“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?
I read that the defense actually put up evidence showing that the bullet ricochet.
Without the prosecution rebutting that evidence or providing evidence that Zarate had the marksmanship of RoboCop, murder charges were off the table.
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 .
“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*…
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.
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.
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).
The problem goes beyond the 2nd Amdt (incorporated for the states by the 14th Amdt). The basic problem is that in the current legal environment, states can make travel difficult for those with concealed carry permits from other states. We have national reciprocity of drivers’ licenses because having different requirements for driving through different states would adversely affect the ability by Americans to drive State to State. Goodbye driving across the country for vacations, or even the drive to work every day I did decades ago from VA through DC to MD, and back at night. My driver’s license was good in each state, as well as my title and registration (which was a problem, because VA and MD required insurance for auto registration, but DC didn’t, and I was hit twice by uninsured DC residents in VA). Why should concealed carry be any different? Why should you have to remove your handgun from its holster, and lock it in a container, just to drive through DC, a trip that used to take me maybe 15 minutes?
Picking nits about firearms with Ashley Hlebinsky is certainly one of the goofiest thing I’ve seen here on TTAG.
As a Curator at the Cody Firearms Museum, I’d wager Ashley can easily hold her own against run-of-the-mill armchair gunsters habituating this august forum.
“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.
Forget it. The Supreme Court in its latest decision went with public panic and opinion by reversing the Heller Decision and burning the rotting corpse of Sacalia. The Supreme Courts decision in regards to banning modern assault rifles set a new prescident that the States have that right and can ban and or confiscate any weapons they desire. This means the illegal banning of semi-auto rifles by the Massachusetts Attorney General without even passing a new law is now legal. It means the confiscation of all semi-auto rifles in California over the next 2 years is legal and even more insidious is the next target for destruction and rape of rights which will be all semi-auto pistols as well as they will be the next assault weapon ban to be passed in the near future and its all legal according to the Supreme Courts latest decision.
Ditto even if the National Reciprocity act would past as the first law suit that would be leveled against it would win in court from a Supreme Court that would rule to remove the new law to calm public panic over the new law. For many Republicans usurping States Rights would be a conflict of their belief in States Rights over that of the Federal Government because they believe States have the right to rape the Constitutional rights of minorities and religions other than Christianity. The latest report was that there are already Republicans lining up against this bill and it should be no surprise to the Far Right Fanatics that erroneously think the Republicans are always pro gun, look how fast they killed the lunatic silencer bill when faced with public outrage and panic over the California mass murder shootings. After all politics is politics and wipe your ass with the Constitution.
In conclusion take the Constitution and wipe your ass with it as it always has been a joke because of what the Supreme Court has ruled on in the past and I am not speaking just about Second Amendment rights either.
In a way the hill jacks are getting what they deserve because they supported the NRA from extending the Brady Bill to cover all gun purchases, were against safe storage laws, were against security alarm systems and were against mandatory mental health tests for all gun owners as well as requiring the States to turn over mental health records to the Brady Bill background check system all of which lets nut cases and criminals buy any and every gun and any amount of ammo they want any time they want it. Most civilized countries shake their heads in total disbelief but this what you get when you let a bunch of irresponsible hillbillies influence reasonable and civilized gun control measures which unfortunately have sacrificed the lives of 10,000 children each year in either being crippled for life or shot to death and this does not include the 33,000 gun deaths of adults (2015). Yes for the unwashed the body count can never be too high as it would inconvenience these people who are pro-criminal and pro-rights for nut cases.
Yes the Lunatic Far Right Fanatics will argue it was only 9,999 children shot not 10,000 and it was only 32,999 adult deaths instead of 33,000 so its nothing to be concerned about because we should not be inconvenienced to go through a back ground check or keep guns locked up in safes or have security alarm systems or flag nut cases from attempting to buy weapons of mass destruction. The Far Right Lunatics say “get used to mass shootings and our freeways turning into shooting galleries” as now its “the new norm” and the American Way of Life (drum roll and National Anthem music playing and with background video of weekend militia racists bayoneting homeless Latino children who snuck across the border.).
Do you-a-think I’m-a-sexy now? What if I-a lay in a-provacative pose…on-a my side? (Said in best cheesy Italian accent you can muster)
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!
That’s a key thing.
The “War on Drugs” has been more of a driver of violent crime than anything else.
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.
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.
The political party that rode the “states’ rights” argument down in flames into the Civil War, the political party that wanted to federalize marriage as early as 1848… these clowns now want to yap and yammer about “states’ rights?”
Bullcrap. The lost all credibility on the argument at the end of the Civil War atop a pile of over 600,000 corpses.
“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.
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.
Always wanted a short barreled Remington 1100, but,
I probably read too much W.E.B. Griffin
“i’m back in the game thanks to my new compression socks!”
Never talk to cops. It really is that simple.
Links don’t work for me just yet…
Can I please be cool now?
Intermediate and NATO length stocks can be had thru kvar. And if you ever worm.plate carriers.with plates the Warsaw pact length is the way to go for me. I always ran my issued m_4 with stock just about compacted completely so I could operate weapon efficiently. at ati, on deployment and ever since so it’s almost right for me. And if I could of taken my slr106cr in place of any m16/4 would have every day and twice on Sunday
Detonics “pocket 9”. The thing must have weighed 30 oz loaded, so the name was a joke. It was a fixed barrel, blow-back 9mm, and recoil was brutal, even with the weight. First trip to the indoor range it went full-auto, sending 2 rounds into the ceiling. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one with problems. The FFL took it back, no questions asked. The next turkey was a Taurus PT-92. The gun had a beautiful blue-black finish , nice wood grips, and cost far less than a Beretta 92. 100 rounds into my new purchase, the rear adjustable sight flew off, sending a tiny spring flying out of the top of the slide , rendering it inoperable. First and last Taurus. I still believe this company knows that 99% of their customers just want something to throw in a drawer and will never shoot them. I’ve never had a single problem with ANY Glock I’ve ever bought, new or used. 1911’s have been a mixed bag, but I stay away from the cheap imported crap.
My gut tells me if another mass shooting happens the Republicans will throw up the white flag again. The Share Act still has not come up for a vote! I wish the Republicans would stand up to these gun grabbers, but I have little faith they will. 🙁
And this pantywaist fruitloop led men, real men, into combat? It’s astounding that anyone under this guy’s leadership and planning, with his cretinous degree of familiarity with and understanding of even a less challenging piblic policy issue, managed to survive a mission.
Really, there are some strong arguments against national reciprocity. However, that the bill changes the current state to “allow untrained and potentially dangerous people to carry guns”, is not one of them. That’s not even an intelligent utterance. What a complete and utter fool.
California: The soft-target State.
How will it affect me? Well, it’ll be phony baloney reciprocity, so it would not affect me by its stated one bit. Same as the “Firearms Owner Protection Act” (FOPA) provides ZERO real world protection. Don’t believe me? Believe yourself and your own refusal to rely on that toothless misnomer of a federal law as you travel through the slaves states.
As for national reciprocity’s actual impact, that remains to be seen. It’s obvious to anyone but blinded Trumpkins that such a law will be loaded up with up front, concrete, compromises that steal your rights (just like FOPA essentially robbed you of the right to own machine guns). Those features will be rock solid and will take effect immediately.
Like what? TBD, but could easily be: Bump stocks and private gun sales? Gone! Mag limits and expanded definition of prohibited possessor to include No Fly List listees? Arrive!
The “benefits” will be infested will slippery noodle strands masquerading as compliance structures, which is to say non-existent as practical matters. You’re going to get suckered into (at least) two steps back and no more than one, but likely zero, step forward.
You heard it here first. You WILL also hear it hear again and again and again if this trash passes. I don’t care how the current bill reads. What matters is what gets signed into law.
Me and the 1 million gun owners in New Jersey would be allowed to carry a firearm legally under another states permit. This will be the first time since the 1920s and the first time in almost everyone’s life where they can carry legally and not face a felony and 10 years in jail for that act. Should the state decide not to honor the federal law one can sue the state and even the police officer that arrests you and even get paid legal fees under this bill. For the people in New Jersey, Hawaii, New York, California and a handful of other places this bill is a once in a lifetime chance for us to have our rights restored. Many don’t understand how it is to live behind enemy lines this bill gives us hope and brings freedom into our our lives.
Further proof that using birdshot for self defense is about as logical as trusting a democrat. Birdshot is for the birds.
Hmmm…I can see this is going to operate without a hitch-if slowly. Like one boo-lit a time. .Gov to the resue????
“The murder suspect, Robert Lorenzo Bailey, Jr, 28, of Cocoa, is in critical condition…”
“It’s like I tell all of my boys. Always put one in the brain!”. -Johnny Caspar
There’s your obscure movie reference for the day.
Well I dunno’ why Moore doesn’t just say “I was a democrat and a heathen then”. Mea Culpa as it were. Personally I voted for someone I had a very low opinion of-Donald Trump. It’s a lot better NOW. I will NEVER vote democrat or anti-gun in my lifetime. The biggest problem with the Moore accusations is the RIDICULOUS passing of time. Especially that beatup Gloria Alread gal. Yikes…I’m cool with the NRA.