Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Archer0915, Feb 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

    More Guns, Less Crime is a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994. The book expands on an earlier study published in 1997 by Lott and his co-author David Mustard in The Journal of Legal Studies.[1] Lott also examines the effects of gun control laws, including the Brady Law.


    Support

    A conference organized at the American Enterprise Institute by John Lott resulted in a special issue[2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:
    Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[3]
    Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]
    Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]

    Other academic studies that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.
    William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[6]
    Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[7]
    Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[8]
    Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[9]


    And Reiv says Lott has no one of importance supporting his hypothesis???


    Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa..........
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lott is rejected because of his econometric approach. His paper with Mustard, for example, adopts an inappropriate dummy variable approach that ensures severe empirical bias. Eliminate that bias and we find substantial changes in estimations.

    The problem for the pro-gunners is that the evidence has been given time after time and they have been shown to be utterly incapable of valid critique. On the last thread, for example, two of them attacked a paper by referring to countRies rather than the papers focus on counties. Very shoddy.

    one of the most recent publications is Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 16, pp 1687-1690). This notes that "gun ownership rates have a statistically significant and positive effect on the homicide rates", confirming results from numerous sources such as Cook, Ludwig, Duggan and the papers finding significant positive effects from gun control measures
     
  4. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It would seem that both sides have their rooting section. So what ever side you want to be on you have supporters with excelent credentials. I for one, believe that the more armed house holds we have the safer our neighborhoods are. But this comes from someone that has handled weapons for 59 years and been with others that have done the same. Like I have said, anyone coming into my home uninvited get a rather nasty shock, it would be the last thing they would get also. And, Yes, Reiv, I do have a concealed weapons permit and I value it highly. I carry when I'm going someplace that's not the best in the world or I know there might be a situation. It's there for only one reason and that's when either my life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger. Was I investagated by the F.B.I. in order to get it. Of course, everone who has a CWP has to be. And you know something, Reiv, there have been many times fewer crimes commited by citizens with CWP's than by police officers. And here's another fact, there are many more times those with CWP than there are police officers.
     
  5. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If proven ( is there really any doubt?) , that becomes America's obituary .
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. You want to see it that way. This is about objective literature review methods. You may not enjoy the results but there's nothing I can do about that. I haven't got it in me to lie for your benefit
     
  7. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nor I to lie for yours. Like I siad, we both have our sorces and it just depends which ones you want to believe. I'll believe mine until prove different.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a nonsensical reply. I adopt literature review methods. Do I just discount Lott? Nope. I refer directly to the problems with his empirical approach. The problem is that, given your bias, you assume everyone else is similarly skewed. That isn't the case.
     
  9. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well everything I read shows more guns = more homicide while the overall crime rate is lower.

    A higher murder rate is not a higher crime rate.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Refer me to one empirical study, other than Lott's discredited paper, that supports the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis. Its just factual to note that most papers support the 'more guns=more' hypothesis. The only issue is which crimes increase (and which are unaffected)
     
  11. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1

    Quote:
    Now we have presented AU and the UK as evidence. You do not need a study for that and you also know that the data is on the more guns = less total crime side.
     
  12. ian

    ian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US has the highest rate of private gun ownership in the western world, the US also has the highest incarceration rate in the modern world and in the entire history of western civilisation. What is there not to understand whether you are pro or anti gun?
     
  13. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    EDIT: Something went nutty in the sire. I did not mean to double post.

    If we took every drug related crime out of the equation things would be much different.

    http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32348

    Guns themselves are not the cause. In the world there are many issues and part of the issue is blame. Screw the blame fix the people.
     
  14. ian

    ian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why would we take drugs out of the equation? Drug crime is still crime. Drug issues are a western epidemic not just an American one.
     
  15. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If we wanted to get down to the issues here we need to look at every variable.

    I am saying more drugs = more crime and to prove this if we remove everything that is drug related. Drug offenders are the main users of guns in the US.

    I find it funny that everyone outside of the US does not get it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616

    Why? Because we do incarcerate people at a high cost and we have guns. Now back to guns:)

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...o-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

    14,748 total homicides is 2010 so just the citizens accounted for just under 2% of those. 278 legal kills and how much was saved?

    Let me put it this way. When a criminal comes knocking in the US he may leave feet first.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're coming out with a non-argument. Consider a simplified world where there are two types of crime. Crime A is significantly increased by guns; crime B isn't. What's the overall effect? An increase in crime through gun prevalence. We know that some crimes won't be affected by guns (e.g. homicide versus shop-lifting). This only describes the importance of decomposing according to crime type in an empirical analysis.

    No you haven't. You've referred to Australia and Britain without merit. Australian empirical evidence has confirmed that gun control reduces death rates. A paper has already been provided. Britain, in contrast, cannot be used within this debate. Handgun ownership was too low to expect statistically significant effects. There certainly is no structural break in the data consistent with the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis. There is only deliberate abuse of raw data where the pro-gunner ignores the multiple factors that impact on crime rates. Indeed, as soon as I see someone refer to Britain (often misapplying official crime figures that can't be used within time series analysis), I know that they are typing without sufficient knowledge
     
  17. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do more guns equal more crime? is the thread title.

    Britain is a control here. They have stayed essentially the same.

    AU: [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    http://www.aic.gov.au

    So I have already said I agree that more guns = more homicide. I counter with less guns = more crime or more guns = less crime.

    The raw data really shows little difference but that difference leans toward more guns = less crime.

    O I have not seen my guns for a couple of months. Time to get them out of the vault and clean them.
     
  18. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I have learned a couple of things from this thread.
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bwahahahaha. Good Lord.

    From the study:

     
  21. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

    Funny thing is it is simple to disprove the more guns = more crime.

    The UK has a population of 62.2M and the US has a population of 311.5M

    Guns in the US 250M+

    How many guns in Britannia? How about AU? How many in Europe? about 17 per 100 people.

    So the UK crime rate per capita is much greater than the US as seen below. Why? Well we have guns that is why.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That gun control is found to have significant effects on death rates is consistent with the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. And note that you cannot refer to one empirical study in Australia that agrees with your stance. You can only refer to raw data that is incapable of testing the hypothesis. You can keep repeating the error, but you'll only show that you haven't learnt how to use the evidence yet.

    You'd have to assume that Australia and Britain are alike in every way but trends in gun prevalence. That would be a ridiculous statement!

    Raw data doesn't 'show' anything. Anyone here that says it does doesn't understand criminology
     
  23. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You do not have a foot to stand on here. Homicide is a crime but the more guns = more crime would be like saying more products = more spending.

    All of the data counters your contention. There is a reason there are no studies on these things.

    Those of us who look at the data understand it.

    Those who do the studies also understand it and they know that an actual study would be counter to their agenda. Lott did a study but there were no counter studies.

    If one sees that there is a study that says "more guns = more crime" and sees that the US is close to 100% gun ownership one will ask: Why?

    Because we have the guns. You can counter with every study you want but the facts are counter. Yes more guns = more homicides but homicides are one of the smallest components of the total crime rate.

    I am sorry but it just can not be proved that guns = crime. If it could be proved then:

    The US would have a much higher crime rate that Europe. They do not.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. Its called 'logic'. We know that some crimes increase whilst there is no systematic relationship in others. End result? Crime increase. Its really not difficult to comprehend so I don't see why you want to continue with your non-argument.

    Anyone who understands the data would know that it cannot be used in its raw state to make conclusion. That hasn't stopped you though, illustrating that you're prepared to make conclusion based on nothing more than blind hope.

    You're openly fibbing here or you haven't read the literature. Lott's work has been shown to be invalid, with the same data used but different conclusions delivered.

    You'd have to show that, after controlling for other variables, the US doesn't have higher crime because of its gun ownership rate. You won't be able to achieve that of course. Indeed, you still haven't referred to one study with any resemblance of validity
     
  25. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reiver I do not need a study. It is a fact. The numbers are real and you can not prove otherwise.

    Should I study why I crap in the early afternoon a couple of time a week and in the morning other times?

    A study? What information do they use? I know you pull stuff out of your ass when you can not find it in the ether.

    Reiver show me the data that proves more guns equal an across the board higher crime rate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page