Back in 1998, the University of Chicago Press published economist John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime. A lot of people bought it. Not many read it. No surprise there. Saying MGLC is a stat-heavy tome is like saying that anyone who attempts to knock a pregnant woman unconscious for the sheer bloody hell of it deserves ballistic disincentive. Yes, there is that [as above]. But here’s the thing: not many Americans carry a gun. Percentage-wise, you can round it down to zero. What if more people packed heat? Would there be less violent crime? If that’s true, where’s the tipping point? Ten percent? Twenty percent? And given that inter-gang warfare accounts for a large chunk of “gun violence,” would legal carry have any effect on inner city violent crime? One more thing: would open carry be more effective at reducing/preventing violent crime than concealed?

76 Responses to Question of the Day: More Guns, Less Crime?

  1. I tend not to get into the “more guns, less crime” arguments with anti’s, as it seems to fall on deaf ears. However, I do make the case that more legally owned and legally carried firearms have not increased crime. I find that angle forces the other side to come to terms with murder and violent crime rates being down and have continued downward since the early 1990’s… a fact the anti’s like to ignore and/or repeatedly mislead/lie about.

    • Absolutely! what I love about it is that the FBI’s own stats back up your claim …. Plenty of their own stats can be used to counter the antis.

    • I agree. I resent having to make a cost benefit on a bill of rights liberty. How would bail, warrant requirements, Miranda and due process fair in that paradigm? They would all be total losers. After all — who would insist on a warrant or Miranda except the guilty? After all persons on bail are over 15x more likely to commit crime than the mean.

      But it IS important to note that Lott’s thesis, so broadly attacked at the time, has held up and been proven accurate by data since he first published.

      The antis will compare Hawaii and Alaska. Whatever, no serious demographer would on any serious policy issue. What you compare is high similarity demographic, same-region states with different policies. When you do that, and say look at Maryland vs Virginia, which are used by social scientists and demographers on many non gun comparisons because of their similarity (same avg education, same avg income, share their major metro (DC) and have major metros of their own etc), you see a massive difference.

      Virginia gets an “F” or “D” from they gun control groups on its gun laws, and Maryland gets an “A.”
      Virginia has many times as many concealed carry permits, and over 18 times as many non retired leo permits, (ie the average joe/jane). Virginia has about 12% more gun owners as well.

      Virginia has 50% LESS murder and 45% less other violent crime than Maryland

        • False. less than 7% of all guns seized in crime in DC come from VA despite it being so close. And almost all out of state violent criminals arrested for cries in DC come from Maryland, not Va.

      • I agree with what you said about making some sort of cost/benefit analysis on the BoR. The problem, as you know, is the “round and round” nature of the anti’s arguments. In a just world, individual liberty would be the end of the conversation. In our world, we have too many people that feel the proles shouldn’t be trusted with individual liberty. It’s quite maddening to see people that are willing to give my rights away and are appalled/baffled that I fervently disagree with them.

  2. The so-called “gun buyback” is underway in Chicago as I type. “father” phleger(sic) obviously doesn’t agree with the premise. St. Sabina needs to “feel” safe…

  3. Bought the book (on Kindle as it was very cheap) read most of it. I believe he is right, so in the interest of helping reduce crime in Kennesaw and in Georgia generally, I have been buying guns ever since. I bought three already this year so crime statistics should really start going down here very soon!

    Large corporations have discovered my efforts, and Cabella’s was so interested they built a store less than four miles from my house. They are having their Rusty Chains grand opening this coming Thursday and they invited me and all my friends to be there at 11 AM when they open up.

  4. I know it’s somewhat divisive, but I don’t care if more guns equal more crime, or less crime… My civil rights and my ability to defend myself doesn’t hinge upon crime rates.

    Crimes goes down. Cool, I want my gun.

    Crime goes up. That sucks, I want two guns.

  5. If a thug should be casing you for a robbery, and then notice you are packing heat, and then takes off leaving you unmolested, you have not prevented a crime. The dude will simply go find another hapless individual to rob.
    One solution, arm everybody!

    • These are predators. As such they are very similar to wolves and other predators. Their first choice will always be the weak, sick, injured, young, or unaware. The last thing they want is to get injured. Getting injured is a life threatening event and can lead to death. So, if you stop them from victimizing you then, yes, you have stopped one crime. They are out hunting but they do not get “tagged out”. “Darn, Jefe, I saw a rely nice victim today but I didn’t have any tags left and I didn’t want a ticket for going over my limit.” Stop the crimes you can stop, particularly against you and yours.

    • Gunr, that is a very interesting point, and one that is no doubt true sometimes. Perhaps most of the time.

      There are also probably (yeah, I’m just guessing here) cases where he doesn’t find another suitable victim in the near future. So, you did prevent a crime.

      There also probably cases where he attacks someone and then goes on to attack someone else…two in a row. So, by stopping the attack on YOU, you prevented a crime.

      I don’t know…I’m kind of with RockOnHellChild above…none of this really matters. What matters, as others have said better than I, my goal is to commit one crime…the one crime against me.

      And, even if the crime rate were to hit zero, I’d still carry.

      • Points well taken, It may depend on how much loot and cash the perp can muster up on previous robberies that he comited earlier that evening, or recently. If he scores well, then maybe he will call it a day, or night.
        One other question, Did you mean: “prevent” one crime, instead of commit one crime?

      • “One other question, Did you mean: “prevent” one crime, instead of commit one crime?”

        Derp…YES! Meant “my goal is to PREVENT one crime.”

        LOL

  6. More legal carry would certainly reduce armed robbery (if the risk of getting shot is too high for criminals, even if it’s a bystander and not the person you are robbing). Not to mention that dead criminals don’t hurt people again. The chance of a criminal changing after jail time is pretty low.
    Gang violence though? I doubt it. More legal carry wouldn’t increase gang violence.
    Gang violence is a child of poverty in large cities, so I guess we should focus on that to reduce it.

  7. What if more people packed heat? Would there be less violent crime?

    Frankly, I don’t care about deterrence. The purpose of carrying a firearm is not deterrence, it’s defense. People who carry simply want to be able to protect themselves if something bad happens. If crime is also deterred, well, that’s a unexpected happy side effect, like when a blood pressure medicine called Rogaine suddenly grew hair. Which is only important if you’re bald.

    • Actually the Rogain thing was a problem for the Ladies who didn’t want to encourage hair growth, a better comparison would have been Viagra for all the smiles that created. I do otherwise agree with your point.

      • Check your pharmacy’s shelves and you will find women’s Rogaine, scented and unscented, foam and liquid. Women’s Rogaine has been around since 1992. About 30 million women have alopecia and a lot of them use Rogaine, a product that was an accident (like Post-It Notes).

    • Unfortunately Carry Permit != Carry. I’ve held a permit for over a year now, and only carried a few times for various reasons (mostly because it’s not permitted where I work).

      I do wonder though, what percentage of people with a permit carry regularly?

        • I would guess there are quite a few. On recent outing at an outdoor shopping area, my father-in-law and I paused by a fountain to let my toddlers play. We were there about an hour while our wives were shopping. During that time I noticed 5 guys that were printing, all carrying 4 o’clock under a t-shirt. They were not in a group, these were individuals with a female companion and/or young kids in tow. They were each wearing some sort of camo, tactical, or firearms related (logos) clothing and appeared to be aware of their surroundings. That put them in the good-guy category in my mind. I did not ask if they had a permit or not.

      • In my house it’s 50%. I carry anywhere and everywhere I can. My wife carries only occasional. She says it’s because she can’t seem to find a holster/concealment method that works well for her in most situations.

        • Ask her to check out faliaphotography channel on youtube. She has a few videos where she tests holsters in various apparel for women and explains what she likes and doesn’t like about them.

        • Faliaphotography is a great channel. There is also Limalife who talks about carrying concealed as a woman, and some of the same holster/apparel issues.

      • Judging the number of good guys with guns by the number of permits leaves you off the mark. I carried years before I even knew that permits existed. I know people that have carried for decades without a permit and the worst crime the ever committed was speeding. Don’t forget that four or five States are Constitutional carry now and VT always was. These States don’t require a permit.

      • You might consider a small NAA revolver in 22 magnum, this you can hide in you pocket and no one can see it. It wont “print” If you had to use it, it’s better to lose your job than wind up on a slab! I’ve carried one of these for years, 24/7, even when I’m packing my 9.

      • I was 2 months out of the Marines in 1983, and had a Model 29 3.5″ modified for carry packin .44 special 200 grain wadcutters, regardless of what the law was.

        Took groceries home to my mother during lunch as good sons do when asked.

        Opened door and heard 5’1″ 100lb of dynamite going off, usually reserved for me, wasnt me!

        Dropped groceries peeled around corner of living room and 6’2″ 300+ lb burglar was breaking through the sliding door on the deck.

        I said GTFO he said FU, wrong answer, squared that 29 on his face eared it back and started to squeeze. Never saw a shade of white go that white. 5.5 lb trigger, still dont know why it didnt go off. He ran, peed himself!

        Found out he had a violent felony assault record against women, only time outside military I wished I had pulled the trigger.

        I home carry ALWAYS!

        I carry outside the home ALWAYS!

        Because I did, my mother is alive for the last 31 years, end of story!

    • About 30-40 % of LEOs (at least in my office) are virtually 100% carry. The only time I don’t have a loaded gun within arm’s reach is when I’m in the shower, on a plane (few exceptions to that also), and when I’ve been drinking heavily.

      Come to think of it, I usually have a gun accessible even when I’m in the shower.

  8. I have personally not been a victim because of carrying legally. If only my girlfriend would wake up to that argument ……

  9. Guns provide a diffuse deterrent. When criminals realize that potential victims may be armed, (with no idea who is and who isn’t) they make a rational economic decision and turn to other forms of crime. This explains the large reductions in violent crimes in places where concealed carry is embraced, despite the fact that few actually carry.

    Also, in terms of home invasions, in America, criminals are much less likely to burglarize a home while people are home. This comes directly from fear of being shot. We know this from prison interviews where felons identify armed homeowners as their greatest concern when planning a burglary.

  10. Is the percentage of Americans that carry really able to be rounded to 0? That seems a bit low especially considering we have no idea how many carry with out permits. Take out everyone under age 20 and take out felons because they can’t. It seems like it should be around 5-10%.

    Yes more legally purchased guns that are properly handled equals less crime.

  11. Lott’s work has been dissected by numerous academics and no one can find fault with his methodologies or conclusions. Similarly, other academics and researchers have conducted their own studies and arrived at the same conclusions. Not only do more guns equal less crime, but concealed carry is the most effective and sometimes, the only effective, factor in driving down crime as a whole.

    That’s not to say it is a panacea, just that it’s the most effective means across the greatest assortment of scenarios, and certainly not a significant source of criminal activity itself.

      • Is this a troll?

        Exactly when and by whom have Lott’s CONCLUSIONS been discredited? Claims of his making data up are unsubstantiated conjecture. Such conjectures might hold a bit of water if data is produced that contradict his conclusions.

        To date, all major studies, even those by anti’s, have been forced to draw the same conclusions of zero or negative correlation between number of guns and violent crime rate.

        So, I’m filing your comment away as “attack the man because no factual attack on the conclusions exist.”

  12. A mix of open and concealed carriers will reduce the opportunity for criminal activity. How many people carrying would it take to have an effect? My guess is that the key parameter is population density. The higher the density the lower the percentage. When I go shopping at Target on Saturday afternoon there are probably 500 people in the store. If only 5% are carrying there are 25 armed individuals inside at any given moment. That is more than enough to deter criminal activity aimed at people.

    • Good point. Too bad gun free zones (school, workplace, etc) make the entire concept of deterring crime impossible.

  13. The possible consequences of one’s actions is something that concerns intelligent people, not street criminals. If doing 15 years in prison for carrying or getting the death penalty for murdering someone doesn’t deter them from those crimes, I doubt that a bunch of OFWGs open carrying will.

    • I think that the potential for a bullet in the face is far more persuasive than the joke that we sometimes refer to as the Criminal Justice System.

      • Maybe you’re right. I’d agree if we were talking about normal people, but street criminals aren’t known for their intelligence. I can just see the after-incident reports where the perp states that he didn’t think it was real or that the old guy knew how to use it…

        I agree with your point above that carrying isn’t primarily about deterrence anyway though.

        • “street criminals aren’t known for their intelligence.”

          They might be a whole lot smarter than you give them credit for. William Aprill has talked about this a lot…they are smart in the ways that support their own survival. You might call it “street smart.”

          And to them, survival includes not getting caught.

          Also, you might want to take a look at the information in this summary of a study done of actual convicted felons:

          http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/5de089825c00843e872579b80079912d/$FILE/SenState0305AttachB.pdf

          Some key points:

          81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.

          57% said they feared armed citizens more than the police.

          40% said they had been deterred from a particular crime because they believed that the potential victim was armed.

          That study was back in 1986 before concealed carry was as “popular” and “legal” as it is now. I submit the deterrence effect has likely increased with increased concealed carry.

  14. They only charged the guy that sucker punched a pregnant woman and knocked her unconscious with assault?

    I was expecting to read ‘Officers found Stephens three blocks away and arrested him.. then hung him from a lamp post’

  15. I’ve read John Lott’s “more guns, less crime”, and also read people who bring up good counter arguments. They point out that his data is molded to fit his personal beliefs. For example when Florida is taken out of “CHL up, crime down”, the numbers he presents become iffy. After some research though, I have concluded that more guns does not equal more crime. More law abiding citizens with firearms does probably lower crimes at some unmeasurable level. For me the issue is really these spree killers who go against defenseless people. What would happen to the frequency and death toll in these situations if someone were armed? This is where I could see lawfully owned firearms making a huge difference, and justice would be swift. No wasted tax dollars.

    So really there is absolutely no proof that more guns equals more crime. There is also that whole “keep and BEAR arms”- “shall NOT be infringed”. The constitution must be followed, and it is my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. How could anyone justify keeping me defenseless when A- Guns are always going to be accessible to criminals B- More guns does not equal more crime C- It is my right to carry a firearm.

    • bunny, Lott was attacked when he first published his findings many years ago. but all the data since supports him.

      Off course there are comparisons attacking lott with completely different demographic jurisdictions, but those with the same demographics, in the same region, the data now fully supports Lott.

      Moreover when you control for criminals killing criminals, and just look at murder of non criminals, more gus definitely means less murder of non criminals, just as homes of criminals with guns are more dangerous to their occupants — but armed homes of non criminals, without gang members domiciled in them, are MUCH safer for occupants than unarmed homes

    • Lott seems to have found, or persuaded the data to yield, an inverse correlation between more law-abiding gun owners and less crime, and hasn’t been seriously debunked. Now, correlation isn’t causation (there used to be a remarkably close correlation between the salaries of Methodist ministers in a particular US state, and the price of rum in Havana, according to Darryl Huff – whose 1952 book “How to Lie with Statistics” ought to be mandatory reading) but it’s still a very useful point.

      However, in the UK, the last round of gun banning reduced crime significantly: the numbers prove it (once you filter out the noise of airsoft, replica and imitation weapons) if you believe that correlations are indisputable. So, banning guns and expanding gun ownership both cut crime…? Data often refuses to fit preconceptions and complex issues have many causes and contributors.

      I raise this as a cheerful cynic, only because – IMHO – the most valuable point of Lott’s work is that “more guns in law-abiding hands” clearly and provably did not lead to the sort of apocalyptic mayhem usually promised by gun-control advocates. It’s still debatable how strong the “more legal guns, less crime” correlation is and whether it’s causative or not, it may not be wise to hang too much effort on “more CCWs, less recorded crime” (because then, a case of “more CCWs, crime stays same'” will be trumpeted as a failure) but where Lott’s work stands very solidly is that legally held guns don’t lead to streets foaming with blood.

      • Everything I’ve read about the U.K. indicates that they’ve had a significant increase in overall violent crime rates since the last 90’s, not a decrease.

      • Jarhead1982,

        I must apologise for presuming to know something about my country of birth and residence, compared to your obviously far greater experience of the UK and its legal system as compared to the US.

        One of the major issues that trips up comparisons is the difference in legal definitions between the countries. For instance, claiming that “sexual assaults, robbery, arson, kidnapping” are not considered as “violent crime felonies” is technically correct, because “violent crime felony” is not a UK legal definition and so not even murder counts as such.. it’s a US definition, not a UK one and amazingly, the UK doesn’t apply it. Those crimes are certainly tracked and recorded, though.

        Robbery is certainly considered a serious crime in the UK and is recorded as such: we suffer about 130 robberies per 100,000 people here. However, this compares to the radically lower rate in the US of… 110 per 100K people. Not exactly a dramatic difference.

        Assault is another definitional minefield: there are higher rates of “assault” in the UK than the US, because here “assault” is the threat or intimation of violence, for which no physical contact is required. Even pushing or shoving could flip it across to “battery”, and once you’re into significant injuries the relevant UK crime is “grievous bodily harm”.

        To take a case where it’s hard to hide the casualties – because they’re injured enough to need medical treatment – comparing UK GBH rates to the nearest US equivalent of “aggravated assault” rates, you’re *seven times* more likely to suffer an attack resulting in serious injury in the US than the UK per capita.

        And the really difficult one to sweep under the rug is where you’ve got dead bodies; the homicide rate, per capita, is four times higher in the US than the UK.

        It seems to provide comfort and reassurance to some Americans for them to insist that Britain is a violent, raging sea of vicious crime (which somehow manages not to kill, injure or inconvenience many of the inhabitants) but unfortunately, it just isn’t so. Both countries are safe, pleasant places to live with a little common sense – but the US has higher rates of some varieties of interpersonal violence.

        (http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/ is well worth a read)

        • Oh shucky darn, I already addressed that, but reading english comprehension apparently isnt your strong suit!

          Let me reword so you clearly understand.

          THE BRITISH DIDNT INCLUDE SEXUAL ASSAULT, ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING OR ARSON INTO THEIR SUMMARY DATA TOTALS FOR CALCULATING THEIR VIOLENT CRIME RATES!

          That is 21 different columns of data in the Home Office Crime Data spreadsheets, and you cant prove that wrong!

          Aggravated assault in the UK is the same as Aggravated assault in the US, DEAL WITH IT!

          Having reviewed their data rather throughly, I also removed those crimes which they classified as violent, but we do not.

          Now lets have some more fun, as since I did make all the crime data used to calculate the 1,563 per 100k VCR an apples to apples comparison, let see what exactly is reality!

          England -rates per 100k people

          1898 1.0 murder rate no gun control
          1997 1.3 murder rate, strict gun control implemented, 820 VCR
          2011 1.0 murder rate 1,5867 VCR, murders have reduced to 1993 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK, see previous links above)

          Why is it that the UK murder rate has ALWAYS been low, hmmmmm, doesnt have a single thing to do with an inanimate object!

          Lets compare England to US 2011 (rate fallen/risen since 1991)

          England 987,666 Violent Crime / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1,583.21 per 100k (78.67%)
          US 1,203, 506 Violent Crime /311,591,917 X 100,000 =383.6 per 100k (-49.04%)

          England 818,301 Assault / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1,295.15 per 100k (-36.15%)
          US 751,131 Assault /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 241.06 per 100k (-44.36%)

          England 77,684 Robbery / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 122.95 per 100k (32.9%)
          US 354,396 Robbery /311,591,917 X 100,000 =113.73 per 100k (-58.31%)

          England 54,919 Rape / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 86.92 per 100k (2.23%)
          US 83,425 Rape /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 26.77 per 100k (-36.59%)

          England 638 murder / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1.01 per 100k (-30.9%)
          US 14,612 Murder /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 4.69 per 100k (-31.1%)

          England 60 Murder w gun / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = .095 per 100k (114%)
          US 9,982 Murder w gun /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 3.17 per 100k (-52.51%)

          Now the real problem Jason has is showing how little Englands violent crime rates have fallen during their gun ban years, vs the US which has added 42% more firearms in law abiding civilians hands, but whose violent crime has fallen.

          Man how is it that England, with 1/200th of our civilian owned firearms, can’t reduce their violent crime like the US did during the same time frame, while the US added another 42% in guns in law abiding civilians hands!

          So much for less guns in law abiding civilians hands = less violence BS

          So much for more guns in law abiding civilians hands = more violence BS

        • Amazing how when one actually pulls up the UK database and their violent crime listings, we see the following.

          Does aggravated mean physical assault by hand or weapon in both countries, yeah it does!

          Does robbery involve a weapon used during the crime in both countries, yeah it does!

          Y = same as US
          N = UK doesnt count as violent crime

          Man those Brits are so enlightened, redefining sexual assault as a non violent act!

          Man those Brits are so enlightened not counting arson killings, kidnapping, robberies and some aggravated assaults as violent crimes!

          Care to go to the links provided two blog entrie ago and prove differently, have at it einstein, and do the counts, LOL.

          Homicide (includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide) Y
          Attempted murder Y
          Intentional destruction of viable unborn child
          Causing death by dangerous driving Y
          Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs Y
          Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving Y
          Inflicting grievous bodily bodily harm (GBH) without intent Y
          Use of substance or object to endanger life Y
          Possession of items to endanger life
          Inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) without intent Y
          Racially/religiously aggravated inflicting GBH without intent Y
          Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking Y
          Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person
          Causing death by driving: unlicensed drivings etc.
          Corporate manslaughter
          Actual bodily harm (ABH) and other injury Y
          Racially/religiously ABH or other injury Y
          Poisoning or female genital mutilation
          Threat or conspiracy to murder Y
          Consipracy to murder Y
          Threats to kill Y
          Endangering railway passengers
          Endangering life at sea
          Other possession of weapons
          Possession of firearms with intent
          Possession of other weapons
          Possession of article with blade or point
          Harassment/Public fear, alram or distress
          Harassment
          Public fear, alaram or distress
          Racially/religiously aggravated harassment Y
          Child abduction
          Assault without injury on a constable Y
          Assault without injury Y
          Racially/religiously aggravated assault without injury Y
          Indecent assault on a male N
          Sexual assault on a male aged 13 or over 8 N
          Sexual assault on a male child under 13 N
          Rape of a female N
          Rape of a female aged 16 and over N
          Rape of a female child under 16 N
          Rape of a female child under 13 N
          Rape of a male N
          Rape of a male aged 16 and over N
          Rape of a male child under 16 N
          Rape of a male child under 13 N
          Indecent assault on a female N
          Sexual assault on a female aged 3 or over N
          Sexual assault on a female child under 13 N
          Incest or familial sexual offences N
          Abduction of female N
          Robbery of business property N
          Robbery of personal property N
          Aggravated burglary in a dwelling N
          Aggravated burglary in a building other than a dwelling N
          Aggravated vehicle taking N
          Arson endandering life N
          Kidnapping N

          Oh and as the violent crimes in the UK are what cases were CLOSED and not what was REPORTED like in the US, the truth is the UK is way more violent than the 1,563 per 1000k they admit to!

          By the way, wasnt the US violent crime rate 383.6 in 2012, yeah isnt that near 5 times less than the UK comparing the apples to apples data, yeah it was!

        • Jarhead1982,

          Nothing wrong with my comprehension, I’m afraid, and shouting doesn’t make it any better.

          Take a stroll over to http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person and check the *actual* UK definitions.There is no crime of “aggravated assault” in the UK. The nearest would be the crime of “Racially/ Religiously Aggravated Common Assault” – but that’s a *common* assault, and is reserved for cases where “no injury or injuries which are not serious occur.”

          The US definition of “aggravated assault” at fbi.gov is “an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.” The UK equivalent is Grievous Bodily Harm, covered under sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person act.

          Now, what’s the UK rate for Grievous Bodily Harm? A bit shy of 32,000 in 2011/12 in England and Wales, or 57 per 100,000. What’s the US rate for Aggravated Assault? 241 per 100,000 according to FBI.gov.

          As to the other issues: different countries group their statistics differently. Shock, horror, amazement, Next story; Pope in horrific Catholicism allegations, and wildlife experts warn of sylvan ursine defaecation…

        • LOL, oh thats right, aggravated assault is somehow magically different in another country, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, you realize how stupid that sounds, its what you said sweety!

          Oh wait, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT IS A VIOLENT ATTACK, A VIOLENT CRIME, so uh why does the US include VIOLENT ASSAULTS as a violent crime and the UK doesnt…….come on, we recognize your rather slow on the uptake….that common denominator VIOLENT!

          Oh thats right, the violence differs based on SOCIO-ECONOMIC REASONS also, LOL!

          So tell ya what, YOU go pull up their violent crime rate the UK GOVERNMENT SHOWS, and then add up all their VIOLENT CRIMES and demonstrate to everyone why they refuse to include all those SEXUAL ASSAULTS, ROBBERIES, KIDNAPPINGS, ARSONS, AGGRAVATED car jacking and such cause when you add those in, it proves the government is lying, so do that or be stuck on stupid!

  16. The gang violence thing is chancy. People in poor areas that are likely to be affected by gang violence have to consider more than just having a gun. If they shoot a banger then what? If his team doesn’t seek revenge the local DA is likely to grind the shooter up with the system.

    Weight the system so that bangers and DA’s face severe penalties for trying to harm the honest citizen defending themselves and arming the inner cities might achieve something.

  17. Every morning a perp gets a new permit to commit a felony. I keep waiting on a new law that will revoke the perp’s permit…….

    • there is a law, it is called stop the plea bargains that give US violent criminals LOWER than average sentences for non drug crimes.

      Enforcing current law is more than enough to keep criminals of the streets, we just don’t do it.

  18. Criminals fear victims with guns far more than they fear the police. That said I don’t think that empowering citizens to defend themselves will make criminals rethink their felonious lifestyles. They’ll look for safer ways of avoiding working for minimum wage.

    I read a piece a week or two ago (might have been here) where they interviewed gang members and found that in the inner city it’s the drug dealers who kids respect because they have the guns, and if everyone had guns the drug dealers wouldn’t be seen as any more powerful than the clerk in the store. But the clerk in the store has been stripped of his rights so the kids look up to the drug dealers.

  19. I think the issue is one of migration. At some point of saturation of carry in the free States perpetrators need to think about getting out of Dodge. Why not move from VA to MD? From Philadelphia to Camden? Better yet, to Trenton! Is this what will be necessary to get the slave States to turn to Shall-Issue?

  20. The one thing that could be practically guaranteed to drop gangbanger-on-gangbanger crime to the noise level (i.e., statistically insignificant) in the inner cities would be to end Nixon’s insane unconstitutional racist War on (Some) Drugs.

  21. “What if more people packed heat? Would there be less violent crime? If that’s true, where’s the tipping point?”

    I am going with 16.7% which corresponds to one out of every six adults.

    In my opinion 10% which corresponds to one out of 10 adults isn’t enough.

    And where did I get my number you might be wondering? From the Bible where two of the 12 disciples were wearing swords while eating the Seder meal (Last Supper) with Jesus and Jesus remarked that two swords out of 12 was enough.

  22. 11 mil concealed licenses out of 224 mil age 18 or older so at worst case scenario 11 mil/224 mil = .049 = 4.9%

    LOL, that isnt zero!

    • Jarhead1982,

      Two problems:
      (1) You must be 21 to acquire a concealed handgun license in most states so most people ages 18 to 20 are not armed in public.
      (2) Many people with concealed carry licenses do not normally carry in public. My guess is that about half of all people with concealed carry licenses carry in public regularly. That means about 2.5% or 1 out of 40 adults are armed in public. And of that 2.5% of adults who are armed in public, how many are willing to intervene in a violent crime against someone else? Also, how many of those 2.5% will be content to brandish their handgun and see if it scares-off the criminal without firing any shots? (That is basically an okay outcome as far as crimianls are concerned.) Combine all of those factors and I don’t see much of a risk to criminals in general much less desperate criminals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *