Question of the Day: More Guns, Less Crime?

Crime scene (courtesy toptenthings.com)

“A groundswell of opinion must overcome mass hysteria that what we need are more powerful and plentiful guns. I fear for my children and grandchildren this will never happen.” And so concludes Peter Dorsen’s article Guns, guns and more guns is no solution over at swnewsmedia.com. Given the huge and ongoing gun and concealed carry “groundswell” over the last few years . . .

Mr. Dorsen children and grandchildren are gonna have to deal, at least with the “more guns” part. But does more really equally less, crime-wise?

I know John Lott’s seminal if unreadable book More Gun, Less Crime offered truckloads of data proving that an armed society is a less criminal society. And I bet there are less “hot” home invasions in Texas than there are in disarmed Connecticut (Dr. Petit’s family R.I.P.). Muggings? Not sure about that.

But how does a more-armed society reduce the most dangerous, most lethal crime in America: illegal drug-fueled, gang-related crime?

Don’t get me wrong. Our gun rights do not depend on social utility (or a lack thereof). And government tyranny is the most important crime that our gun rights protect us against.

But I’m curious. Do you think more guns equals less crime? If so, which crimes? Would more open carry have a more salutary effect on crime rates?

comments

  1. avatar Rodney says:

    Here in Baltimore it is like the wild west
    Bad guys killing and shooting each others like they are trying to end the black race.they don’t allow law abiding citizens to carry a weapon for self defense .therefore we have a society where only the criminals carry gun’s. Teenage gangs rum rampant and terrorize the white race
    Why, because they no the good guy doesn’t have a gun .we wouldn’t have that problem if law abiding citizens were allowed to carry gums legally. More guns I’m the hands of people who deserve the right to defend their self would deter the criminal .

    1. avatar Robert says:

      Chicago has very restrictive gun possession laws. Some call it a combat zone.
      Chicago year to date: Total Shot: 3368
      Shot & Killed: 586 – Races 77.6% Black, 17.3% Hispanic, 2.9% White

      $10.00 50 days Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card
      (Now you may legally touch a gun or ammo in Illinois)
      $100 – $150 Chicago Firearms Permit Class
      $100 Chicago Firearms Permit application fee
      (Photo and finger prints)
      $15/gun Chicago Firearms gun registration only 1 / 30 day period
      (permit and gun reg only in person at Chicago Police HQ)
      $300.00 Concealed Carry License
      (16 hr class, you must pay to pay fee online, only way to pay)

      $800.00 or more Hand gun, holster, ammo, range time to practice
      (no ranges in Chicago), passport photos.
      $1375.00 Total

      Conceal Carry individuals have a lower rate of criminal conviction than off duty police officers.
      After going through the process of getting legal Conceal Carry we do not want to waste the effort to be able to protect us and our family.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “Conceal Carry individuals have a lower rate of criminal conviction than [] police officers.” FIFY.

  2. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “But I’m curious. Do you think more guns equals less crime?”

    I don’t think so, the Department of Justice’s own crime data, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) says so.

    We have something like over 75 *million* more guns in the US since 1990, and death by firearm is roughly one-half what it was then.

    That isn’t opinion or conjecture, it’s cold, stark, *facts*…

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yep everybody should have a big picture in their head of the big X graph of gun counts going up and murder rate going down.

      Our side is oh-so-polite and says that the facts don’t necessarily prove causation but could you imagine what the gun-grabber left would be saying if the graph was reversed in their favor? If the muredr rates were rising with the gun count that graph would be seared into the American brain by all the Leftist media displaying it on a daily bassis.

      Our side should be saying that it IS causation and just push that graph 24-7.
      I’m done playing by the Queensbury(sp) rules while the Left runs a knife into our side.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        It’s impossible to definitely state causation/correlation. There are massive other societal factors that impact overall crime rates. Lower crime rates, higher incarceration? More CCDW, less crime? More terrorism, less crime? Or a hundred other factors.

        It is one of those, all of those, none of those, or a bit of everything? One simple fact, more guns has not equaled more gun violence. Does the US have more gun violence than any other country? Depends on whose in and out, more than any other other non third world country, but still tiny. A plurality of gun deaths aren’t murders, but suicide or other self inflicted, so if those are intentional suicide, would they have tried some other method and failed, and not tried again, or what. If you take out gang violence, etc, etc. If you take out all of any category of crime, then what do the stats actually mean.

        TL:DR
        Guns don’t cause crime, criminals may use guns, getting shot hurts. Those are definitely things. Statistics and supposition aren’t facts.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Just because “causation does not (necessarily) equal correlation” does NOT mean that sometimes the observed cause is not the reason for the correlation.

          The fact that the correlation cannot be specifically pinpointed means it must be suspect, not disregarded, pending further investigation.

          Sometimes things are, in fact, exactly what they appear to be.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Know what?
      None of this matters. At least not as far as winning across-the-board civil rights freedom in all of America is concerned. Inner city dwellers will continue to associate gun ownership with crime because:
      1. They themselves are not likely to be gun owners.
      2. The only gun owners they personally know are criminals.
      Therefore, they can see only the bad side of guns in America. It is the only side of the argument they know and is therefore undeniable.
      Fortunately, many of them are still capable of rational thought and can be taught. No, not the leaders of the Gun bigots, they are in it for the money and power… they cannot be persuaded. But the regular city dweller can be, and must be, if we are to move the needle on How Americans Feel About Guns.
      So go get to work and take a noob to the range.*
      🤠

      * if you are a competent and equipped teacher… be honest with yourself: just because YOU know how to do something does NOT mean you are a good teacher of a given subject. Know your limitations and spring for a real instructors fees if you really want to help but can’t/shouldn’t do it yourself.

      1. avatar Rodney Pope says:

        That’s funny because because when we moved here two years ago from Fort Benning after my wife retired from the army I never thought we would be referred to as city dwellers .if a liberal or democrat saw our firearm collection they would refer to it as a mass arsenal
        Come to think of it everyone we socialize with has a gun to cover any type of hunting or target shooting .my wife was a licensed fire arm instructor before joining the military. Now back to the inner city ,I live in one of the safest part of the city statically and someone was still robbed and shot two blocks away. That person died . now this is just my opinion buy I don’t think he would have been a victim if the bad guy didn’t know whether he was armed or not.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        This “1. They themselves are not likely to be gun owners” and therefore this “2. The only gun owners they personally know are criminals” are starting to change. We can thank people like Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I thought we already concluded that the best that can be made of expanded gun ownership was a correlation between guns and crime. That there is no definitive proof that more guns are the cause of lower crime rates over the last thirty years.

    Maybe the proper question is, “Do more guns in the proper hands result in lower crimes; if so, which?” Even that proposition may be immune to direct cause-and effect-analysis.

    It may well be that until 75% or more of the population eligible to legally own guns are actually gun owners (and carriers), we cannot “see” the deterrent effect. This condition of near parity between gun owners and non-gun owners seems very unlikely to produce definitive information.

    FWIW, I would stipulate that for every criminal killed in a defensive gun use, there is a direct effect on the number of criminals walking the street (at least for a moment).

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      “That there is no definitive proof that more guns are the cause of lower crime rates over the last thirty years.”

      F’ that. Show that X graph of guns count going up and murder rate going down and just run with it. 90% of the general public would look at that and say “Yep…More guns…less crime”

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      There is no definitive proof of virtually everything. For example, prove to me that someone other than me exists. You can’t prove to me that I’m not delusional, and that all of reality isn’t some fever dream of mine.

      Even if we agree on the existence and scientific nature of our reality, I don’t know of anything that can be definitively proven in social sciences such as economics and criminology.

      That there is no definitive proof is no reason not to reach conclusions and argue that those conclusions are true. Based on observation, hypothesis, and testing of the hypothesis, I have concluded that gun control, in general, increases violent crime, and access to guns, especially among the poor and vulnerable, decreases violent crime.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Then the concept of “cause and effect” is null.

        I can prove other people because there are at least two in line at McDonalds almost every morning. You can see those two, I can see those two. We can both identify the same color shoes those in line are wearing.

        Once you go to “correlation” for justification or proof, then the price of tea in China becomes a real concern.

      2. avatar RealProfessorManque says:

        I have definitive proof that you are not a lawyer and you continually supply the indisputable evidence, namely your inability to think logically.

        Remember, you repeatedly insisted that someone being in possession of an item gives us evidence of how they acquired it, and even after I explained that this of course is manifestly illogical you continued to persist, so you are both illogical and dumb.

        With the limitations youve documented it is inconceivable you could have made anything beyond the minimum on the LSAT, in fact you would have scored so poorly as to skew the distribution : D

        So please TX_Maintenance_Man stop embarrassing yourself : )

      3. avatar YallCantThinkInAnyMeaningfulWay says:

        And here TX_Sanitation_Engineer where you first advocate drawing conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and then talk about your prejudice as if it is fact discerned by scientific experiment:

        “That there is no definitive proof is no reason not to reach conclusions and argue that those conclusions are true. Based on observation, hypothesis, and testing of the hypothesis, I have concluded that gun control, in general, increases violent crime, and access to guns, especially among the poor and vulnerable, decreases violent crime.”

        Thanks for the laughs TX_Telefundraiser : D

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          You’re a moron who doesn’t understand logic, epistemology, or that with the exception of mathematics, humans only ever use inductive reasoning.

          And I did skew the LSAT results for my school. Just not in the direction you’re thinking.

  4. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Question of the Day: More Guns, Less Crime?”

    This question has been asked exponentially more times than any other question about guns, and I guess the answers is, depends on where you are…

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yup.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Screw that question.

      Call it a fact and get busy propgating that fact.

      Make the enemy try to disprove it.

      If we cant prove it then they won’t be able to disprove it.

      Just go and push that wonderful X graph.

  5. avatar Katt says:

    The mass hysteria is entirely on the gun-control side.

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Question of the Day: More Guns, Less Crime?”

    Question of the Day: Can you be compelled to give a F V < |< ?

    WHO GIVES A FLYING F ABOUT LESS CRIME WHEN IT COMES TO PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

    WHO GIVES AN F IF THEY COULD PROMISE

    NO

    CRIME

    ?

    F ALL OF THEM IN THEIR STRAW MAN ASSES.

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      Fuck

      That is all

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    More LEGAL gun toting-less crime. I have noticed the local Chicago news is “almost” cheering when an armed citizen,store owner or off-duty cop(today) uses his gat on a miscreant. While murder is down a mite assault,rape,carjacking and burglaries are WAY up…making sense in their normally leftard orientation.

  8. avatar Rabbi says:

    To Mr. Dorsen,

    As long as cities such as Ferguson, Baltimore, LA are allowed to be burned we will have more guns.

    As long a juries find murderous criminals not guilty we will have more guns.

    As long as Domestic terrorist groups such as BLM are allowed to riot we will have more guns.

    As long as prisons let violent criminals out early we will have more guns.

    As long as violent illegal aliens are allowed to remain we will have more guns.

    As long as Demoncrats are allowed to riot violently we will have more guns.

    As long as Demoncrats commit mass shootings we will have more guns.

    As long as people who are too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun but are allowed to roam the streets freely we will have more guns.

    It’s the only logical conclusion.

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      The stupid is strong with this one

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      You understand that crime rates are significantly lower today than any time in modern history. So all of your “sayings” would appear to support the exact opposite of what you think you mean.

      So, more guns, less crime. That’s just a true thing, all of your other personal anecdotes and belief are at best silly. Just because you hold an opinion, doesn’t make it a fact. It’s tiring that the 2A community has so many snowflakes.

      You know what the predominant determination of mass shooters are, men, mostly white men, nothing else is correlated

      1. avatar THE Bear says:

        B-RAD….you are almost correct. The other statistical component of your half assed statement is that all mass shooters are demoncrats or their spawn and they were all on psychotropic drugs prescribed by unthinking so called psychologists. Your deliberate failure to state that makes you at best a troll and at worst a liar.

  9. avatar dph says:

    Maybe I’m ignorant or just apathetic, but I don’t know and I don’t care. All I know is don’t mess with me and mine and everything will be peachy.

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      Yep

  10. avatar David says:

    There’s also a graph showing declining gun ownership in the UK and increasing violent crime. Seems like there’s a connection to crime rates and gun ownership! And violent crime and the illegal drug trade. Repeal the Amendment to the Constitution making drugs illegal! And concealed carry for all! Wait, there’s no Amendment making drugs illegal? They had to do it for alcohol, didn’t they? What’s up with that? Oh, and control the border!

    1. avatar Rick says:

      That’s a key thing.

      The “War on Drugs” has been more of a driver of violent crime than anything else.

      1. avatar Snatchums says:

        Not according to
        Every
        Single
        Fucking
        Person
        That
        Doesn’t
        Like
        Drugs

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          That’s a great…comment…statement…something, I guess. No meaning, no complete sentences, but certainly words.

        2. avatar John says:

          I dont do recreational drugs. Grew up in the 60s when it was a thing, too. I personally dont care if somebody else does want to recreate in that way, either. I think the war on drugs is unconstitutional, aside from the whole the cure is worse than the disease thing.

          I dont belivevthe govenment has the obligation ( or aptitude) to protect people from their bad decisions.

        3. avatar Scoutino says:

          False. I don’t do drugs, I don’t like drugs. Still I think that War On (some) Drugs fuels the vilence. It is also unconstitutional, morally wrong, misguided and serves to take rights from us and give more and more power to the State.

  11. avatar Anonymous says:

    I don’t necessary believe that more guns “cause” less crime. But I certainly believe that less guns does not equal less crime. I believe this has to do more with culture than with firearms availability.

  12. If you ask me whether or not more guns mean less crime, I’ll jump at the opportunity to tell you:

    “I do not care. And, what’s more, I don’t really care if my possessing a gun makes sure you make it home alive or not.”

    JOB 1: Protect ME.

    The better question, and the one I ask myself, as I’m holstering my gun, every day, is:

    “Are my chances of surviving a life or death encounter enhanced by 1) my possessing a gun at the time of the encounter, and 2) my ability to use the gun, under the stress of the situation, in an efficient manner?”

    To that question, my response is an emphatic:

    “YES!”

    Ask the right question.

  13. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    The “more guns equals less crime“ argument is probably true but it is irrelevant. The social utility of the right to bear arms, whatever it may be, is not a good argument in favor of the right or of any other. The reason why such arguments are misplaced is because in order for the people to have a right, the government must yield power.

    For example, what is the social utility of a free press? Well, from the government’s point of view, not much. To the government, a free press is basically a pain in the butt! The right of the people to organize militias and maintain weapons of war may have some benefit to the government in an extreme case but on balance it is a risk to their ability to maintain power.

    A right is not something that you are arguing for to gain favor from the government. Instead, it is something you are willing to protect from infringement by the government because of its benefit to you as an individual regardless of the costs it may impose on the government.

  14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “But how does a more-armed society reduce the most dangerous, most lethal crime in America: illegal drug-fueled, gang-related crime?”

    I do not believe that a prolifically armed society will greatly diminish narcotic/gang crime for two reasons:
    (1) Upstanding, armed members of society go to great lengths to stay away from the regions where narcotic/gang crime is concentrated. Those upstanding armed members of society cannot reduce narcotic/gang crime if those upstanding people never interact with said criminals.
    (2) Narcotic/gang criminals almost universally are armed and immediately go to deadly force in any confrontation. Thus, there will be no significant deterrent effect even if upstanding armed people intermingled with narcotic/gang criminals.

  15. avatar LarryinTX says:

    In 1972 I only had one gun, and had a theft from my house while I was in it. Since then I have accumulated a few dozen more guns, and have not been robbed again. So yes, absolutely, clearly, beyond any doubt, more guns = less crime.
    That is about as sensible as any of the crap I hear from grabbers.

  16. avatar justsomeguy says:

    While the original question may have been lost in the usual internet comments above, the answer is “Yes, more guns do mean less crime”. The reason is simple.

    Show me the benevolent dictator. Can you find one? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A gun is power. Concentrating it in the hands of a few will inevitably lead to abuses, perhaps well-intended, probably not. By distributing guns/power, even if not perfectly evenly, you will reduce the opportunity for abuse.

    Even if I am as big as strong as an NFL lineman–I cannot stop a big enough gang of youths should they decide to attack me in that proverbial dark alley. However, with a gun, I could hide behind a dumpster and keep 100 of them at bay while I call the police. And I don’t need to be an NFL lineman to do that.

    Once upon a time people were told (forced to believe) that some were special. Gods, kings–of royal blood. Better than the rest. This undoubted came about because they were the most powerful–the biggest and strongest. In many kingdoms, as in nature, the males will battle for power and control, and the biggest gets the control. This system did work, but by anyone’s definition, certainly today’s, it is “unfair”. Guns are/were the mechanism that got us away from that cycle. With guns in the hands of peasants, kings have great difficulty controlling their “royal subjects”. And abusing them. Those who favor gun control are the group who think they are kings and/or the peasants are too stupid to be trusted with power… Needless to say, I don’t feel that way.

  17. avatar CZJay says:

    I know if a victim puts a bullet in the head of a criminal it will decreases crime as it decrease the number of criminals that will commit crimes. It won’t get rid of crime due to the fact that crime can’t be killed and there will always be someone willing to behave wrongly.

    When the populace is able to defend themselves with deadly force and that ability is hidden, the amount of stress the would be criminal is going to be under might dissuade him from living such a life.

    It comes down to risk reward. If the risk to commit a crime is death and the reward is tiny, the would be criminal will likely not risk it, they will look for a more rewarding target if they are willing to put their life at risk.

    Even if it doesn’t reduce the amount of crime, the fact that innocent victims will have the chance of protecting their life, their family, their friends, the citizenry. etc, is a good enough reason to keep and bear arms. We shouldn’t want humans to become prey. We should give people the skills and tools to thrive.

  18. avatar Casey says:

    I know for a fact more guns cause less crime, because if I had not been carrying my gun when the upstanding christian gentlemen tried to correct my sexual orientation with a baseball bat, there would have been at least one more crime of assault on the books.

    If it stops only one crime, right?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “If it stops only one crime, right?”

      In your case, damn straight.

      Er, make that “You bet!” 🙂

      (That was an attempt at humor. Glad the negative encounter worked out in your favor…)

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    More guns in our hands = more dead BGs = less crime.

    The goblins cannot commit crimes if they are dead. Of course, there is one political party that wants, needs and depends on more crimes and more criminals. So maybe the real answer is less Democrats = less crime.

    1. avatar RMS1911 says:

      Prisons are filled with democrats.
      All the big dangerous cities are democrat run and have been for a long time.
      I see causality and correlation.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    As long as there are more guns in my house there will be fewer criminals succeeding.

  21. avatar ironicatbest says:

    . Crime rates are coexistent with poverty. I might get shot, is not a factor, oh fuck I’m shot is.

  22. avatar A O says:

    Where did you get that crappy photoshopped image?

  23. avatar Chris Morton says:

    I don’t hang out with drug users and other criminals.

    That being the case, any violent encounter I have is going to involve robbery or terrorism. There’s simply no such situation in which being a helpless, disarmed victim is going to benefit me in ANY way.

  24. avatar JohnS says:

    Unreadable?

    Bah!

    I have purchased and read every edition, including the seminal 1997 Lott/Mustard paper in the Journal of Legal studies and my autographed 3rd edition of More Guns, Less Crime.

  25. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    TTAG’s readers might be interested in a little background information about the columnist, Peter Dorsen.
    Here are some quotes from the Amazon page for his latest book:

    “Up from the Ashes: One Doc’s Struggle with Drugs and Mental Illness” Kindle Edition
    by Peter J. Dorsen
    “What makes this book special is that Dr. Dorsen is a physician whose illness was so severe he lost his license to practice.”

    Biography
    “Dr. Peter Dorsen, aka Dr. D, is a retired internist, now a licensed alcohol and drug counselor specializing in individual chemical health counseling. His latest ebook, “Up from the Ashes: One Doc’s Struggle with Drugs and Mental Illness,” is about his struggle with bipolar illness and recovery from alcohol and drug addiction.”
    https://smile.amazon.com/Up-Ashes-Struggle-Mental-Illness-ebook/dp/B071WDDRX3/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512304698&sr=1-1&keywords=Up+from+the+Ashes+-+dorsen

    From the editorial:
    “Peter Dorsen, a columnist and author of “Dr. D’s Handbook for Men Over 40: A Guide to Health, Fitness, Living, and Loving in the Prime of Life,” is the author of “Up from the Ashes” and “Men Over 60: Don’t Quit Now!” ”
    http://www.swnewsmedia.com/eden_prairie_news/news/opinion/columnists/guns-guns-and-more-guns-is-no-solution/article_3bd09727-19ee-5924-a69d-3a8198552bd8.html

    (Whether he would be a ‘prohibited person’ to even own a firearm, I don’t know.)

  26. avatar Nunya says:

    That is the wrong question to ask when it comes to civil rights, the correct question would be “More guns, more crime”? If the answer is not a definitive unquestionable yes then the answer cannot be more gun control. Unless the government can prove that the exercise of a civil right is a clear and present danger to the country as a whole then they should not have the power to limit or restrict that right.

  27. avatar Kap says:

    the only reason that we have gun control can be placed directly on the Democrat Party and Control freaks like boss Tweed in NY with the Sullivan act which disarmed the population so it could be intimidated by Tweed,s party of corrupt politicians! Chicago was a Bastion of the corrupt Democrat Party in the Capone Era! Fast forward too today we have perverts and Corrupt Bureaucrats like Lois Learner, Eric Holder, and corrupt politicians like Hillery and Bill, even O’Bama manufactured rules that were anti – American which is the home of the do nothing Democrat party; all they try to do is cripple the Constitution at the Super rich’s beck and call.
    Remember it was the Democrats that got us Vietnam, then invited all the world too come live here and subsidize them at the expense of the American People, these Asshole’s have provided immunity from prosecution of Illegals plus they subsidize Illegals longer and better than American War Veterans

  28. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “But does more really equally less, crime-wise?” – Yes.

    “Muggings?” – If you read the book, you would know the answer is yes.

    “But how does a more-armed society reduce the most dangerous, most lethal crime in America: illegal drug-fueled, gang-related crime?” – By killing the criminals. Admittedly, it won’t do so faster than the replacement. Also by possibly giving the victims the courage to work with police.

    “Do you think more guns equals less crime?” – Yes.

    “If so, which crimes?” – The one’s in which the criminals are likely to confront the victim.

    “Would more open carry have a more salutary effect on crime rates?” – Not as much as concealed carry would. Concealed carry causes criminals to second guess as to whether or not their victims are armed. Another thing clearly explained in Lott’s book.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Concealed carry causes criminals to second guess as to whether or not their victims are armed.”

      As simply a person with life experience, I think Lott is wrong, here. The only way concealed carry would have a noticeable effect is if concealed carry was known (by criminals/gangs) to be so wide-spread that the likelihood of attacking a non-carrier is so small that the risk/reward equation serves to recommend to an attacker the idea that being somewhere else is more profitable. We are never going to reach such a saturation point. Consider: shootings in the inner cities and gang territories are not declining, yet every gang member or criminal in those locations knows their rivals are packing. What has been the deterrent factor in those places?

      Look around, the best claims are 15 million concealed carry permits extant. That does not mean 15 million constant carriers, and 15 million against 340 million is not enough of a risk to deter much crime. If it were not so, we would not be reading daily of yet another armed attack against a person or business. Given that the 15 million count has only been reached recently, it is impossible to declare that the presence of “more guns” since 1993 really had much of an effect in lowering crime, in and of itself.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I’ll trust empirical studies over your life experience.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The evidence does not support Lott’s conclusion. If he is correct that a small fraction of the populace may or may not be armed, and that provided meaningful deterrence (really makes the bad guys think twice about using a gun in a crime), would we be seeing unending reports of home invasions, store hold ups, street crime, Walmart “shootings”? The gang wars tell us that even a significant number of potential targets who ARE actually armed does not deter shootings.

          Even if a fractional constituency could dramatically deter criminal attacks, the potential attackers/criminals would need to be fully and forcefully aware of the risk. Lott does not factor the need for “educating” the criminal element of the danger they face because someone may be armed, and fight back.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          A statistically significant deterrence need not be dramatic. Lott showed that the number of licenses correlated inversely with violent crimes and positively with property crimes in which victims were not present for a net societal gain.

          Just because a measure successfully limits some crime does not mean it will eliminate all crime or even be dramatic.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If deterrence is not evidenced dramatically, what is the value? “The Cold War” is a perfect example. It was not enough for the Sovs to know the US had lots of powerful weapons, the Sovs were convinced we would use them. In fact, feared greatly that we would use them first, if possible, because that is what they would do if they believed they could survive victoriously. The nuclear capability and will was not something restricted to society pages of the newspapers. The “deterrent” threat was well and often publicized. Mass murderers and gangers are not convinced that all the guns in the hands of the public pose a real threat. We seem to have reached “stasis” regarding rates of crime since 1993, despite the publicized growing numbers of guns legally sold each year.

          At the bottom, the system of authorities in the US actively resist the idea of wide spread self-protection (guns in the hands of the public). Rather than a constant drumbeat of how dangerous it is for criminals because of the well-armed public, all those who should be welcoming reduction in crime because of private gun ownership are devoutly opposed to same….and the fact IS well publicized. Why would it be a mystery that criminals, knowing that the laws inhibit self-protection in almost all places, are not deterred by the possibility they will end up room temperature?

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “If deterrence is not evidenced dramatically, what is the value?” The experienced actual reduction in murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, and kidnappings. If on the net it saves one child, doesn’t cost the tax payer anything, and increases freedom, isn’t it worth it?

          Some authorities do trumpet armed self defense. See Texas after Harvey and the lack of reports of widespread looting. (There actually was a lot of looting, but nothing at all like there is when the authorities are actively discouraging armed self defense).

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The experienced actual reduction in murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, and kidnappings.”

          Correlation v. Causation, again. We cannot use “correlation” as “proof”, and deny the same to the opposition (which revels is the most frivolous of “correlation”). It remains a matter of ’tis so/’tis not.

          (One of my favorite correlations: “Have you noticed that the days are shorter since XYZ was elected?”)

        6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          We can use statistics and logic to conclude causality. From statswithcats:

          1. Strength: A relationship is more likely to be causal if the correlation coefficient is large and statistically significant.
          2. Consistency: A relationship is more likely to be causal if it can be replicated.
          3. Specificity: A relationship is more likely to be causal if there is no other likely explanation.
          4. Temporality: A relationship is more likely to be causal if the effect always occurs after the cause.
          5. Gradient: A relationship is more likely to be causal if a greater exposure to the suspected cause leads to a greater effect.
          6. Plausibility: A relationship is more likely to be causal if there is a plausible mechanism between the cause and the effect.
          7. Coherence: A relationship is more likely to be causal if it is compatible with related facts and theories.
          8. Experiment: A relationship is more likely to be causal if it can be verified experimentally.
          9. Analogy: A relationship is more likely to be causal if there are proven relationships between similar causes and effects.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A specific event (or series of events) can only be considered “causal” if no other elements are present. Else, the specific event (or series of events) can only be characterized as “potentially contributory”. To date, no one has been able to isolate increased gun sales, gun ownership, rising numbers of CCW hoLders as the definitive cause of the reduction in overall crime (or specific crime), the numbers of which seem to be rising a bit. The best we can claim is that maybe increased gun sales/ownership had something to do with the observed decline.

          Also note that as the number of gun sales increased, the number of mass murders increased. Looking at statistics going back to 1935, we do not see a reduction in mass murders, we see an increase. Can we conclude that expanded gun ownership is the sole cause of increased mass murders? Or even a contributing factor?

          If I am to use “facts”, “reason”, and “logic”, I prefer to avoid comparing equally invalid propositions (“correlation”). Rather, it is possible to ignore, but impossible to dispute that DGUs save lives that otherwise would have been sacrificed on the alter of “common sense gun control”. The anti-gun gang will not admit legal gun owners save lives, but they can be forced to argue that saved lives don’t matter.

        8. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “A specific event (or series of events) can only be considered “causal” if no other elements are present.” You believe we must have perfect laboratory conditions to test a hypothesis in order to reach a conclusion. I don’t.

          “To date, no one has been able to isolate increased gun sales, gun ownership, rising numbers of CCW hoLders as the definitive cause of the reduction in overall crime (or specific crime), the numbers of which seem to be rising a bit.” There is virtually nothing in life that is definitively proven. Definitive is almost never the standard by which we operate. That isn’t even the standard used in criminal trials. It’s not the standard used in civil trials. Statistical scientific studies and methods based on them are admissible in court.

          And it isn’t the standard we use in our day to day activities. “It’s time to shit or get off the pot.” “In every project there comes a time to shoot the engineers and start production.” “Perfect is the enemy of good.”

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It will not surprise you to learn that I do not get selected to sit on juries because on the pre-selection form, or voir dire, I note that I require direct evidence to arrive at a “guilty” verdict. It is not a dodge, just fact.

          Long ago, I did sit on one jury, county trial. We also had a retired city judge chosen. In the deliberation room, we picked the judge as foreman; he declined. The jury voted for a woman next. She looked at the judge and asked, “Judge, what do you think?”. Judge replied, “Guilty”. The newly-elected foreperson then asked, (of the jury panel), “Any questions?”. There were none. Verdict returned in 12 minutes. That scarred me. As did losing my job because I had to sit in a federal jury pool (not selected as juror) for eleven days. Boss said they managed well enough without me. Got two weeks severance.

        10. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Answering questions is the best way to get out of jury duty.

        11. avatar YallCantThinkInAnyMeaningfulWay says:

          Where did you cite and link “empirical studies” to document your claim that increasing the percentage of folks with guns decreases the amount of crime?

          No posts that I see, sounds like youre simply making up stories…

          Do post those imaginary studies us wont you : D TX_Used_Car_Salesman

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email