that trend. america is probably the most heavily armed western country, and we also probably have the highest murder rates.

 

there is less crime becuase criminals shoot one another

 

See the post immediately before yours. Gun control INCREASES murder rates.

 

Still a crime Poindexter!

 

They show that gun control has significantly reduced homicide rates

 

You never cease to amuse me.

 

I do not carry a gun to make me feel like I'm better person.
I carry a gun because I know how to take care of myself and the ones I love.

FACT.

 

Then how do you explain great britain having one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and relatively strict gun laws compared to the us.

Not even their police carry guns on their person

 

Oops quoted myself. The above post was meant for the person who responded to me

 

I'm glad you picked up on that. It was good for a chuckle though when it appeared (wrongly) that you were arguing with yourself. Kinda a 'Sybil' thing.


I DO take your point though. The other member who said; "The world follows the trend that more heavily armed civilian populations are less violent (less murder)", is simply not accurate.

 

I congratulate you. Just a shame that a gun is more likely to be used against a family member than in their defence. If only there were more folk like you!

 

Indeed they do. Especially when you don't cherry pick the data as you seem to ascribe to.




States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

• Louisiana–Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.87 per 100,000.

• Mississippi–Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 18.32 per 100,000.

• Alaska–Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.62 per 100,000.

• Alabama–Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.55 per 100,000.

• Nevada–Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 31.5 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.21 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

• Hawaii–Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.82 per 100,000.

• Rhode Island–Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.51 per 100,000.

• Massachusetts–Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

• Connecticut–Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.27 per 100,000.

• New York–Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.07 per 100,000.

Ironically, The states that lead these lists with the highest per capita gun death rates are states with the laxest gun laws, while the states with the lowest per capita gun death rates are states with the strictest gun laws.

 

What?.....What?.....What?................................WHAT?

Allow me to repeat what I said.
I DO NOT CARRY A GUN TO MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A BETTER PERSON.
I CARRY A GUN BECAUSE I KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE OF MYSELF, AND THE ONES I LOVE.

Reiver you are good in twisting things around, to make a positive turn to an negative.
Even when the positive truth slaps you in the face.

An old politician tactic..... just to stay in the game.

FACT.

 

HEY REIVER....Here is another quote.

I do not carry a gun because I am affraid.
I carry a gun, so I do not have to live in fear.

FACT.

 

Talk about cherry-picking. Your statistics provide only gun death rates. It doesn't count murder by other means, it counts suicides, it counts accidental deaths, etc, etc, etc. Fail.

 

For the OP. I bet you're referring to Switzerland!

To be honest I don't know the details of that event. But the militia thing is how things are now and it must have been instigated at some point.

Currently they have one of the highest rates of gun ownership (and probably have the highest rate of households with a gun anywhere), and they also have one of the lowest rates of homicides in the world.

That, along with the massive homicide rates in some third world countries with heavy gun control, pretty well throws out the idea that guns drive high murder and crime rates.

While you get occasional drek like:

Ultimately I think both gun rights and gun control folks who know enough agree that firearms are far behind quite a few other factors when it comes to determining total crime rates.

That leaves the question though of how much difference it does make and in which direction.

In many cases this depends on how you consider the issue. Take for example:

You are massively more likely in a western country to be killed by someone you know than by someone you don't, something like twenty times more likely I believe.

So you'd expect that statement to be true unless guns turn people into saints.

Other more subtle ways of twisting things involve a questionable analysis of if a gun causes an activity or sitaution, or if being in a certain situation makes you more likely to own a gun. For example I could see someone putting together a study finding owning a gun makes you more likely to sell crack on the street.

That sounds a little silly, but there was a study Reiver took rather seriously that found having a gun on you makes you more likely to die in a homicide, however a significant number (actually I think most) of the dead individuals were gang members dying in shoot outs. So that's not really applicable to Dixihunter here.

And if the word "regression" appears anywhere in the study you're basically just taking their word for any conclusions. Though that's a whole other story.


In cases of dramatic changes in gun ownership typically you see rapid improvements in crime rates. For example "gun town USA"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

There was also an incident someplace in Florida I believe where there was a much advertized push to get women concealed carry permits. Rape rate plumeted immediately afterwards. I could try and dig that article up if you'd like.

 

Simple reference to the evidence!

Weak effort! You'd have a point if I referred to raw data. I didn't. Controlling for confounding variables is paramount

This is just ignorant! Regression techniques are crucial for isolating gun effects, ensuring appropriate hypothesis testing is followed.

The literature includes panel analysis which would take into account the impact of differences in trend effects. Not surprisingly, such analysis typically continues to support the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis.

 

I'm pretty sure you're looking for Switzerland. WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE

 

There's a rather interesting analysis on Switerland crime by the Danish criminology Balvig. Focusing on the consequences of ethnocentrism on self-image, he refers to how this leads to greater problems of ‘hidden crime’. He actually finds crime rates were very similar to other European countries

 

I wonder if you could possibly take US homicide rates and separate them from drug related incidents and then do the same for every other country.

I have a feeling that the result would be that the US still has a higher rate of homicide, but only very slightly, and the dropoff would be much larger.