PDA

View Full Version : Gun Laws and crime rates


BakerPD
01-23-2010, 11:15 PM
I was doing some research and found that there is no correlation with strict gun laws and crime.


Example California is ranked number one by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence In strict gun laws http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/CA
California scored 79 points out of 100 for strict gun laws.


but California is not the safest state in the US it ranks 37 with a rank of one being safest and 50 being the least safest.
New Hampshire won the top spot as being the safest but the Brady campaign only gave it 11 out of 100 points for strict gun laws placing it tied for rank 23
http://os.cqpress.com/rankings/statecrime2009.htm


So if guns are not the problem (my view) what is?

If you find something wrong in my logic please speak up and lets have a civil argument about this no name calling no libtard this hillbilly that

Ike Arumba
01-23-2010, 11:34 PM
No correlation, or negative correlation?

GaryV
01-23-2010, 11:50 PM
This has been studied many times. On no level - whether comparing cities, states, or even countries - is there any correlation between gun laws and violent crime rates. No correlation, neither positive nor negative. If you cherry-pick the places you compare, you can of course create the impression of correlation in either direction, but overall none exists.

The things that do correlate with violent crime rates are poverty and cultural factors such as a focus on individualism vs. group identity. Since different places with different gun laws often are different in these other aspects as well, comparing the effects of standing gun laws between different places is invalid, and isn't at all informative.

To look at the effects (or lack thereof) of gun control, a better method is to look at places that have changed their gun laws, where violent crime statistics have been reliably recorded for significant periods of time both before and after the changes, and see what effect changing gun control laws has had within the same culture. When one does that, there is a very noticeable negative correlation in most instances (there is a small minority of instances when there is no change, but none where there is a positive correlation of which I am aware - tightening laws usually leads to more violent crime, though once in awhile there's no change). While not perfect, this at least gives some degree of control over other cultural factors that cannot be easily disregarded when comparing different places.

Seesm
01-23-2010, 11:58 PM
More guns (legal) mean LESS crime. I think they have proved this time and time again... Is that what you were trying to say?

forgiven
01-24-2010, 12:55 AM
Society is safer when armed.:)

Ford8N
01-24-2010, 7:01 AM
There is no nexus between guns and crime. Gun control is an emotional reaction that our rulers do when the sheep demand that they do something, anything, to protect them from the criminal scum. Unfortunately the vast majority of the voters in this country are ignorant and have voted in rulers who are idiots. These idiots pass gun control laws that do nothing to control crime, and has been proven not to work. If you look at the demographics of criminals and where the majority of gun crimes occur, it's pretty obvious where to start controlling crime. But that is a huge elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about for fear of being labeled a racist. If you removed the gun laws off the books, what criminals already do is against the law, that's why they are criminals. So why make something "more" illegal? Gun laws are just an emotional knee jerk reaction that now effects the law abiding citizen. And it is particularly bad in California, maybe that says something about the intelligence of the voters of this state.

cdtx2001
01-24-2010, 8:22 AM
An armed society is a polite society.

I'm sure you could try to argue this to our supreme leaders, but it would be like trying to teach a pig how to sing. It wastes your time and really annoys the pig.

I also think there are many more factors that influence the crime rate than who is armed and who is not.

Saying that, I really don't see how an evildoer could think that their job would be easy if every potential victim was packing heat.

CCWFacts
01-24-2010, 9:51 AM
This has been studied many times. On no level - whether comparing cities, states, or even countries - is there any correlation between gun laws and violent crime rates. No correlation, neither positive nor negative. If you cherry-pick the places you compare, you can of course create the impression of correlation in either direction, but overall none exists.

I'm strongly in favor of RKBA, but I believe what you say above. To take an example, Japan has basically no violent street crime. It's so rare there that people don't even think it's possible. And guns are completely outlawed.

Brady Campaign types point to that and say, "look how well a gun ban works. Japan has no guns and no crime!"

But that's totally wrong. Having been to Japan and known some Japanese people and knowing something about the culture and character of them, I'm fairly certain that if you legalized all guns in Japan, bought a million M4s and sent them by mail to random mailing addresses in Japan, it would have just about no impact on crime rates, except there would be some accidents with people being unfamiliar with gun safety.

Conversely, another island nation, Jamaica, has sweeping gun bans, even more strict than Japan's gun bans, and their rate of gun murders is sky-high. I'm sure that legalizing guns would improve the personal safety of some people there but wouldn't have a statistical impact on the murder rate.

And to take an example of a country that has a high crime rate, and did an experiment in gun laws: South Africa used to have American-style gun laws, including shall-issue CCW. They had a high crime rate. When the ANC took power, they greatly restricted guns. The crime rate stayed high.

I think the difference is not in the statistical crime rate, but rather the possibility of the non-criminal class being more or less safe in countries that have a lot of crime. Most murders are criminals killing other criminals, and so both sides of that equation have access to guns regardless of the laws.

To put it another way: gun laws probably have no impact one way or the other on the rate of crime overall, but probably do have a big impact on the rate of what I call "lamentable crimes". For me, when a gang member kills a member of another gang, that's not lamentable. I hardly care. When a thug does a home invasion of someone who has no connection to crime and gangs, that is lamentable to me. Fortunately the rate of lamentable crime is fairly low in the US. It's low enough that it's a statistical drop in the bucket of crime rates. But it's the only part of the crime rate I care about, and it's the part that gun laws may be able to impact.

The things that do correlate with violent crime rates are poverty and cultural factors such as a focus on individualism vs. group identity.

I don't buy the poverty connection. It sounds reasonable, but I don't buy it. I have been to some extremely poor countries, like Laos and some others, that have basically no crime.

I don't fully buy the individualism vs. group identity either. The lowest crime countries I can think of have strong group identity orientation, places in Asia where the group is above the individual. America is a place where the individual is certainly above, and it has crime rates comparable to a lot of Europe. Other places, like Africa, have enormous crime rates, and seem to focus on group affiliation like tribal affiliation, and also socialist government systems.

Since different places with different gun laws often are different in these other aspects as well, comparing the effects of standing gun laws between different places is invalid, and isn't at all informative.

Yup.

To look at the effects (or lack thereof) of gun control, a better method is to look at places that have changed their gun laws, where violent crime statistics have been reliably recorded for significant periods of time both before and after the changes, and see what effect changing gun control laws has had within the same culture.

The only examples that come readily to mind are Jamaica and South Africa. In both cases the countries became less safe, but criminal-vs-criminal crime was so high it probably didn't make a statistical difference. It did cause the most productive members of both societies to flee the countries, creating serious long-term consequences.

ELBong
01-24-2010, 11:19 AM
An excellent book on this subject is: "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", by John Lott.

a1c
01-24-2010, 11:26 AM
You can pick and choose all the data you want to show that more guns mean safer streets, but the anti-gun camp can equally pick and choose and demonstrate the exact opposite.

So don't get too excited about this. It goes both ways. There are many, many other factors that affect crime rates. Gun laws are a tiny part of them.

Causation and correlation are two different things.

k1dude
01-24-2010, 11:32 AM
I don't buy the poverty connection. It sounds reasonable, but I don't buy it. I have been to some extremely poor countries, like Laos and some others, that have basically no crime.

I enjoyed your thought provoking post. But just a couple little nitpicks.

Like all countries/cities, it depends on WHERE you are. Laos has some scary places like any other country. Just avoid those places. Laos also persecutes (kills/rapes/tortures/beats/steals) the ethnic Hmong tribespeople to this very day. If the Hmong had guns to defend themselves, perhaps things would be different.

Also, the poverty correlation is real. But once again it depends on the country as you point out. I'm sure the poor in Japan (is there such a thing?) are far less prone to violence and crime than the poor in the US. It probably even depends on where in the US. As we saw during the San Diego fires vs the New Orleans hurricane, it all depends on the people. San Diego had no problems whereas New Orleans became crime central. It had to do with the people AND their socioeconomic strata.

obeygiant
01-24-2010, 11:49 AM
An excellent book on this subject is: "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", by John Lott.

Thanks for posting this as I was trying to remember the title. You can get it on Amazon for $10 here (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644)

CCWFacts
01-24-2010, 12:14 PM
I enjoyed your thought provoking post.

Thank you!

Like all countries/cities, it depends on WHERE you are. Laos has some scary places like any other country. Just avoid those places.

Not so many. I haven't been there in a few years but last time I was there we went all over the place, including remote Hmong villages, downtown LP and VT in the middle of the night and so on. Crime just didn't seem to be an issue.

Laos also persecutes (kills/rapes/tortures/beats/steals) the ethnic Hmong tribespeople to this very day.

Yes, I think there is some internal ethnic conflict there. The Hmong are screwed also in Thailand and China. They were screwed very badly by the US after the Vietnam War also. They're a nation without a state to some extent.

If the Hmong had guns to defend themselves, perhaps things would be different.

Perhaps. I've seen them out hunting with 100+ year old muzzle loaders, but obviously that's not anything that would be useful for modern defense.

Also, the poverty correlation is real. But once again it depends on the country as you point out.

Yes, very much.

I'm sure the poor in Japan (is there such a thing?) are far less prone to violence and crime than the poor in the US.

There are poor and homeless in Japan. They're not violent. They probably have a higher crime rate than middle-class Japanese, but they still are generally not violent, and even though there are poor people there, there's no street crime. As you say, it depends heavily on the people.

It probably even depends on where in the US. As we saw during the San Diego fires vs the New Orleans hurricane, it all depends on the people. San Diego had no problems whereas New Orleans became crime central. It had to do with the people AND their socioeconomic strata.

Well, I would say it depends tremendously more on the people than on their socioeconomic status (SES). The difference between San Diego and NO is a clear example. NO turned into Monrovia for a few weeks, while San Diego stayed San Diego even though people were losing their homes and so on. There were poor people in SD who didn't go out looting, raping and murdering.

Gun laws and SES don't seem to be the determinants of how much crime people commit.

k1dude
01-24-2010, 12:36 PM
CCWFacts, I should also point out I used to live in Laos and Japan and saw all that was good and bad. But that was many years ago. Now I live in the US and see all that is good and bad.

BTW, I also happen to own one of those Hmong muzzle loaders! I don't dare shoot it though.

gravedigger
01-24-2010, 12:41 PM
So if guns are not the problem (my view) what is?

Liberals, and the religion of Liberalism.