Murder rate drops as Gun sales soar.

[Coyote]

I am still curious about Rightwinger's question: Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

No one in the "pro-gun" lobby seems to answer it.

It certainly isn't because of guns. Latest FBI stats show around 60% of homicides are committed with guns. So if we erased every single one of those, we'd still have 40% of our current homicide rate, or around double that of the next country in line.

Now lets look at a parallel; England. Despite their draconian gun control laws, their murder rate has stayed the same, and indeed rose over the past 5 years. But ignoring that, even when they had virtually no gun control laws what so ever, they still had about the same rate per capita back in 1900 (give or take 2%).

Correlation does not imply causation. I.E. the drop in our murder rate is not necessarily related to the increase in gun ownership. And by the same token, the rise on Englands murder rate is not indicative of their harsh gun control.

That isn't to say guns don't save lives however. Various studies (someone mentioned Gary Keleck) show that between 800,000 (DOJ study) and 2,400,000 people use a firearm defensively every year. 97% of which, don't involve a death, and 90% don't involve any shots fired at all. Now even taking the lowest number (the DOJ study), that's about 35-1 DGU's to murders.

Ya know, even if none of those numbers were actually true (and I believe they are) it wouldn't matter. The U.S. Constitution gives the right to "keep and bear arms". It is a right. It doesn't matter if it is bad for society or not.

True, but it's not an unlimited right.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

True, but it's not an unlimited right.

Yeah, it kinda is. It stops short when you have your rights taken from you via due process (per 4th and 14th), or when you are declared a danger to society. But other than that, yeah it is unlimited.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can you prove that the decrease is caused by relaxing gun laws? If so - why do many cities with strict conceal carry laws have a lower crime rate than cities who don't have it?

Crime rate statistics:

Violent crime in the U.S. - overall - has been declining since 1991


Then, look at the cities:

Honolulu with it's extremely low rate of violent crime also has very strict gun control laws.

Try compariung apples to apples instead of apples to truck tires.
It is perfectly valid to compare Detroit pre-carry to Detroit post carry. It is not valid to compare Detroit to Orlando.

I am asking why do many cities with strict conceal carry laws have a lower crime rate than cities who don't have it?? If liberalizing gun laws has such a dramatic effect in reducing crime - and that is the claim being made than other cities with similar laws should be seeing similar results and we should be seeing higher crime rates in cities with strict laws but we aren't.

Now, if you are suggesting that maybe other factors are involved in changes in crime rates, then that weakens any claim that hand gun laws are responsible for lowering rates.

Again, you are trying to compare apples to baseballs. A city like Omaha has a very different make up from a city like Detroit. Similarly a city like Memphis is nothing like Nashville. So you can't compare city to city. You can compare the same city pre-carry to post carry. And we have done that. And when you lose that argument then you assert that you can't see any causation.
Well, what else would cause it? And try comparing crime rate in Detroit pre and post law with crime rates in Ypsilanti pre and post. I would bet the rate of decline in Detroit was higher than the rate of decline in Ypsilanti.

 

[The Rabbi]

It certainly isn't because of guns. Latest FBI stats show around 60% of homicides are committed with guns. So if we erased every single one of those, we'd still have 40% of our current homicide rate, or around double that of the next country in line.

Now lets look at a parallel; England. Despite their draconian gun control laws, their murder rate has stayed the same, and indeed rose over the past 5 years. But ignoring that, even when they had virtually no gun control laws what so ever, they still had about the same rate per capita back in 1900 (give or take 2%).

Correlation does not imply causation. I.E. the drop in our murder rate is not necessarily related to the increase in gun ownership. And by the same token, the rise on Englands murder rate is not indicative of their harsh gun control.

That isn't to say guns don't save lives however. Various studies (someone mentioned Gary Keleck) show that between 800,000 (DOJ study) and 2,400,000 people use a firearm defensively every year. 97% of which, don't involve a death, and 90% don't involve any shots fired at all. Now even taking the lowest number (the DOJ study), that's about 35-1 DGU's to murders.

Ya know, even if none of those numbers were actually true (and I believe they are) it wouldn't matter. The U.S. Constitution gives the right to "keep and bear arms". It is a right. It doesn't matter if it is bad for society or not.

True, but it's not an unlimited right.

There are no unlimited rights. But there are rights that can be circumscribed only on showing tremendous interest by the state in doing so. Voting is one of them. Why should keeping and bearing firearms, which is mentioned in the Constitution as a right, be any less important than voting, which is not?

 

[Coyote]

Ya know, even if none of those numbers were actually true (and I believe they are) it wouldn't matter. The U.S. Constitution gives the right to "keep and bear arms". It is a right. It doesn't matter if it is bad for society or not.

True, but it's not an unlimited right.

There are no unlimited rights. But there are rights that can be circumscribed only on showing tremendous interest by the state in doing so. Voting is one of them. Why should keeping and bearing firearms, which is mentioned in the Constitution as a right, be any less important than voting, which is not?

Never said it wasn't.

 

[Coyote]

Again, you are trying to compare apples to baseballs. A city like Omaha has a very different make up from a city like Detroit. Similarly a city like Memphis is nothing like Nashville. So you can't compare city to city. You can compare the same city pre-carry to post carry. And we have done that. And when you lose that argument then you assert that you can't see any causation.


Well, what else would cause it? And try comparing crime rate in Detroit pre and post law with crime rates in Ypsilanti pre and post. I would bet the rate of decline in Detroit was higher than the rate of decline in Ypsilanti.

You haven't proven causation. Ask yourself these questions:
- since 2001 what changes have occurred in Detroit related to crime reduction?

Here's one example of initiatives in both Michigan overall and Detroit: http://www.psnworks.org/

- since 2001 the crime rate has steadily dropped nation-wide. How do you know that Detroits drop isn't part of that?

- if liberalizing gun laws in a Detroit causes a reduction in crime - why doesn't the same happen in other cities if it is indeed causal? It shouldn't matter what the make up of the city is.

So prove causation.

 

[CMike]

Obviously using stastics you can't prove anything but you can back up your arguements,

The fact is that honest citizens need firearms to protect themselves from dishonest violent citizens .

Did you watch the videos?

 

[Coyote]

Obviously using stastics you can't prove anything but you can back up your arguements,

Statistics are helpful, but they can easily be misused.

The fact is that honest citizens need firearms to protect themselves from dishonest violent citizens .

Emotional pleas are like testimonials...they're not really of much value.

Did you watch the videos?

Yes

 

[CMike]

They are not pleas. They are actual examples.

They are also not testimonials because you can hear the actual 911 calls.

 

[Coyote]

They are not pleas. They are actual examples.

They are also not testimonials because you can hear the actual 911 calls.

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, you are trying to compare apples to baseballs. A city like Omaha has a very different make up from a city like Detroit. Similarly a city like Memphis is nothing like Nashville. So you can't compare city to city. You can compare the same city pre-carry to post carry. And we have done that. And when you lose that argument then you assert that you can't see any causation.


Well, what else would cause it? And try comparing crime rate in Detroit pre and post law with crime rates in Ypsilanti pre and post. I would bet the rate of decline in Detroit was higher than the rate of decline in Ypsilanti.

You haven't proven causation. Ask yourself these questions:
- since 2001 what changes have occurred in Detroit related to crime reduction?

Here's one example of initiatives in both Michigan overall and Detroit: Project Safe Neighborhood

- since 2001 the crime rate has steadily dropped nation-wide. How do you know that Detroits drop isn't part of that?

- if liberalizing gun laws in a Detroit causes a reduction in crime - why doesn't the same happen in other cities if it is indeed causal? It shouldn't matter what the make up of the city is.

So prove causation.

You can never prove causation. It is logically impossible.
But if you see the same phenomenon over and over you figure that is the most likely reason for it.
Didn't Detroit's crime rate drop further than would be predicted by nationwide trends?
Doesn't this drop occur in other cities that institute concealed carry?
there are your answers.

 

[CMike]

They are not pleas. They are actual examples.

They are also not testimonials because you can hear the actual 911 calls.

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

Actual examples?

 

[Coyote]

They are not pleas. They are actual examples.

They are also not testimonials because you can hear the actual 911 calls.

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

Actual examples?

That would be difficult to provide because you would have to know the intent of the criminal but, I suppose the following would qualify for "shoot first" scenarios.

Robber kills Philly armored car guards - USATODAY.com
Sheboon Robber Shoots ATM Guy in the Head | DetroitIsCrap.com
Robber Kills For Cash, Police Say - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

Actual examples?

That would be difficult to provide because you would have to know the intent of the criminal but, I suppose the following would qualify for "shoot first" scenarios.

Robber kills Philly armored car guards - USATODAY.com
Sheboon Robber Shoots ATM Guy in the Head | DetroitIsCrap.com
Robber Kills For Cash, Police Say - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

You're really sucking wind here.
The first two stories deal with crimes against people who would obviously be armed, security guards carrying money and valuables.
The third, which happened within 3 miles of my business btw, is completely inconclusive. It looks like a drug related killing from the sound of it.
What does that prove? That drug dealers kill people to get money?
I don't see what these links are even supposed to prove.

 

[Coyote]

Again, you are trying to compare apples to baseballs. A city like Omaha has a very different make up from a city like Detroit. Similarly a city like Memphis is nothing like Nashville. So you can't compare city to city. You can compare the same city pre-carry to post carry. And we have done that. And when you lose that argument then you assert that you can't see any causation.


Well, what else would cause it? And try comparing crime rate in Detroit pre and post law with crime rates in Ypsilanti pre and post. I would bet the rate of decline in Detroit was higher than the rate of decline in Ypsilanti.

You haven't proven causation. Ask yourself these questions:
- since 2001 what changes have occurred in Detroit related to crime reduction?

Here's one example of initiatives in both Michigan overall and Detroit: Project Safe Neighborhood

- since 2001 the crime rate has steadily dropped nation-wide. How do you know that Detroits drop isn't part of that?

- if liberalizing gun laws in a Detroit causes a reduction in crime - why doesn't the same happen in other cities if it is indeed causal? It shouldn't matter what the make up of the city is.

So prove causation.

You can never prove causation. It is logically impossible.

Causation can often be proved - it's not impossible. In complex scenarios you can prove it to a reasonable doubt. That's how science tends to work.

At the very least you can show multiple data points that support your case.

But if you see the same phenomenon over and over you figure that is the most likely reason for it.

What "same" phenomena"? Are you talking about trends in other cities? If so - aren't you trying to argue that you can have your cake and eat it to since other cities - according to your arguments, are not comparable due to differing demographics.

Didn't Detroit's crime rate drop further than would be predicted by nationwide trends?

Did it?

What else has Detroit done to reduce crime? According to a link I gave they've instituted a number of programs aimed at reducing violent crime, particularly with gangs.

Doesn't this drop occur in other cities that institute concealed carry?
there are your answers.

What other cities? And....what about your argument that you can't compare crime rates in different cities?

 

[Coyote]

Actual examples?

That would be difficult to provide because you would have to know the intent of the criminal but, I suppose the following would qualify for "shoot first" scenarios.

Robber kills Philly armored car guards - USATODAY.com
Sheboon Robber Shoots ATM Guy in the Head | DetroitIsCrap.com
Robber Kills For Cash, Police Say - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

You're really sucking wind here.

No. I'm trying to figure out exactly what Mike is asking for since he's asking for examples of something that was presented as theoretical.

The first two stories deal with crimes against people who would obviously be armed, security guards carrying money and valuables.

Yes, which makes it a good example of a robber shooting first knowing his opponent is armed.

The third, which happened within 3 miles of my business btw, is completely inconclusive. It looks like a drug related killing from the sound of it.
What does that prove? That drug dealers kill people to get money?
I don't see what these links are even supposed to prove.

It proves that some one is willing to shoot first. Which is what it seemed like Mike was asking for.

 

[CMike]

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

Actual examples?

That would be difficult to provide because you would have to know the intent of the criminal but, I suppose the following would qualify for "shoot first" scenarios.

Robber kills Philly armored car guards - USATODAY.com
Sheboon Robber Shoots ATM Guy in the Head | DetroitIsCrap.com
Robber Kills For Cash, Police Say - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

Not really, you asked about robbers who would shoot first because a person was armed. These examples, don't show that.

I did show specific examples of how firearms where used to prevent violent attacks.

If I was a robber and I knew, or had a doubt whether someone had a gun, I would most likely go find another victim. They aren't exactly hero type of people. They are looking for easy prey, not to get into a gunfight.

In some of the examples that I showed, robbers vamonosed out of there when they saw that their prey had a gun or fired shots.

 

[CMike]

They are not pleas. They are actual examples.

They are also not testimonials because you can hear the actual 911 calls.

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

I am making another arguement. The argument is that you have the ability to defend yourself if you have a gun and you are trained how to use it.

You have a lot less ability to defend yourself if you don't.

Statistics show that a gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times/year in America.

I believe in personal responsibility, and when it come down to it, you are responsible for yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can compare crime rates in one city before handgun carry to after handgun carry. And then you can see whether that rate of decline is more or less than the national average would have predicted. I dont have the time to do the research but I believe the answer is (having seen it quoted elsewhere) that crime declines more in areas with handgun carry than in areas without it.

 

[Coyote]

Not really, you asked about robbers who would shoot first because a person was armed. These examples, don't show that.

If that is what you want, then indeed two of those examples are perfect - the robber knows the guards are armed.

I did show specific examples of how firearms where used to prevent violent attacks.

If I was a robber and I knew, or had a doubt whether someone had a gun, I would most likely go find another victim. They aren't exactly hero type of people. They are looking for easy prey, not to get into a gunfight.

Some are and some aren't - you can't be sure. I think a large number of would-be robbers look for easy opportunities but likely, many of them don't carry a gun anyway. Another proportion don't care if they kill someone or are desperate (or on drugs).

In some of the examples that I showed, robbers vamonosed out of there when they saw that their prey had a gun or fired shots.

I am not actually "anti-gun", I believe in a certain level of regulation and responsibility - so I don't disagree that guns can deter would be criminals and in searching for articles looking for "robber shoots" I came upon a considerable number where a robber is shot by his would be victim or nearby bystanders (which, by the way kind of squashes the myth that the press refuses to report that).

But I'm also concerned about the other side of the gun issue and that is guns in the hands of less than responsible people - like someone who has been drinking for example. Or Johnny Roadrage pissed off because he thinks I cut him off (I actually someone threaten me one time for that and it was freaky). Or, someone who shoots a fleeing robbery suspect rather than letting him get away. If your life is endanger that is one thing but anything else is simply property and I'd rather let the law handle it then depend on the judgement of someone in an adrenaline rush.