Slashdot Mirror
An Unbiased Analysis of Gun Crime vs. Gun Control?
"Just so everyone knows where I stand, and why I am asking this, I offer the following. I enjoy guns and regularly compete in shooting matches and hunt occasionally. I am a member of the NRA, not for political reasons, but due to the fact that most competitions are closed to non-members (which I do think is screwed up). Having said this I am undecided on what a logical path for the future is. I do believe that an unarmed nation is a bad idea, but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has. All of the statistics that I have seen about countries that have altogether outlawed guns have been manipulated by those extreme groups. As such I find it hard to believe anything that either side presents.
Thanks, I look forward to reading all of your comments and the references that you provide."
The problem with finding "unbiased" data is rarely does anyone with an opinion either way just decide to do a study. Think of trying to find "unbiased" studies on Linux vs. Microsoft stuff. Everyone has an agenda.
h tm l
I, for one, and a huge fan of the U.S. Constitution. And that means I think the government shouldn't be able to stop me from speaking, stop me from gathering in a peaceful manner, stop me from going to church, or stop me from owning a gun for my own self-protection. I carry a gun every day, in fact. It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety, not the police deparment who will show up 20 minutes late to clean up the mess. I take that responsibility seriously, and in this "land of the free", nobody should be able to take that right of self-protection away. The founding fathers saw those as "God-given" (sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal).
If you want some good stuff to research, try these links:
http://www.guncite.com/
http://secondamendmentstuff.com/
http://stealthboy.dyndns.org/~msherman/cowards.
--- witty signature
Rates of violent crimes in the United Kingdom have been steadily rising for years, while rates in the United States have been steadily falling. There is a considerable argument to be made that gun control is to blame for an increase in violence in Britain.
The logic is simple: criminals will always find ways to get guns, whether legally or not. If the average civilian cannot own a gun for self-defense, the chances that a criminal will use a gun against a civilian become much higher.
Reason did a very good article on this a little while ago: Gun Control's Twisted Outcome.
Or more specifically:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.ht ml
Or something short like: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
Or this has both sides of the issue laid out a bit http://www.ncpa.org:80/bothside/crime.html
MARK DUGGAN
University of Chicago - Department of Economics
October 2000
Abstract:
This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.
That being said, it is still difficult to explain the two orders of magnitude difference in homicide rate. Another interesting statistic is that in Canada's largest city, Toronto, it is estimated that 3 out of 4 hand guns involved in a crime are imported illegally from the US.
Draw your own conclusions.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226 493644/qid=1039469029/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-891185 5-5319946?v=glance&s=books
More Guns, Less Crime is a book by a liberal that takes unbiased FBI numbers regarding what happened when concealed carry laws were passed, and other very controversial subjects..
and he found that the more law-abiding people that had guns there were, the lower the crime rate because of the fear factor.... that is, the criminals were fearful of the well armed citizens that were ready to defend themselves.
its not politics, its logic.
If it were legal to carry a gun here in LA, maybe that guy wouldn't have tried to carjack me in the Tace Bell drive-thru. He saw a small, white guy in an expensive sports car. I was an obvious and easy target.
I got away - thankfully - by hitting him with my car.
but fsck that. I just carry a small auto now. I'm not going to hope to get lucky next time.
bad guys.. there are a LOT of us nerds carrying now.. and we're growing in numbers. Just so you know.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Book was written by John Lott, a liberal Harvard professor who was "trying" to prove the gun grabbers point, fortunately for America, when he found out the opposite, he was a man of honor and did not skew the numbers like Jonh Bellasie.
More guns equals less crime. It is a fact.
Report that elderly people are 50% more likely to commit suicide when they own a gun. - this one from a suicide-prevention research project at a university. Not involved in the gun / anti gun debate.
.
Report showing a positive correlation between handgun ownership and prevalence of suicide, homicide, and injuries / deaths of children. This one by Harvard School of Public Health, Injury Control Research Center
The list goes on... but the data is pretty clear:
1.You are more likely to die in an auto accident, statistically, if you have a little red Italian sports car parked in your garage.
2. You are more likely to die earlier, statistically, if you chain-smoke cigarettes.
3. You are more likely to die, kill someone else, or kill yourself, statistically, if you own a gun;
and most importantly,
4. I am probably subsidizing all that risky gun-owning, sports-car driving, chain smoking activity through higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, etc., to the tune of 35% of my gross income. And I'm not very happy about it.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Try again, troll.
One note about this book and its author, John Lott:
Before he commenced his study, he was "anti-gun." His hypothesis was that more guns would lead to more crime, and he believed that his research would debunk the notion that concealed carry deters crime.
He was dismayed by the lack of objective studies and decided to do his own study.
The conclusion he reached was that a community in which the citizens are/may be armed deters crime. In addition, states with concealed carry laws had a significant reduction in violent crime following the enactment of the laws.
This conclusion surprised Lott and resulted in him re-evaluating his own opinions. He became an active proponent of gun ownership/concealed carry rights: a 180 from his position prior to the study.
As others in this thread have mentoned (but are only scored at 1 as I write this), John Lott was trying to prove the opposite of his book title. Turns out the evidence proved to him that a "more armed" community will have less gun violence (and other violent crimes) than "less armed" communities. He published his findings honestly.
Please, mod these other folks up in this thread, they were here first but somehow were not posted with a +2 like this post.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Actually, Congress has cleared that up, and one needs to look at what the Framers thought about Militias.
1 78 9.htm9 2.htmy /debate .html
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_17
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/GGGH/histor
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."
10USC Sec 311
EXPCITE TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
HEAD Sec. 311. Militia: composition and class
STATUTE (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Bowling for Columbine is an interesting movie, but keep in mind that Michael Moore tends to be very loose with his facts. At one point, he repeats a "fact" that someone mentioned that Canada has 10 million households and 7 million guns and he incorrectly concludes that 70% of Canadians have a gun.
In fact, gun ownership (particularly handgun ownership) is much lower in Canada. Only 22% of Canadian households have a gun, as opposed to 49% of American households. But most of the Canadian guns are hunting rifles and such. When you look specifically at handguns, only 2% of Canadian households have a handgun, as opposed to 25% of Americans. These are 1996 figures. It's ironic that Moore would get these facts wrong, since they would tend to support his belief that guns cause violence.
-a
Ha liberal, right. More libertarian than liberal, but general labels necessarity distort the particulars. He's currently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, accoring to their webpage. Plus he got his degree at UCLA, a fairly conservative economics program. He did a stint as an Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago. I don't see where on earth you get the idea he's a liberal. His other earlier (non-concealed carry) papers aren't liberal.
Also his vita at AEI does not refer to him being at Harvard. Just Chicago and Yale most recently. UCLA, Rice, and Texas A&M previously.
Having stated all this, I do not mean to imply he did "skew the numbers" to favor concealed-carry laws. I just don't believe his conclusions are out of line with what you might expect them to be based on his background.
The second one I read (but not completely, due to lack of time) is Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Kates and Kleck. Kates strikes me as somewhat biased against control, but at least he backs it up with facts (though I haven't checked them yet). Kleck is much more balanced.
Kleck's Point Blank and Targeting Guns have been cited as the definitive scholarly works on the subject. Haven't read either one myself.
Wright and Rossi's Under the Gun is also said to be very good.
There was an article on K5 about this a few months ago. Can't find it right now, their server is having trouble. K5 would probably be a better place to ask this question.
HTH.
The Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks gun deaths as an epidemic. As such, they have correlation data for various aspects of gun deaths in America. They can for example, show you the correlation between guns in a home and suicide or homicide. They even do some study of gun death and injury among 26 industrialized nations.
h tm
You can see the CDC data on the subject at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fafacts.
From all my research, gun ownership correlates very well with gun death and injury in America. This doesn't seem to be true in all countries.
is just as important as the phrase
I and many others believe that some measures are quite reasonable in supporting a "well regulated" (i.e., well-disciplined*) militia:
In spite of what the NRA says, these measures would be upholding the Constitution, as it is actually written. I don't expect you to believe this, since closed-mindedness on this subject is rampant, but please at least recognize that reasonable people believe differently than you, and that your views are not necessarily as "moderate" as you think.
---
*see the Oxford English Dictionary for contemporary citation of "well-regulated"
In general for research it is better to find biased sources that clearly state their arguments and methods, than to look for "unbiased" ones to follow. Read up from allot of different sources, especially academic ones (www.jstor.org is a great place to find journals, but you may have to get onto a college campus to access it) and thumb through their footnotes. Where are they getting their information? How are they using the data? How good it their argument? Then make your own mind up based on all these biased sources.
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
A man driving 10mph under the speed limit because of bad, winter conditions loses it on a patch of black ice and hits a kid, killing them.
A man gets drunk at a bar and drives home, speeding and recklessly driving, and he hits and kills a kid.
What's the difference? Both were killed by cars?
The difference is that in one instance, you have a child playing with something they may not understand, accidentally discharging a gun. It should have been locked up in the first place, but that's another issue.
In the other instance, you have a "kid" who knowingly break the law and threatens another persons life with a weapon while attempting to rob them. The store clerk, acting in self-defense, shoots the armed robber.
You're blind if you can't see the difference.
although it is from 1988 this is still the best paper I've ever read on the subject. He covers all of the pertinent points and more importantly he lists his refereces.
Look at the NRA. Do you think everyone in the NRA went to the library, carefully and thoughtfully evaluated the statistics, then reluctantly decided to support gun ownership because the facts supported it? No!
Well, yes, this _has_ happened - to a liberal Florida State University professor named Gary Kleck, who was hired by a liberal anti-gun organization to dig up stats to prove that guns do more harm than good. The numbers he wound up with put the number of times guns are used (annually) to _prevent_ crimes at somewhere between 2 and 4 million (an admittedly _VERY_ fuzzy number, but undisputably huge), compared to about 10-15,000 criminal shootings (no cops, not self-defense, no suicides, just criminal gun use). Usually, crimes are deterred by the mere display of a firearm, no shots are fired, and the gun owner is hesitant to report the incident since his behavior (drawing a perhaps illegally carried gun on someone) borders on criminal aggravated assault in many areas.
The organization who hired him promptly buried his raw data (which they paid for and own) so deep it'll never be found.
Gary nonetheless wrote a book from the results, entitled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America"(unsurprisingly out of print) which many in the NRA read, nodded their heads, and agreed with. Their agreement in no way invalidates any of his information.
Yeah, he's only one guy, but his credentials can't be impeached, and if he can be accused of bias it's clearly in the _other_ direction.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Answer: It's false. You're more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK today than in the US. That wasn't the case 20 years ago, but it is now. "Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States." Check it out.
I play Nerd-Folk!
You think this justifies you carrying a gun.
Yes
You having a gun would have helped if you were in one of those cars how?
If I were in one of those cars- probably not- we would have been heading to the hospital as rapidly as possible. If I had been in one of the many, many cars there at the time. That would have been a different story. I would have stopped and killed him. Maybe save a life or 2 while I'm at it. That's what I mean by an individual's responsibility towards the whole. If 10 more people like me had been there- even if all 3 hit had been packing, that leaves 7 to take care of business.
Do you play the lottery?
No - it is taxation of the poor.
Do you have any idea how small the odds are that someone will try to kill you with a gun?
Yes. It's funny that you mention it because I bring up the same point in discussions all the time. I am astonished that so many people think that they have a chance of winning the lottery but find it inconceivable that someone else may try to harm them. I am not willing to gamble on the hope I never need my gun.
Do you know how LARGE the odds are that the guy shooting those people stole his gun from someone just like you who has it legally?
This is why I hate statistics like that. They are meaningless. You have no idea what the odds are of someone stealing my guns. I take extreme care to secure my fire arms. I take my freedoms and responsibilities very seriously. I have invested considerable money, time and effort to be sure that what you describe does not happen.
And last but not least I am not interested in comparisons between the U.S. and anywhere. We are not Canada. There are what 10 people living in that country? (just a joke- lighten up) I don't want to live there if for no other reason than I don't feel like dealing with sucky health care. (Don't try to argue the point with me there please- I wont reply I'm just answering your question)
There were no 'Indians' in Canada? You need to read some history. You do not live on land that stood empty for thousands of years waiting for the ancestors of all those French and English Canadians to show up.
Enough of that- Just trying to answer some of your questions.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I live in New Zealand. We have a very strict set of gun controls. In general our society (well at least the law-abiding-majority) does NOT have easy access to firearms. In fact, my current firearms license (which lasts 10 years) "allows" me to own only rifles. In fact I need a license to purchase a rifle or even any ammunition.r ms-code .pdf
If I wish to own a pistol, I must join and attend a pistol club for a time, then apply with references from the club. This would then require me to purchase further more strict containment facilities for any pistol I wish to purchase. The police would come around and inspect those facilities. Again, the same holds true for any MSSA (Military Style Semi Automatic), in fact I would have to prove that I am interested in being a collector, not just a user!
If you wish to review the NZ Firearms Code it can be downloaded from here.
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2000/a
It all sounds very strict and bordering on a police state. However, more importantly than that it comes down to the fact that the general society takes the use and ownership of firearms very seriously. They are not considered a means of "asserting one's views", "protecting one's rights". This of course is a side affect of our history, being a nation founded from the days of the ever expanding British Empire, and NOT having asserted the right of independence. We are a constitutional monarchy. Yes have firearms related incidents, but they are not very common, and usually they are used as a threat.
My 5c worth, is that introducing strict gun control measures is not an immediate solution to the firearms problems in any society that has these problems. In my opinion it comes down to educating people in appropriate uses, ownership reasons and reducing the criminal elements access to them.
Basically anybody should have access to them, I don't have a problem with that, however, the question society should ask is, does this person warrant having this firearm for legitimate reason and is this person responsible enough to own one?
Of course all of this breaks down once the criminal element enter the scene.
Guess you wanted to get the anti-gun "let's tell everyone else how to live their lives" freaks all riled up. Talk about pushing hot buttons.
For the uninformed and the just plain deluded, here's some statistics from National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 49, No. 12, October 9, 2001. These are *facts*, unlike what most people seem to be pulling out of their hairy asses:
In the United States, homocide ranked 15th in causes of death, down 6.5% in the last year (2000), a steady decline since 1991. Some numbers:
homocides - 16,137
septicemia - 31,613
influenza and pneumonia - 67,024
accidents - 93,592
You are more likely to die as a result of contracting a non-specific infection during a hospital stay than you are to be murdered, by any means.
You are more likely to die in a non-car-related accident (almost three times as likely, in fact) than you are to be murdered, by any means. This includes falls, drownings, accidental poisonings, and so forth.
You are four times more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia than you are of being murdered, by any means. Note that the statistics for flu and pneumonia are separate from those concerning HIV-related deaths by pneumonia and infectious disease. HIV isn't to blame for these flu deaths.
If someone does try to murder you, there's a fair chance they'll use what's known as a 'weapon of opportunity', e.g., the handiest blunt object or sharp instrument. You are much more likely to die by blunt object or sharp instrument than by gun unless you're a) a criminal, or b) a black male living in certain particularly dangerous urban areas.
Accidental gun deaths accounted for 808 people in 2000. In comparison:
falls - 12,604, mostly down stairs or from ladders
drowning - 3,343, primarily in back yard pools or recreational areas.
poisoning - 9,803
Clearly, accidental gun deaths aren't nearly as common as falling, drowning or poisoning. If folks are so concerned about accidental deaths they should first concentrate on more primary offenders like stairs, ladders, and swimming pools, not to mention general stupidity (e.g., accidental poisoning).
Since 1930, the number of annual fatal firearms accidents has decreased 56% while the number of privately owned guns has quadrupled and the U.S.
population has doubled. This information has been independently confirmed by the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Safety Council, the Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
According to the FBI the biggest purchaser of firearms during the last decade has been women, mostly under the age of 40. This makes sense given that this women of this age group are the most likely people to be victimized by a crime, especially a violent one.
For the male dick-measurers in the crowd, you might consider the impact of banning firearms completely with respect to the safety of women. Very few women can match an average man in a physical confrontation and win; the gun completely eliminates the size and strength advantage that a man has. At worst both the man and woman will have a gun - and then at least they'll be on equal ground. Ban the gun and men are once again the winners of any physical contest, in a country where we *know* we can't protect women from violent crime. But I suppose the mysogynistic bastards among you will rejoice at the thought that you can beat your wives and girlfriends without fear of getting your ass shot, as you deserve.
According to the FBI, somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 violent crimes were prevented last year because the victim was armed. A 'violent crime' is defined as a rape, robbery, or murder. More than 60% of these victims were women who were carrying a concealed weapon illegally, which is why the statistics range so much (they don't report because they'll be arrested if they do). That's a minimum of 200,000 crimes that otherwise would've occurred had the victim not been armed. The firearm was actually discharged in less than 1/10 of 1% of these cases. And please note: the FBI isn't known for it's fondness of the 2nd Amendment.
Of course, I know none of this will mean anything to the anti-gun nuts. They're so piss-scared of everything around them that they'll say and do just about anything to make sure their neighbors aren't armed. Cowards. These are the kind of folks who'd rather see a women raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than defend herself with a firearm.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
See the law in question
I most absolutely recommend you read "More Guns, Less Crime - Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", by John R. Lott Jr.
1 3530.ctl
Here's an address where you can read a bit about the book... http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/
Mr Lott's book is a very dry, analytical look at the hard numbers involved. This text in particular, is hated by the gun control lobby for the way it looks at the numbers... then challenges the extremists' point of view by looking at the numbers using their arguments. The key is not in which numbers either side chooses to include. It lies in which numbers one side or the other chooses to EXCLUDE, in order to come up with "the solution" they want.
I found this to be an excellent resource to back up many discussions between myself and my non-shooting friends.
You can judge for yourself if you think it is biased either way. Personally, I dont think it is, given the NATURE of the attacks against Mr. Lott's findings.
Ken Cormack
NRA Member
Perhaps most in the NRA are this way, I couldn't say as I am not in the NRA. I am not even unt the U.S.A. and am not a U.S. citizen.
I also happen not to like guns.
Here is my take on the situation as it relates to the U.S. - it looks to me like the constitution allows them to be owned, and as far as I can tell from the historical situatin, one of the reasons it allows this is so that the citizens can fight their own government should it ever get out of hand. They had a revolution because they thought their government at the time was out of hand.
So, it seems to be that the NRA are a bit mild, they could push for private ownership of fully armed Apaches, F16s and the like and from what I could see, they would be right under the constituion as written.
Now, I am not saying that I think that Joe Citizen should have these rights (or should not have them,) only that they do presently have them. The correct and honest way to remove these rights is to ammend the constitution. Why don't the people who want to control gun ownership get up a drive to ammend the constitution?
BTW, I live in the Bahamas, a country where it is very difficult to get more than a shotgun and next to impossible to get a handgun unless you are someone special as I understand it, yet it is common for criminals to commit crimes with UZIs and the like which NO ONE is allowed to have, yet somehow the criminals seem to get.
Think how hard you have it in the U.S. stopping drugs. We have the same problem controlling illegal drugs and illegal guns too it seems. Just something to ponder.
A Nony Mouse
1. In 1996, the most comprehensive "gun control" study of all time was published by John Lott of the University of Chicago Law School. Fifteen years of FBI files from all 3,054 counties in our country were analyzed regarding the correlation between the occurrence of violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. Invariably, where responsible, law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms, the rate of violent crime plummeted. The criminals were afraid to attack those who "might" be armed.
2. Professor Gary Kleck is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He had expected the research involved in that writing to infer negatively on gun ownership. He discovered a vast amount of violent crimes were prevented by firearms usage. Even though this was contrary to his original premise, he had the integrity to stand by his research. Although that book was awarded the best book (of 1993) on criminology by the American Society of Criminology it was largely ignored by gun control advocates such as most medical journals and our Government's Justice Department and Center for Disease Control.
[from largo.com]
The problem with citing a particular study is that whatever conclusion the study comes to, the other side assumes that it is an indication of bias. The mere fact of concluding guns are beneficial indicates to a gun controller bias, the conclusion is evidence enough. The same is true all to often of gun advocates when judging pro gun control studies. This is horrible science but great politics.
The study by Professor Gary Kleck, Criminology professor of the Florida State Univeristy, called "Point Blank: Guns in America" concludes that gun control is extremely detrimental to the health and safety of the nation. This despite the aleged fact that Kleck originally set out writing the book to prove the opposite.
(The conclusion is based on the fact that the benefit of defensive gun use in preventing violence greatly outweighs the cost of gun violence.)
That is about the best you can do, it is such a hot button topic that any other study will be immediately accused of bias (as this one will undoubtedly be.) The reality though is that Kleck and another study "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott are together the most comprehensive studies of the subject available today.
Call them biased if you like, but the reality is that they studied many, many more people and crimes that then very weak and selective studies done by the gun control advocates. (This is objectively true, but I am sure many will see it as an indication of my bias.)
Statistics is not a science that the average man in the street can readily judge, certainly not in sound bites. Tiny details matter a great deal (sample size, sample randomness, manner of posing question etc.) and analysis of statistics is something that takes time and reflection, not "fox news phone poll - results after these messages from our sponsors."
The trite posting of "margin of error +/- 3%" in tiny type hardly captures the nuances of true statistical analysis.
SUNY-B Class of 92 - Here is the report you are talking about:
When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.
The economics of crime: Analysis suggests concealed handguns deter criminals, BU prof says
By Ingrid Husisian
That's the socially controversial finding of Binghamton University economist Florenz Plassmann and his collaborator, who used the principles of supply and demand to analyze crime rates.
Plassmann's premise was detailed in an article in the October 2001 issue of Journal of Law and Economics. The article, "Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crime? Only a Count Analysis Can Say," was written by Plassmann and T. Nicolaus Tideman, who was Plassmann's dissertation adviser at Virginia Tech.
Plassmann's assertion isn't the first of its ilk, but it is something of a surprise to him, he admits. In a 1997 book More Guns, Less Crime, economist John Lott similarly analyzed the relationship between the right to carry concealed handguns and the crime rate. Lott was the first to use economic principles to suggest that concealed weapons have a clear deterrent effect. If more people carry concealed handguns, crime decreases, his study showed.
Plassmann, an assistant professor of economics, says he was certain that a re-examination of Lott's work would find Lott's methodology questionable and his conclusions mistaken, he said.
"I believed guns would increase crime," he said. "I had just finished a dissertation analyzing data similar to Lott's. His data are 'count data' (non-negative integers), which means that you cannot have a negative number of murders, or 2.5 robberies. If you analyze such data with standard methods, you are likely to get erroneous estimates. Because Lott had ignored this, I thought that I had a valid reason not to trust his results."
When Plassmann contacted Lott about his concerns, Lott turned his data over to Plassmann and encouraged him to re-examine the methodology and attempt to replicate the results.
"I did my own analysis," Plassmann said. "To my surprise, it suggests that the right to carry concealed handguns does deter crime. Lott's analysis has been criticized because his findings are not very stable, but our results are much more robust.
"To emphasize that a statistical analysis is valid only if the statistical model fits the data, we included a little play on words in the title of our article: Because crimes are 'countable,' you must examine them with a 'count' analysis, and not with standard methods," he added.
Plassmann and Lott are now working together on related research. They are writing a paper that examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime.
The concept of viewing crime through an economic lens actually stems from the work of Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Plassmann said.
"We can see crime as the outcome of supply and demand," he noted. "If all potential victims are unarmed, crime is easy and, therefore, inexpensive. However, if potential victims are armed, crime becomes more difficult and expensive."
From the "demand" perspective, when the cost of preventing crime becomes more expensive then the "demand" to commit it, the more likely society is to let another crime happen, Plassmann said.
As a researcher, Plassmann doesn't advocate for or argue against carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.
"I think all this analysis can do is suggest that the theory 'More guns will cause more crime' is probably not correct in this simple form," he said.
In truth the most compelling thing I have to offer is personal experience. I have used a fiream 3 times in my life to defend both myself and others, including a total stranger from harm. In two of the three cases the firearm did not even have to be drawn or displayed to be an effective deterrant.
The ability to let it be known to the assailants that I was armed was enough. In each case people's lives were at stake, and I was outnumbered in 2 of the 3 instances and in every case the assailant was armed with a weapon (car, chains, and knives). In my view a firearm in the hands of a competent and level headed citizen is more effective at stopping crime than an our armed police, search and seizure laws and no knock warrants.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
In other words: The Swiss government does not register every bullet. It registers every bullet it pays for and distributes. Enormous difference.
I doubt gun owners would mind the US government giving everyone ammunition, even if they registered it.
A book written by someone setting out to show gun control reduces crime that discovered that the opposite was overwhelmingly true.
Not wanting to just point you to a few conservative or NRA (or whoever's) websites and articles which will have an obvious bias, check a pretty basic and vannilla Google search of the title and author.
Best wishes with your research!
... will find you what you need.
+Lott +Mustard
Type these words into a google search, and there you will find an unbiased report that found empirically that an armed populace means less violent crime. Professor John Lott, University of Chicago, looked at all federal, state, and local law enforcement data as well as economics (Eric Mustard's purpose) since economics play a part in crime rates independent of guns. All other guns studies ignore the natural ebb and flow of crime rates, and thus erroneously report the effect of concealed carry legislation.
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
Uh, guy, you do know that Teflon-coated bullets aren't armor-piercing, and that the NRA actually led the way in writing legislation to ban armor-piercing ammunition, right?
Thought not.
You see, you make armor-piercing bullets out of very hard metals--steel, zinc or brass all work. They're much harder than lead, they don't deform when they hit the target, and as a result, they can punch through steel. Including the steel of a gun barrel--firing steel bullets out of a gun will destroy the barrel in just a few shots.
So in order to protect the barrel from the steel bullets, the KTW Corporation started... coating their bullets in Teflon.
And this is how the media myth of Teflon bullets came about.
The NRA was opposed to anti-Teflon-bullet laws because the NRA knew that wouldn't solve the problem. Instead, the NRA wanted to push legislation which would ban bullets which had cores made out of certain materials--like steel, zinc and brass.
Of course, because "everybody knew" the Teflon was what made a bullet armor-piercing, the NRA got pilloried in the press.
The NRA did the country a favor when they convinced Congress not to ban Teflon rounds, and instead to ban steel, brass and zinc-core rounds... and the country will never forgive the NRA for it.
(And no, I'm not a member of the NRA.)