What type of law is more likely to decrease violent crime

laws that specifically punish those who use firearms to harm others in violation of existing law and laws that punish convicted felons who are caught with firearms OR

laws that only change the legal environment for those who can legally own guns. Those laws include waiting periods, licenses, bans on specific types of firearms or registration

I believe the former actions are far more likely to decrease violent crime

 

As your suggestion does not move us closer to the monopoly on force of and by the state, the left has no interest.

 

The evidence suggests that the prevalence of guns has to fall. That gives the clue!

 

Negative Ghostrider, I like the fact that a 100lb woman can easily defend herself against a 300lb rapist. Anymore ideas?

 

Uncle Ferd says...

... an anti-crime law.

 

Believe what you like

Where is your evidence?

 

Unless the rapist takes the gun from her and uses it

Most rapes are done by people known to the victim

 

American women have Firearm Retention Courses available to them, they don't need to be victims.

https://www.agirlandagun.org/training/

Go get'em tiger!

 

Can you show that, as gun prevalence increases, rapes fall? Refer me to the evidence to support the claim.

We know that the evidence supports the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. I know folk who slobber at the thought of guns will find that inconvenient. However, I can't reinvent reality for them. I appreciate that will make them sad!

 

To be honest, after a few years on American forums and getting used to their mentality, keep the guns and keep shooting one another because they don't want to hear anything else.

Keeps the numbers down.

 

Why am I the only one that has to go googling for stats that fall within your criteria? You just made the 'more guns=more crime' remark with absolutely no supporting evidence, that same evidence you require of me. What's up?

 

Ever notice how the left usually heads toward violence when they don't get their way? Sometimes it's as mundane as calling people names, sometimes it's a little more vile, wishing death upon people they've never met for some sort of political revenge.

smh.

 

e.g. Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 16, pp 1687-1690) notes that "gun ownership rates have a statistically significant and positive effect on the homicide rates", confirming results from numerous sources such as Cook, Ludwig and Duggan

 

Awesome, thanks. so that I don't go find some paper written in 2008 and you scoff at it due to how old it is, how much further back can one go prior to the 2009 paper you provided?

And as a side note, a possible observation of how differently we see things, what exactly do you infer from that statement, "gun ownership rates have a statistically significant and positive effect on the homicide rates"? What does that mean to you?

To me it's obvious there's a lot of crooks and rapists dying. Which is a good thing, in case there was any doubt where I stand.

 

Happy to see any empirical evidence!

That the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis is tested and the it cannot be rejected. Its a statistical analysis where gun effects are isolated by controlling for other crime impacting variables.

There are also a lot of innocent people dying. Can you refer to one empirical source that backs up your claims on rape?

 

we need stronger gun laws AND stronger penalties for gun crimes.

New York should have mandatory life in prison for anyone committing a robbery/rape/murder/assault with an illegally possessed handgun.

 

A 300 lb man can easily kill a 100 lb woman with his bare hands, or knife, or hammer. She however cannot defense herself that easily with any of those methods.

Those rapists deserve to be shot as much as strangers do.

 

That’s odd, because stats show the prevalence of guns are rising each year.
Stats also show gun crime has been on a downward trend for many years.
I don’t see how that’s a fail.

 

You don't understand hypothesis testing. You clearly haven't even bothered to read the evidence into gun impact on criminology.

Why be ignorant?

 

Whip out all the studies you want.
None can dispute that gun ownership is on the rise, and gun crimes have been decreasing.

You can’t dispute these numbers.

 

I can dispute your insistence on using spurious relationship, rather than appropriate empirical study. It is of course a very ignorant thing to do.

 

I’m not trying to infer anything.
I’m just stating a couple of indisputable facts.

 

http://perbylund.com/2008/08/why-empirical-research-isnt-scientific/

http://www.science20.com/machines_o...n_mistakes_in_empirical_social_science-151861

"The reason is that all empirical studies are flawed, as any good social scientist will admit".

https://books.google.com/books?id=U...q=empirical study social science flaw&f=false

 

I agree with you on that point, it is quite ignorant of you to insist on presenting fallacious fatuous opinion as fact.

Since there is no true Empirical evidence as most studies you have pointed to plainly indicate, and these same studies admit to filling in blanks with guess work since solid numbers do not exist and there are many large gaps in the data since dead people cannot be interviewed.

 

No, you're giving spurious relationship and, either through ignorance or deliberate stupidity, pretending its more than that. I find it repugnant either way. Any one pretending to know the gun control subject would know better.