PDA

View Full Version : Brady Campaign Won't Admit Less Gun Control Means Less Crime


aileron
02-09-2009, 10:53 AM
Opinion piece, I'm not to fond of opinion pieces but hey this one hits a home run with the Brady's rating system. :)

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-brady-campaign-won-t-admit-less-gun-control-means-less-crime


OPINION: Brady Campaign Won't Admit Less Gun Control Means Less Crime

By National Rifle Association , Everything Firearm Related - February 06, 2009

On January 12, the FBI released preliminary crime date for calendar year 2008, indicating that the nation's murder rate has fallen to a 43-year low, and the nation's total violent crime rate has fallen to a 35-year low. The data suggest that since violent crime peaked in 1991, the nation's murder rate has fallen 46 percent, and the nation's total violent crime rate has fallen 41 percent. The FBI will publish final data for 2008 later this year.

In the same time frame, federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive, Americans have been buying over 4 million new guns every year, and the number of guns (including semi-automatic and other firearms that use standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds) is at an all-time high. Less gun control has coincided with less crime. Pretty simple stuff.

For most people, that is.

On February 4, the anti-gun Brady Campaign looked at the historically low crime rates and concluded otherwise. "Most states have weak or non-existent gun laws that help feed the illegal gun market, allow the sale of guns without Brady background checks and put families and children at risk," the group claimed.

Brady made the claim in conjunction with the release of its annual "state scorecard" gimmick, in which the anti-gun group "scores" each state from zero to 100, giving more points for more gun control laws, without regard to whether the laws have any positive effect. Brady used to give out school-like letter grades, but abandoned that concept when people noticed that the group was giving most states Ds and Fs when violent crime was low and declining.

Scores of 0-59 points are still worth an "F," and scores of 60-69 points are still worth a "D," however. And with that in mind, Brady gave 48 states an "F," one state a "D," and California got a "C." The average score for the 50 states was 17.7. As Brady put it, "Once again, the scores for most states are abysmal. No states got a better score for 2008 than for 2007. Five states saw their scores drop."

Since Brady gives the states worse scores every time crime rates go down, all we can add is "Amen."

Bruce3
02-09-2009, 11:00 AM
correlation is not causation, i don't think you can draw the conclusion that less gun control equals less crime from the data alone but i think one can safety say that more guns doesn't equal more crime.

SwissFluCase
02-09-2009, 11:00 AM
My unicorn is coming over to their fantasy world to skewer them. :43:

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Casual Observer
02-09-2009, 11:04 AM
correlation is not causation, i don't think you can draw the conclusion that less gun control equals less crime from the data alone but i think one can safety say that more guns doesn't equal more crime.

You can look at places like Cincinatti, OH and compare the crime rate BEFORE CCW and AFTER CCW.

Or, you can look at places like DC where this is very strict gun control (still) and high crime. Just over the potomac in Virginia, there are far more relaxed gun laws and a lot less crime.

Of course, we know that availability of guns has very little to do with crime but more to do with socio-economic levels.

Cypren
02-09-2009, 11:08 AM
It's worth pointing out that correlation is not causation. There's a very arguable case to be made here that states pass more restrictive gun laws because they have higher violent crime rates, and that the laws are simply ineffective. Repealing them, however, would probably not statistically affect the crime rates in those areas one way or the other; they weren't particularly impacted by the laws in the first place.

But billing this as "less gun control means less crime" is misleading and shows a misunderstanding of statistics and analysis that I'd prefer to leave to Brady and their ilk. We have the Constitution on our side; we don't need to fudge numbers and make up headlines.

(Incidentally, a simple rational economic analysis would generally posit that gun control laws will always be ineffective unless law enforcement can maintain a nearly complete control on smugglers. The marginal cost to a criminal for carrying an illegal firearm is substantially lower than the marginal benefit afforded him by increased leverage and personal safety. Weighed against the high likelihood of the firearm saving his life during a criminal act, extended sentences if caught are a small price to pay. Even mandatory capital punishment for carrying a firearm is probably not a substantial deterrent to a criminal who sees it as necessary to protect his own life during the commission of his crime -- especially because psychological research has shown that most criminals dramatically underestimate the chance of being caught.)

SwissFluCase
02-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Of course, we know that availability of guns has very little to do with crime but more to do with socio-economic levels.

That is more true than most people realize. Ultraliberal and ultra rich Marin County has a gun ownership rate of about 65 percent. So many people are suprised by this.

Simply put, successful, even nominally wealthy citizens have more at stake, and have the means to defend it.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
02-09-2009, 11:14 AM
(Incidentally, a simple rational economic analysis would generally posit that gun control laws will always be ineffective unless law enforcement can maintain a nearly complete control on smugglers. The marginal cost to a criminal for carrying an illegal firearm is substantially lower than the marginal benefit afforded him by increased leverage and personal safety. Weighed against the high likelihood of the firearm saving his life during a criminal act, extended sentences if caught are a small price to pay. Even mandatory capital punishment for carrying a firearm is probably not a substantial deterrent to a criminal who sees it as necessary to protect his own life during the commission of his crime -- especially because psychological research has shown that most criminals dramatically underestimate the chance of being caught.)

A criminal already has more skin in the game than a law abiding citizen. Getting caught is an occupational risk, and I'm sure they view it as such to some degree.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
02-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Generally the statistical analysis I trust the most is Howard Nemerov's, and he will say that armed citizens in general reduce crime--some kinds of crime. But he finds another effect that is quite important: the *type* of crime changes. Suppose a criminal decides to rob a house. Now he has to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether to just go and rob it at the most convenient time, when someone is likely to be home, or to wait and watch until very sure it is unoccupied (which also increases the likelihood of being spotted as a suspicious character. It seems this analysis is quite sensitive to the probability of the residents being armed, for reasons I trust are too obvious to state.

Now the problem is that this means comparing simple robbery rates is useless. Home invasions are extremely dangerous situations and for us non-criminals home invasion and burglary are absolutely not equivalent. But often an armed citzenry doesn't reduce the overall robbery rate, but shifts it drastically from home invasion toward burglary.

Of course, the Brady people will always lump them together, and often with other crimes as well. That's part of the "parsing of the data" that Nemerov discusses.

Non-statisticians might want to just call it lying.

7x57

dreyna14
02-09-2009, 12:09 PM
I don't necessarily think that less gun control means less crime, it's that more gun control doesn't mean less crime but does diminish our rights. If the crime rate isn't going to change regardless, then I'd rather have the ability to defend myself from the crime that does exist. Screw the Brady morons.

KWA-S
02-09-2009, 2:23 PM
A bit off topic, but if California gets a "C" on Brady's scale, whats an "A"? Is it even possible to get an "A"?

7x57
02-09-2009, 2:26 PM
A bit off topic, but if California gets a "C" on Brady's scale, whats an "A"? Is it even possible to get an "A"?

Britain would probably score highly. A+ probably means no legal civilian gun ownership whatsoever. That is the goal.

7x57

yellowfin
02-09-2009, 2:29 PM
A bit off topic, but if California gets a "C" on Brady's scale, whats an "A"? Is it even possible to get an "A"?New Jersey. It's worse than here in a number of ways...and the governor Corzine there still wants more. Anyone deluded into thinking there can be a peaceful and successful compromise and coexistence with the anti 2A crowd should take a look at that place's rules and governance.

Vacaville
02-09-2009, 2:30 PM
A bit off topic, but if California gets a "C" on Brady's scale, whats an "A"? Is it even possible to get an "A"?

I'd be willing to bet an "A" would be the total banning of all firearms. Then the bad guys would all leave the state, all the homeless will have jobs, it will be sunny every day, and all the fairies can ride unicorns.

rrr70
02-09-2009, 2:34 PM
Britain would probably score highly. A+ probably means no legal civilian gun ownership whatsoever. That is the goal.

7x57

But what about crime?
( I know it is a rhetorical question."

BillCA
02-09-2009, 3:09 PM
The post by 7x57 was an excellent light treatment of the subject. When more citizens can routinely go around armed, it does have a deterrent effect on crimes against persons.

But criminals who would otherwise simply threaten you for easy-to-use cash or valuables still have a need for money. Now they must look to other methods and those usually turn out to be crimes against property - burglary, theft, auto theft, etc. A few will continue to prey on people, but try to select those unlikely to be armed - such as young adults or the elderly.

I would posit that pushing the bulk of crime from personal attacks to property crimes is a positive change. There will be less lost productivity for property crimes, significantly less demand for hospital/medical services and fewer families losing significant income.

I'll also add that 98% of the Brady/anti-gun propaganda focuses on decreasing "gun crimes" at the expense of all else. Where Brady et al have a singular desire to drive down crimes with guns, more intelligent and thoughtful citizens seek to reduce all violent crime. Where the Bradys would require a court order to allow ownership of any gun in order to eliminate gun crimes, that leaves the bulk of the population unable to obtain a firearm, due to litigation costs, when there is a significant need for one.

Nor does the Brady campaign acknowledge that ownership of a handgun can increase a person's "quality of life". Such as the 67 year old widow who lives alone. For all too many such seniors, a late night knock on the door is fraught with danger. If they ignore it, someone may believe no one is home and force their way in. But if they do call out from behind the door (or open it just a hair) a thug outside will know an elderly person is there and know they can force their way inside. But if that senior owns and can use a handgun, they will have more peace of mind that they can survive an intruder.

Cypren
02-09-2009, 3:09 PM
I tend to think that most of the deluded people at Brady and the VPC really do think that the existence and availability of guns are some kind of contributing factor to violence -- as if most violent people are incapable or unwilling to consider other weapons and would therefore just pout. They have to know -- and all evidence has shown -- that their policies don't actually accomplish anything, but I think they fall squarely into the mindset of "true believers" or "cause people" who simply feel a compulsive moral need to be "doing something." It's their version of sacrifices to their god, maybe -- an act which has no demonstrable consequences but is the right thing to do taken on faith. And it gives them a lovely self-righteous glow of moral superiority over us heathens who clearly haven't seen the light. Edit: Oh, yeah, and I forgot: it gives them lots of money from the Joyce Foundation and pull with lawmakers in Washington, too, which means steak dinners, fat paychecks and political influence. Never underestimate the self-sustaining power of a "cause" when money's involved.

Of course, leave it to the baby boomer "me first" generation to sacrifice someone else's liberty to appease their guilt.

bulgron
02-09-2009, 4:34 PM
Of course, leave it to the baby boomer "me first" generation to sacrifice someone else's liberty to appease their guilt.

If the baby boomer "me first" types are feeling so guilty that they want to restrict everyone elses' freedoms, why don't they just do themselves and the world a favor and die already?

BTW, I disagree with the analysis given above. I believe that the Brady Bunch know very well that their proposed policies won't leave the average American safer, but they don't care. The reason why is because they're lying about their actual goals (which is to dominant and control average Americans), and gun control is simply a necessary first-step in that process. Of course, you can't sell the message, "Give up your guns so we can dominate and control you!" But you can sell the message, "Give up your guns so that little Timmy and little Suzie can grow up in safety!" So the latter is what they do.

7x57
02-09-2009, 4:36 PM
But what about crime?
( I know it is a rhetorical question."

Crime is no threat to the state. Disobedient citizens are. Why would the state care about crime per se?

7x57

Ford8N
02-09-2009, 4:36 PM
New Jersey. It's worse than here in a number of ways...and the governor Corzine there still wants more. Anyone deluded into thinking there can be a peaceful and successful compromise and coexistence with the anti 2A crowd should take a look at that place's rules and governance.

California is ranked higher than New Jersey according to the 2008 score card. We are #1 with the Bradys.

I wonder at the ability of the Bradys to explain ND. That state basically has almost no firearms law other than what is federal and it is not necessarily a rich population either. Yet has THE LOWEST crime rate of the US. Something else drives the crime rate.

aileron
02-09-2009, 4:37 PM
I tend to think that most of the deluded people at Brady and the VPC really do think that the existence and availability of guns are some kind of contributing factor to violence -- as if most violent people are incapable or unwilling to consider other weapons and would therefore just pout.

A friend of mine is a very educated history buff, high IQ, and a firm anti-gun believer; his attitude is simple. People don't need guns, Or, people are not sane enough to own guns. He finds the arguments put forth by Bradys as comically witty. Knowing full well their b.s. arguments, and a violation of the constitution. He laughs and says "and that's how you ban guns." So that's what your seeing. Nothing to do with being right. Its prejudice acting out to get complete bans in this country.

I argue with him for my own amusement, but its a lost cause.

7x57
02-09-2009, 4:46 PM
A few will continue to prey on people, but try to select those unlikely to be armed - such as young adults or the elderly.


A good example seems to have been Florida. After shall-issue was passed crime against tourists increased. Criminals aren't stupid about basic questions of predation, and it wasn't hard to realize that tourists comprised a readily identifiable group that tended to carry cash and not a gun.


I would posit that pushing the bulk of crime from personal attacks to property crimes is a positive change.


For you and me, you better believe it is. But for the state, it's no big deal. Actually, it can be a big loss: generally, people are most easily manipulated by fear, and a lot of violent crime creates fear.

In other words, a crime-ridden society is probably easier to rule.


I'll also add that 98% of the Brady/anti-gun propaganda focuses on decreasing "gun crimes" at the expense of all else. Where Brady et al have a singular desire to drive down crimes with guns, more intelligent and thoughtful citizens seek to reduce all violent crime.


While it is a wonderfully fortunate thing that the founders were correct about the feasibility of self-defense (mainly because they had classical educations and knew a great deal more history than we do), in one sense it does not matter. The RKBA would be legally protected in the Constitution even if it was shown to increase crime. Let's not *only* argue expediency, without hammering the point that the only ethical recourse for those who do not believe it works is to repeal the 2A.

We do *not* want to give the appearance of conceding the proposition that "if gun control did decrease crime, then it would be acceptable." If we accept that, we lose the entire Bill of Rights. As Nemerov says, it simply isn't true that gun control doesn't work. It *does* work--for oligarchs, for the rich, for the influential. It works very, very well. The population it *never* works for is the man who has neither the influence to make sure the police patrol his neighborhood nor the money to hire guards.

The RKBA is first of all for the person whose government will not protect him. It is not for the lord, it is for the yeoman.

7x57

Cypren
02-09-2009, 4:47 PM
I wonder at the ability of the Bradys to explain ND. That state basically has almost no firearms law other than what is federal and it is not necessarily a rich population either. Yet has THE LOWEST crime rate of the US. Something else drives the crime rate.

That one's easy: low population density. Crime rates aren't just linked to poverty, they're linked to poverty combined with population density -- there's a good reason that violent crime is primarily an urban problem. Poverty in isolation typically inspires people to work harder or starve; this can be seen in all kinds of third-world countries which have little or no developed infrastructure and therefore encourage tribes to live in relative isolation. But poverty in masses tends to encourage them to envy their neighbors' possessions and decide that maybe taking by force is easier than making by hand. (This can be seen in many third-world countries that do have a developed infrastructure and urban environments, such as Somalia and Ethiopia.)

This is especially true in any city where the poor are in close proximity to people who are "rich" in relative terms. And of course it gets even worse when politicians and pundits are telling people that they "deserve" what the guy next to them has because he didn't "earn" it.

7x57
02-09-2009, 4:56 PM
Knowing full well their b.s. arguments, and a violation of the constitution. He laughs and says "and that's how you ban guns."


"...they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools...."

7x57

Ford8N
02-09-2009, 5:06 PM
That one's easy: low population density. Crime rates aren't just linked to poverty, they're linked to poverty combined with population density -- there's a good reason that violent crime is primarily an urban problem. Poverty in isolation typically inspires people to work harder or starve; this can be seen in all kinds of third-world countries which have little or no developed infrastructure and therefore encourage tribes to live in relative isolation. But poverty in masses tends to encourage them to envy their neighbors' possessions and decide that maybe taking by force is easier than making by hand. (This can be seen in many third-world countries that do have a developed infrastructure and urban environments, such as Somalia and Ethiopia.)

This is especially true in any city where the poor are in close proximity to people who are "rich" in relative terms. And of course it gets even worse when politicians and pundits are telling people that they "deserve" what the guy next to them has because he didn't "earn" it.

Good observation. To many rats in a cage. But doesn't Japan have a higher population density with a lower crime rate than the US? Is there a certain "cultural" angle going on: US vs Japan or CA vs ND?

Outlaw Josey Wales
02-09-2009, 5:53 PM
Good observation. To many rats in a cage. But doesn't Japan have a higher population density with a lower crime rate than the US? Is there a certain "cultural" angle going on: US vs Japan or CA vs ND?

Japanese Work Ethics vs American Ethics For an American to consider the Japanese from any viewpoint for any reason, it is important for us to remember that they are products of a unique civilization, that their standards and values are the results of several thousand years of powerful religious and metaphysical conditioning that were entirely different from those that molded the character, personality and habits of Westerners.

7x57
02-09-2009, 5:56 PM
Good observation. To many rats in a cage. But doesn't Japan have a higher population density with a lower crime rate than the US? Is there a certain "cultural" angle going on: US vs Japan or CA vs ND?

Having been a resident of Montana, next door to North Dakota, I can tell you a core cultural issue is Traditional Values. And that is not a code for, say, gay marriage, it is the complete set. There is a complete value system that, among other things, insists that certain moral propositions are objectively true, even when inconvenient. Rural communities are the most resistant to change simply because the Ivy League faculties say they should change, and that means they remember a *lot* of the original American values. Things like the fact that it is *wrong* to compromise property rights in the name of fairness. Things like the fact that if a man is creeping around a woman's house at night uninvited, it is necessary *for the community* that he not get away with it and it is not simply the right but the *duty* of anyone able to help to do so, and to use force if that is necessary. That a society where the government goes after the citizen who defended his home instead of the burglar is a morally insane society that has no right to exist.

I used to teach sailing to kids for a charity, and it was once proposed that we have an activity that would cost something like $75 per sailor. I said no, because my kids were a crew and did things *as a crew*, including the ones who could not afford a $75 trip. One of the directors said "well, we can tell them that anyone who can't pay can just say so and we'll cover it."

That director was a good upper-class liberal, and so believed that made some kind of sense. I told that to my wife, who grew up poor in a small Montana town, and she snorted derisively and said "she's never been poor." My wife was almost right, but specifically she's never been poor *in a law-abiding rural family.* You would *never* say such a thing--if you can't afford it, you don't need it.

Boys raised that way don't break into people's houses to get something they don't have. Quite a few boys raised to believe that they're entitled to stuff do. And *that* is what I mean by traditional values.

7x57

tyrist
02-09-2009, 8:14 PM
Would'nt that cause their organization to cease to exist...Brady Campaign to cause gun violence just does'nt work....since it would seem their efforts increase gun violence. There are alot of people in that organization that have a vested interest in keeping their pointless jobs.

N6ATF
02-09-2009, 8:19 PM
So who wants to go on CafePress and make up a "Brady Campaign to Cause Gun Violence" design for shirts and hats?

Wild Squid
02-09-2009, 8:48 PM
Gawd dang I need to stop reading these types of threads, it just raises my blood pressure.

nick
02-09-2009, 8:50 PM
So who wants to go on CafePress and make up a "Brady Campaign to Cause Gun Violence" design for shirts and hats?

I'd like that :)

Theseus
02-09-2009, 9:44 PM
"Give you guns so that little Tommy gun and pretty Uzi can grow up in safety!"

There...I fixed it to a more pleasant tale...

Also

http://claytonscott.info/photoalbum/albums/userpics/10001/brady_campaign_to_cause_gun_violence%7E0.jpg
http://claytonscott.info/photoalbum/albums/userpics/10001/brady_hat.jpg

Theseus
02-09-2009, 10:10 PM
It comes with a matching shirt!

http://claytonscott.info/photoalbum/albums/userpics/10001/brady_shirt_v2.jpg

Warhawk014
02-09-2009, 10:22 PM
truely the blind leading the blind

N6ATF
02-09-2009, 10:23 PM
NICE. Now, to the marketplace!

vrand
02-09-2009, 11:03 PM
The reason why is because they're lying about their actual goals (which is to dominant and control average Americans), and gun control is simply a necessary first-step in that process.

Its a communist conspiracy.

http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss195/vrand01/GScott.jpg

Theseus
02-09-2009, 11:52 PM
Its a communist conspiracy.
Nice choice. . .

Dr. Strangelove. . . .

BillCA
02-10-2009, 2:17 AM
On January 12, the FBI released preliminary crime date for calendar year 2008, indicating that the nation's murder rate has fallen to a 43-year low, and the nation's total violent crime rate has fallen to a 35-year low. The data suggest that since violent crime peaked in 1991, the nation's murder rate has fallen 46 percent, and the nation's total violent crime rate has fallen 41 percent. The FBI will publish final data for 2008 later this year.

Gee... if the murder rate has fallen below 1966 levels and violent crime is down to pre-1975 levels... That means violent crime is lower than when the original gun-control movement started.

Time for a new T-Shirt...

Murder is down to pre-1967 levels
Violent crime is down to 1974 levels

Can we disband the Brady Campaign Now?

Tarn_Helm
02-10-2009, 6:02 AM
Generally the statistical analysis I trust the most is Howard Nemerov's, and he will say that armed citizens in general reduce crime--some kinds of crime. But he finds another effect that is quite important: the *type* of crime changes. Suppose a criminal decides to rob a house. Now he has to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether to just go and rob it at the most convenient time, when someone is likely to be home, or to wait and watch until very sure it is unoccupied (which also increases the likelihood of being spotted as a suspicious character. It seems this analysis is quite sensitive to the probability of the residents being armed, for reasons I trust are too obvious to state.

Now the problem is that this means comparing simple robbery rates is useless. Home invasions are extremely dangerous situations and for us non-criminals home invasion and burglary are absolutely not equivalent. But often an armed citzenry doesn't reduce the overall robbery rate, but shifts it drastically from home invasion toward burglary.

Of course, the Brady people will always lump them together, and often with other crimes as well. That's part of the "parsing of the data" that Nemerov discusses.

Non-statisticians might want to just call it lying.

7x57
[emphasis added by me]

The other issue is this: I would rather be the victim of a home invasion robbery that I successfully thwarted by availing myself of the protection of armed force which is recognized as my right under the Bill of rights than be the victim of a home invasion robbery in which I was helpless and hopeless--that is what it all boils down to even if there is NO REDUCTION IN NUMBERS OF CRIME.

DO YOU WANT TO BE AND FEEL HELPLESS AT THE MERCY OF VIOLENT CRIMINALS OR DO YOU WANT A FIGHTING CHANCE?:49:

7x57
02-10-2009, 7:58 AM
Gee... if the murder rate has fallen below 1966 levels and violent crime is down to pre-1975 levels... That means violent crime is lower than when the original gun-control movement started.


Gee, do you mean the crime rate is lower than before the 1934 National Firearms Act? Or maybe before New York's Sullivan act of 1911? Or before the denial of arms to former slaves during segregation, or before the laws forbidding the early settlers selling guns to indians? 'Cuz that would be pretty amazing. :D

Gun control in the US predates the US, and it always targeted some demographic or the other.

7x57

7x57
02-10-2009, 8:02 AM
[RIGHT][SIZE="1"]
The other issue is this: I would rather be the victim of a home invasion robbery that I successfully thwarted by availing myself of the protection of armed force which is recognized as my right under the Bill of rights than be the victim of a home invasion robbery in which I was helpless and hopeless--that is what it all boils down to even if there is NO REDUCTION IN NUMBERS OF CRIME.


Quite true, but we were talking about crime statistics. What you are talking about is highly important, but not directly related to the crime rate.

That said--I believe that disarmed people learn to be victims in their minds before there is any actual crime, and that this does eventually affect the crime rate. But we have no way of measuring this.

Part of the authentic American gun culture is in fact the attitude you state. It isn't just dangerous to be an unarmed victim--it is wrong to cooperate with criminals, because it damages you and damages society.

7x57

Theseus
02-10-2009, 8:49 AM
Have you ever considered that might be the goal?

I am not normally one to go off on a rant, but it seems more and more evident that, even if they are doing so unintentionally, the end result would be a group of people used to being the victim so that it is easier to provide "security".

The government and the people in power do what governments and people of power always do...they horde power! Once a government is formed its one and only concern is to sustain itself.

What they are doing and have done well is make us thing our government represents the mentality of America. It does not. We are Americans because of our beliefs and culture NOT BECAUSE OF OUR GOVERNMENT. Our government can change tomorrow and it would not make us any less American.

As soon as people can understand and seperate our identity from our current or any following government I believe that we will be better off.

Quite true, but we were talking about crime statistics. What you are talking about is highly important, but not directly related to the crime rate.

That said--I believe that disarmed people learn to be victims in their minds before there is any actual crime, and that this does eventually affect the crime rate. But we have no way of measuring this.

Part of the authentic American gun culture is in fact the attitude you state. It isn't just dangerous to be an unarmed victim--it is wrong to cooperate with criminals, because it damages you and damages society.

7x57

tombinghamthegreat
02-10-2009, 10:15 AM
A bit off topic, but if California gets a "C" on Brady's scale, whats an "A"? Is it even possible to get an "A"?

DC would have gotten an A pre heller. Now it might get a B-.....

Glock22Fan
02-10-2009, 11:35 AM
A bit off topic, but if California gets a "C" on Brady's scale, whats an "A"? Is it even possible to get an "A"?

Brady bunch won't be satisfied with anything less than a complete ban and draconian punishment. California is a long way short of what they would like. Maybe England might get an 'A'