2009: More guns, less crime

[Kulindahr]

The FBI Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report is out, and the figures are encouraging: the supply of guns in the hands of citizens in the country rose a bit under 2%, and the amount of crime dropped almost across the board -- violent crime down by 4.4%, property crime down by 6.1%... arson, which has its own category, down by 8.2%.

Usually in an economic downturn one expects am increase in crime. Many liberals maintain that any increase in guns will mean an increase in crime. The anti-gun folks are wrong (again), which is not surprising, but what's with crime dropping in a recession?

Of course the FBI doesn't venture explanations; they just report the numbers. I suspect that the passage of some "Castle Doctrine" and "No Retreat" laws have put a tiny dent in crime, but those aren't common enough to have a very large effect at all.

BTW, I would like to congratulate the Midwest, for the greatest drop in forcible rape.



So, what's happening here? Is it the John Lott phenomenon? Are criminals too poor to commit crime? Are their usual prey (the poor) too poor to have anything to go after? Are spirits singing Kum Ba Ya in people's ears and we're all just getting along better?

 

[jackoroe]

I think the whole argument that the mere presence of weapons causes an increase in violent crime, has been debunked. Places that allow folks to go about armed have been proven safer places time and again.

The other popular notion that poverty causes crime, has always been a red herring. If that old saw was true, the period of the Great Depression would have been the greatest crime wave in the history of the US. Of course, it wasn't.

I do take issue with the FBI definition of "Forcible Rape." The UCR (Uniform Crime Report) defines rape as penile penetration into a vagina. All other sexual assaults are lumped into another category not reflected as "Rapes."

 

[iman]

New York City - Safest city in the country - strongest gun laws in the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6970076.ece

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the whole argument that the mere presence of weapons causes an increase in violent crime, has been debunked. Places that allow folks to go about armed have been proven safer places time and again.

Having been present when the mere presence of a firearm stopped violence dead, I know the value of the well-armed citizen to the Republic, which is to say, to fellow citizens.

The other popular notion that poverty causes crime, has always been a red herring. If that old saw was true, the period of the Great Depression would have been the greatest crime wave in the history of the US. Of course, it wasn't.

I was once a fanatic about the British Royal Navy. Reading in the colonial period brought me to an interesting gem: the Lords of the Admiralty agreed with the Lord Mayor of London that if the indigent could be removed from the city, crime would go away. They'd already begun using ships to hold those who couldn't pay debts; then came the policy of shipping them off to Australia. They kept rounding up the poor and hauling them around the world to dispose of, a program born of the notion that poverty causes crime.

It may have reduced crime, but if it did I suspect it was from a direction none had considered: the main targets of crime tended to be the poor, and with fewer poor, there were fewer targets. Of course they were also shipping off every petty criminal they could round up, as well.

I do take issue with the FBI definition of "Forcible Rape." The UCR (Uniform Crime Report) defines rape as penile penetration into a vagina. All other sexual assaults are lumped into another category not reflected as "Rapes."

No kidding.

But of course we all know that males never, ever get raped, right? and women never commit rape?

 

[Kulindahr]

Having been present when no presence of any firearms whatsoever stopped violence dead, I know the value of no well-armed citizens to the Dominion, which is to say, to fellow citizens.

When knives are out and blood is already flowing, how does the presence of no firearms stop violence dead?

 

[Kulindahr]

You guys get knives and flowing blood at hockey games??!!

 

[Kulindahr]

Skates. Close enough. A linesman had his carotid slashed through the other day. They claim it was an accident, but when I heard the news on the radio, I wasn't fooled because I had my tinfoil hat on.

Gawd.

I was med clinic orderly at college in Indiana one year. I got invited out to keep an eye on the lake ice-hockey games because the school required someone on hand in case of injury, and I had a key to the clinic, and thus to the red telephone (it actually was) to the head nurse.

One game got rough, and tempers flared. These guys didn't spend gobs of time on the ice like professional players do, so they didn't always keep in mind that they had skates on. A chase for the puck at one point resulted in a total pile up. The guy on the bottom got a stick in some painful place and lashed out with a kick.

His skate went through snow pants, jeans, and long underwear to slash a thigh three inches deep.

Another time a guy went down right in front of the goal and the guy charging the net couldn't jump because two other guys were too tight on him. His skates went over the guy's hand and forearm. The hand was safe because the guy had heavy leather gloves with composite/plastic reinforcement, but all that was on the forearm was a sweatshirt and long underwear. There, the skate went to the bone.

I don't even like to think about that stuff -- and thank you so much for bringing back bloody memories. <tease>


BTW, two hockey sticks and four jackets make an excellent improvised stretcher, and I had the nurse on the phone both times before they got the players up the lakeside to the clinic infirmary.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is for only the largest 25 cities.

Um..I could be wrong but Kennesaw, GA has held that record for many years and by city ordinance it requires a firearm in every household (obviously, it doesn't enforce the ordinance but it's fun to talk about).

I read a while back that they enforce it informally -- no searches or anything, but casual questions, including to newcomers.

And since the ordinance was passed, the population has boomed.

 

[jackoroe]

New York City - Safest city in the country - strongest gun laws in the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6970076.ece

DC's were, until they were found to be unconstitutional, about the most restrictive in the country. Yet they had one of the highest crime rates in the country.

NYC's decrease in crime, can be attributed to smarter policing.

 

[JB3]

DC's were, until they were found to be unconstitutional, about the most restrictive in the country. Yet they had one of the highest crime rates in the country.

NYC's decrease in crime, can be attributed to smarter policing.

Chicago's are also among the strictest, and violence in many parts has skyrocketed over the last few years.

Guns are not the problem; police departments with leaders that don't have a damn clue about how to clamp down on crime are.

 

[JB3]

New York City - Safest city in the country - strongest gun laws in the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6970076.ece

Correlation does not equal causation. That is, the gun laws don't mean jack shit about New York being the safest.

 

[KTheLibra]

Yeah, now we just have to decrease the rate of school shootings.

 

[Kulindahr]

Guns are not the problem; police departments with leaders that don't have a damn clue about how to clamp down on crime are.

That and idiot politicians who think that throwing another law at something will accomplish anything when the existing laws aren't being enforced -- like Clinton, who bragged about how many felons were stopped from getting guns, but couldn't point to any of them who'd been arrested and imprisoned for violating federal and state laws for trying.

Yeah, now we just have to decrease the rate of school shootings.

Easy enough: train and arm some teachers.

Oh -- and get SWAT teams who understand that their job is to get in there and take down the shooter so the other kids are safe, instead of sitting outside and jawing about the safest way to do things.

 

[archive]

Easy enough: train and arm some teachers.

Oh -- and get SWAT teams who understand that their job is to get in there and take down the shooter so the other kids are safe, instead of sitting outside and jawing about the safest way to do things.

you'll have to explain to me how arming teachers will solve anything...the rest i agree with

 

[andysayshi]

Correlation does not equal causation. That is, the gun laws don't mean jack shit about New York being the safest.

Falls flat on its face I'm afraid.

Correlation does not prove causation. NYC has had a massive cleanup since the 70s and has gotten tough on crime. That's why. Not the gun restrictions.

Baltimore and DC have some of the strictest gun control in the nation, and among the highest rates of gun violence in the World. The governments of both cities are unfortunately weak and ineffectual in controlling crime, poverty, drugs, violence, gang activity, and all that rut.

If such criticisms of Iman's post are correct, then the same logic applies to the thread topic. Correlation does not prove causation: more guns don't explain less crime.

 

[Kulindahr]

you'll have to explain to me how arming teachers will solve anything...the rest i agree with

As Jesse Ventura pointed out when still governor, in most of the school shootings, if a teacher near the beginning of it had been armed and trained, the shooter could have been neutralized long before any police could arrive, and numerous lives saved.

Further, research has shown that the prospect of armed intervention by citizens in a location reduces the likelihood of a shooting rampage.

So it would be a deterrent beforehand and a protection during such an event.

I'll grant that some people doing these kinds of shootings want to get shot, so the deterrent would have no effect there. But an armed and trained teacher could still save lives by stopping the threat early.

Another thing that would help would be not even mentioning such things in the news: there is a certain amount of desire for notoriety from some shooters, and that would just kill it. But try asking the press to keep their mouths shut, and their fingers off pens and keyboards.

 

[Kulindahr]

If such criticisms of Iman's post are correct, then the same logic applies to the thread topic. Correlation does not prove causation: more guns don't explain less crime.

No one said it does.

But it does disprove the opposite claim, made so tirelessly and repetitiously by anti-gun freaks, that more guns means more crime.

 

[Achilleus]

Oh -- and get SWAT teams who understand that their job is to get in there and take down the shooter so the other kids are safe, instead of sitting outside and jawing about the safest way to do things.

Oh Kulindahr,

You hit on one of the things than pisses me off the most. Be it Columbine or VT, the action of the fucking pigs was an utter disgrace. What is it with going into siege mode when there is some nutjob killing people? In my view if the pigs value their own lives more than those they are suppose to protect, then they are in the wrong profession. Give me a platoon of Marines, and I will give you the perps head.

 

[archive]

As Jesse Ventura pointed out when still governor, in most of the school shootings, if a teacher near the beginning of it had been armed and trained, the shooter could have been neutralized long before any police could arrive, and numerous lives saved.

thats a huge faith based assumption in teachers reasoning skills....which i particularly dont feel comfortable believing in

 

[Kulindahr]

what the gun law argument is to me is a bunch of people getting angry because their guns might be taken away. they use them for hunting, etc. any legislation that says people's rights as gun-owners might be violated is met with strong resistance merely because people are stubborn. sure, the U.S. Constitution guarantees you the right to bear arms, but since that same constitution is enforced and can be changed by the government, gun-owners will probably have to do everything that that legislation says to keep their guns. they just don't want to.

So would you be happy if they made gay marriage legal, but charged you $1000 for the license, and required you to renew it every year at a cost of $100?

That's what you're suggesting -- that it's okay to charge people to exercise a right, to make them jump through hoops to actually have their equality.

For a right, exercising it must be no more difficult than not exercising it.

the bottom line is, guns can be used to injure or kill other people, and we must protect other people. simply screening people for psychological problems before allowing them to purchase guns will help. and no, i wouldn't consider that an invasion of privacy because it's up to them to have themselves screened. they can always live without a gun, they did so up to that point, right?

So can a dick.

How about a law requiring all men to have their dicks inspected and measured annually? and screening to find out if they're really straight or gay, and really gay means that the people who think you can be changed sign off on it?

You can't require hoops or costs in order to exercise a right.

i'd put the same argument right back at you, sir. crime rates are a pointless argument made by gun-freaks to justify more liberal gun laws.

There isn't a gun law on the books that has reduced crime.

And the case is the other way around: it's the anti-gun freaks who attack, claiming crime will go down if there are fewer guns. They'll propose a gun law at any crises, regardless of whether it's even relevant. Over and over, anti-gun people propose laws and regulations after a shooting, and the real experts come out and say that those laws wouldn't have prevented it, or prevent anything else.

We did fine with no gun laws at all. We'd still be fine without them.