Arming public reduces crime

Something to think about......?

Let's go back to a time period before guns were invented.

When the use of weapons like Swords, Axes, Knives, Spears, and other sharp edge items were around and used. These item were designed and made in many different styles and sizes. And used for many Centuries. More years than the Gun has been around.

And people would stabb and hack/chop each other to death. (messy but efficiant).

Weapons for protection and killing will always be around. Some were more violent than the simple gun and bullet.......Choose your weapon.

So all those graphs and statistics about how many people were killed by a gun. It's ridiculas.
How about how many people were killed with a kitchen knife. Or a baseball bat.?.......Where are the stats on those items.?

I CARRY A GUN BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I ALONE AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY SAFETY AND I HAVE NOT ABDICATED THAT RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO ANYONE ELSE.

FACT.

 

How useful would that exercise really be? For example, economic segregation and deprivation can be seen as explanatory variables of crime. Ignoring drug related incidents would only disguise the importance of these variables

 

If the OP is reading. To be clear it isn't that there isn't a place for regression.

However it is true that once it is employed you are basically taking the writers word for whatever conclusions follow. Not that they have to fabricate the "raw" numbers and whatnot.

However they get to select the question, the populations, play around with using various proxies, choose assumptions, choose the mathmatcial model, select papers of choice for other variables, choose which variables to control for and how and so forth and so on.

And if you don't like the results you can try again with a different model or whatever until you get it "right".

I don't believe Reiver actually disagrees with me on this matter. It's simply that, as far as I can tell, he trusts everyone that agrees with what he wants to hear, and only distrusts those whose analysis disagrees.

 

Ayuh,... Yer talkin' about Switzerland....

Every citizen is armed with their state issued assault rife, 'n are trained as militia at a young age, 'n continue to serve for life...

 

Just more ignorance! Regression analysis has to be used as there are multiple factors that impact on crime rates.

This is nothing more than prattle. "Select the question"? You mean select the hypothesis. "Play around with various proxies"? Proxies are only used if there are data problems that hinder the accuracy of the hypothesis testing. Its easy to test for the robustness of the measure used. "Choose assumptions"? Assumptions would only be used to derive a theoretical context, with that theory then tested for validity with econometric methods. "Choose the mathematical model"? More incoherence! You perhaps means methodology, but that typically is dependent on the research objective: an ordered probit would be appropriate, for example, in an analysis of perceptions; a VAR chosen within an analysis into structural breaks.

Then your beliefs are wonky! You've offered nothing but grunt. The regression method has to be used. We just have to ensure quality is maintained. That requires comparison of regression techniques. Lott's analysis, for example, is easily dismissed by realising the nature of empirical bias.

I've just bothered to undertake objective literature review methods. Of course knowing that regression methods dominates the literature should be known by even those with a rather partial appreciation of the evidence...

 

Ayuh,... So Please explain the Swiss experience,..??

Assault rifles in almost every home, 'n almost Nonexistent crime....

 

Those are considerations that could be included. My suspicion is that the drug war has a higher effect on violence than does poverty.

 

Poverty provides a substantial effect on crime. Its of little surprise that countries with very high income inequality rates also have high crime rates. Sounds like you have opinions over drugs that has convinced you to ignore criminology

 

While I do agree that it is difficult to draw consistent trends from disparate societies, The conclusions that you have drawn from one particular country and a handful of undocumented "third world countries" cannot yield you any valid results. Certainly not the conclusion that you have drawn from it.

And yet this did not stop you from your conclusion above. Odd.

You're not being consistent, Sunnyside. You can't say on one hand that "firearms are far behind quite a few other factors when it comes to determining total crime rates", and then turn around and contradict that with a heralding of gun ownership having an exclusive and supposed fortuitous effect on crime.

 

Here is a simple question.

If you were a thief, or any type of criminal..... Would you ever consider going into a neighborhood to commit a crime, knowing that 50% of the residence were personally armed and protected with guns.?

And not knowing which had the guns.

I ask this because in my neighborhood, about 90% of the homeowners and folk own guns. And my neighborhood of approx. 28,000 has no major crimes.

That's right NO major crime. Then again there are no Hispanics, Blacks, or New York Transplants in my Town.

 

So I assume that you will only believe the other member's cherry picked results? Interesting argument.

Allow me to refine my list (the same list) for you and I'll take out the confounding factors you have found troubling:


State:............ Murder rate:........... State Rank:

Louisiana.............. 11.8............................#2
Mississippi............ 6.4 .............................#4
Alaska.................. 3.1 .............................#29
Arkansas.............. 6.9 .............................#6
Nevada................ 5.9 .............................#14

-------------------------------

Hawaii................... 1.7 .............................#46
Rhode Island......... 2.9 .............................#37
Massachusetts....... 2.6 .............................#39
Connecticut........... 3.0 .............................#32
New York............... 4.0 .............................#27

Source

The top list has very lax gun laws and the bottom list has very strict (comparatively) gun laws. Does this help?

 

Do you believe that drug use is unique to the US? If you have something on that, I'd like to see it.

 

It couldn't be that countries with high income inequality are also very tuned into the drug war efforts?

I wouldn't deny that poverty has an effect on crime. I think that's evident - reasonable if nothing else. But my suspicion is that there is a market that breeds a very violent culture. That market is the drug market. I believe that the drug market is connected to this violent culture because it is illegal.

It would be difficult for me to envision a violent society when there is much less to be violent over. I think that it's intuitive. I would find it hard to believe that there would be nearly the same amount of gun violence in Mexico were there not to be a drug war.


I have no statistics at hand, this is just intuitive thought.

 

No. But I do believe that the propensity of the DEA and the prohibition-like attitude is unique to the US - at least unique from a western perspective, I know that they're pretty strict on drugs in the east though.


I simply do not believe that guns are the primary reason for homicides. If it isn't the drug war, it's something else. The mere existence of a gun would not, to me, indicate that an attempt at homicide is any more likely (success of homicide might be different though).

 

I could not care any less about statistics some one or some entity publishes about anything related to constitutional rights.

For instance, The Bill of Rights says that my inherent Second Amendment right is guaranteed by the Creator; not given or granted to me or any other American by government or politicians. Period.

One can read all of the statistics until one's eyes tire and shut, but the reality is that there's never been any statistics published that trumped The Bill of Rights.

It's a moot point...move along. nothing to see here...

 

Given the impact on crime rates, it wouldn't be a surprise that the government (given its re-election needs) is then 'encouraged' to invest more money in a perceived 'war on drugs'

The drug market will always be a fertile ground for black market profiteering. Prohibition isn't the determining factor.

The effective de-criminalisation of prostitution has provided an interesting (but depressing) case study. It was supposed to be an "oldest, but regulated to help individual choice, market" response. Instead it has provided further gains from the horror of people trafficking

 

WARNING: Jib-Jabbing with Reiver is an endless mind twist.

From what I read, most (not all) attempted robberies or attacks on the street are generaly thwarted at the first signs of resistance. Generally only a few shots are fired and the assailant flees.

On the other hand. Home intrusions are a different story.
The most dangerous criminal is one who will break into someones home, especially if he knows the owner's may be in there.
That guy is ready to fight. So you better be able to put him down.

I suggest a .40S&W caliber handgun. Or a shotgun with a combat style shorter barrel lenght, loaded with Bird Shot for home protection.

I CARRY A GUN BECAUSE, I HAVE LIVED LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THE EVIL IN THE WORLD.

FACT.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

"Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries."

It seems outlawing firearms in the UK has done wonders for the safety of its citizens. Perhaps they should outlaw kitchen cutlery too. The food might appreciate it as much as the criminals they've empowered.

 

Ayuh,... Agreed,... It's amazing how much she can type, yet say Nothing of value...

Ayuh, personally, I've found that standing yer ground, even without a weapon, is enough to scare the bejesus outa most of the nitwits...
I ain't a very Big guy, but acting atad Crazier than yer opponent can be rather intimidating I guess...
I've only had to draw down on 1 group of Big guys 1 time,...
Merely cockin' the hammer back on my .45ACP was enough to teach 'em, I wasn't f(*)ckin' around with 'em...

Ayuh,... My home defensive weapon of Choice is my ole antique Remington Model 11, 12ga...
Packed with 5 rounds of #4 buckshot, 'n the barrel trimmed back to a fully open choke, I beat the barrel end slightly oval...
It scatters all that shot in a nice flat Wide pattern....
Never hada use it, but it's here, 'n Ready.....

 

My approach is rather basic: ensure it is evidence-based.

 

There is never a guarantee in the REAL WORLD. Even with all the evidence you can provide. When that Evil finally finds you........EVIDENCE AND STATS - JUST MEANS HOGS SQUAT.!!!!!

FACT.

 

There are of course alternative approaches available: ranging from 'head in the sand' to 'cheddar cheese in the ears'. I recommend you try and avoid them though

 

Reiver....Even when your in Check Mate....You just won't give in.

 

The problem here is that I avoid tabloidism and know the evidence. That ensures your need for these silly little comments.

 

Thank the Castle Doctrine in my state for protecting a recent homeowner protecting his residence from intruders killing one by gunshot in the process.

The shot perpetrator, who had a stolen gun in his possession, was found with handcuffs in his pockets.

Just imagine what could have happened to the man in his home if he had not had a gun to protect himself. Handcuffs are not something people just walk around with.

Shotguns with high brass shells (1 buck or No 4 birdshot) are your best bet for home security. 7 1/2 bird shot might not kill them if they are wearing heavy clothing.