Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

How does your logic explain the higher rates of crime in Australia and England than the U.S., Reiv

 

O.K., Ian, what country do you live in? Shall we compare crime rate numbers??

 

{{""Firearms make it easier to kill people from a distance, are you arguing otherwise""}}

I can drop a person at a 1000 yards with a rifle, ian, but the main objection that most of the people that oppose firearms is to pistols. Most people couldn't hit a barn at 50 yards with a pistol, they have to get real close and you could do the same amount of damage with a crossbow and we did have that happen a while back in this state..


{{{"" Although our circumstances in Australia are vastly different to the US the basic premise remains the same. As an example you might or might not be aware we have a huge problem with blood feuding Aboriginal clans in Western Australia, we have huge riots happening between families almost every weekend with weapons involved, our prisons are over 50 percent Aboriginal""}}

And we have huge gangs fighting for areas they want so they can increase their drug trade, so what's the difference. And we DO have guns in the mix and we still only had 15,614 homicides from ALL causes, not just guns. Where does that rank us in the world so far as homicides go??? 1st??? Not hardly, that belongs to Honduras. 10th?? Wrong again, that's South Africa. 15th??? No way, that's Dominica. 20th??? Nope, that's Mexico. 30?? Naa, that's Antigua and Barbuda. The U.S., the country that has the most guns per capita comes in at number 34. Here's a list of the nations and where they fall;


List of countries by intentional homicide rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Honduras

El Salvador

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Venezuela

Jamaica

Belize

Guatemala

Bahamas

Colombia

South Africa

Trinidad and Tobago

Brazil

Dominican Republic

Saint Lucia

Dominica

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Panama

Ecuador

Guyana

Mexico

Nicaragua

Grenada

Paraguay

Russia

Barbados

Costa Rica

Bolivia

Moldova

Haiti

Antigua and Barbuda

Estonia

Uruguay

Thailand

United States

Georgia

Latvia

Taiwan

Bangladesh

Lebanon

Israel

Finland

Macedonia

New Zealand

Czech Republic

Canada

Morocco

Chile

Ireland

United Kingdom

Australia

Sweden

Netherlands

Italy

Denmark

Germany

Japan (including attempts)

Austria


And as far as gun ownership goes;

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...l-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf


Mexico comes in at number 42 as far as gun ownership goes but falls at number 20 on the most homicides list. South Africa comes in at number ten of the homicide list and number 50 on gun ownership. Honduras comes in at number 1 on homicides and number 88 on gun ownership. And El Salvador which comes in at number 2 in the homicide comes in at 92 on the gun ownership list. So the idea that we have a lage gun ownership doesn't compute so far as homicides go.

 

Yeah but 99% of the countries on that list (above the US) are third or 4th world countries. I.e. ruled by despots or without any form of stable government. I.e. they are not the western world.

In that list the US pretty much heads the list of "civilized" countries.

You can't compare New York to Nicaragua. But you can compare New York to London.

 

An evidence-based approach is the finest example of objectivity. You've adopted a stance based purely on opinion. Its subjectivity run amok

 

First, what are you using to compare crime rates? Please make sure you're not using official crime figures as they cannot be used in international comparison. There is no consistency in definition. Second, we'd of course expect differences in crime rates. For example, the deterrence approach to criminology offered by criminology would describe the importance of investigating the opportunity costs from criminal behaviour. In a country such as the UK (which has higher child poverty and much greater pre-welfare income differentials) those opportunity costs will often be lower.

 

If you have seen people with firearm experience pointing firearms at each other as a joke, you definitely move in different circles than me. If a person among the hundreds of shooters that I know, was to even accidentally point an unloaded firearm too near the direction of another person, the others wouldn`t rest until their licence was cancelled & they were never to touch a firearm again. Ian, this attitude is correct and standard among all sensible shooters. Howard`s laws have helped the black market industry, now it`s easier than ever before for an unlicenced person to obtain a hand gun, it`s harder on licensed people, but there is no sense in that.

 

See beenthere`s post above.

 

Mate, it`s now easisr in all states to obtain a black market pistol.

 

There's no content in that post. You fellows are just ignoring the evidence to maintain a subjectivity inconsistent with reality

 

No content? Or, no content that a closed mind could accept. Please don`t demean yourself further by trying the old "don`t think, just throw it back" tactic that`s so popular with shallow thinkers.

 

As long as guns exist, banning them will not remove them from criminals. Banning them from law-abiding citizens will damage those citizens' ability to protect themselves from criminals threatening them.

Common sense, as opposed to utopian fantasy.

 

Clearly the former. The fellow typically provides spurious relationship and, despite being told of the futility of trying to use such corrupt thinking, hasn't improved his approach

Of course you're probably going to enjoy his approach. You also find evidence something hard to stomach!

 

But what about the thread. Given the majority of the empirical analysis do indeed show that gun prevalence is positively related to crime, why do you think the pro-gunners are utopian and ignore the social costs from gun preferences?

 

Directly related to homicide and indirectly related to the overall crime rate.

Other than homicide quick and easy there is not much that can be done with a gun that can not be done with another weapon.

 

I would wager that a vast majority of homicides are criminal-on-criminal related to drugs. A rise in this rate is not necessarily bad.

But it is positive for would-be home invasion, rapists, etc to know they may be met with fatal force.

 

Can you show that gun prevalence is linked to lower rape rates, or are you going with unsupported opinion?

 

First you say, "It can't be a government site", next you say, "Wiki isn't reliable",
I know your going to come back with the same nonsense with the one that anArcher0915 has had in front of you the whole while;

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

 

All Reiv has to fall back on is one paper that uses sales of Guns&Ammo to determine the amount of gun ownership.

 

Funny isn't it, I have bought most of my weapons from private owners as well as most of the people I know have done and there are no records of the sales so how can Reiv think he is using something that is even close to accurate?

 

You've neatly advertised that you're posting information that you don't understand. If you did understand it you'd have responded to my reference to problems in international comparison. As I previously said, definition variation makes such comparisons useless (e.g. My local police authority has a history of including fake calls). Can you show that countries with greater gun control, ceteris paribus, have higher crime rates? (I know you won't be able to answer that question)

Never allow dogma to control you. It ensures enfeebled remark

 

It was allegedly "Peer-Reviewed". That is all Reiv needs to believe anything he is told.

 

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz1nrdTsDVj

 

It amuses me to see you fellows relying on the Mail. Advertises nicely just how innocent you are with regards the empirical process.

You'd have to show the following. First, given we know that firearm offences are related to a multitude of factors, you'd have to show that Britain has a high rate of firearm offences compared to the likes of the US. Second, given those multitude of factors are not constant, you'd have to control for them in your comparison. This is all basic stuff that anyone, assuming they knew anything about stats, would already know

 

It amuses me that you think you are the only person who knows anything. Peer reviews are nothing more than checks about the information presented. Now considering the information is generally collected by governments and the like the peer review point is rather moot. You do not peer review the source.

So did the mail present a fallacy? They cite that it was information game from the Government. Well BBC has a similar view: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

This is interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

There is also a higher averaged murder rate in England since the gun ban (Pg. 32) than before it:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary