More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

[pat34lee]

These are the weapons that the second amendment was passed to protect.

Of course they are. Did you know that many of the militia
members owned better guns than the British regular troops?
How? Because they were free to make better guns.
Revolutionary War - Longrifles

 

[pat34lee]

.

 

[JackRT]

Of course they are. Did you know that many of the militia
members owned better guns than the British regular troops?
How? Because they were free to make better guns.
Revolutionary War - Longrifles

That is not the least bit surprising since the colonists used their guns primarily for hunting and the standard issue military musket, the Brown Bess, like most muskets was inaccurate at longer ranges. Many colonists purchased rifles made in England or in Europe. There was a small colonial industry also in the making of rifles. In the British army the rifle regiments were armed with, guess what?, rifles. They were the scouts, the skirmishers and the snipers. I don't see what freedom has to the discussion at hand.

 

[hedrick]

There seems to be some evidence that restricting automatic and large-magazine weapons has some benefit.

There's even some evidence for broader restrictions, but I'm not clear how good it is. One person mentioned that a significant number of gun deaths are from non criminals, e.g. suicide and accident. Obviously we can't stop someone who spends significant time on planning a suicide, but it's not out of the question to help make spur of the moment ones less common, and also accidents. The National Academy study (see below) showed some evidence for that.

Here's one of the most widely publicized recent results: Largest Study to Date Finds Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Actually Works. Note that the things they suggest are things that aren't generally controversial in the US, at least not now.

The huge National Academy of Science meta analysis showed little suggestion tht laws help, except possibly in discouraging suicide by gun: National Academy of Sciences reports on Firearms and Violence. However *some* work done here suggest hope for certain types of law (though not most laws): Three State Laws Identified That Can Reduce Gun Deaths | SPH | Boston University

Incidentally "Chicago has the strongest gun control laws but it doesn't help" has limits. It's true that at one time they did. Those laws have been slowly weakened, so a rise in murder isn't necessary unexpected. FACT CHECK: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work? Clearly, however, the problem in Chicago and some other cities really requires focused efforts to deal with gangs (and, I suggest based on no evidence, large-scale abandonment of teenagers by their fathers).

 

[pat34lee]

That is not the least bit surprising since the colonists used their guns primarily for hunting and the standard issue military musket, the Brown Bess, like most muskets was inaccurate at longer ranges. Many colonists purchased rifles made in England or in Europe. There was a small colonial industry also in the making of rifles. In the British army the rifle regiments were armed with, guess what?, rifles. They were the scouts, the skirmishers and the snipers. I don't see what freedom has to the discussion at hand.

The point of the person bringing up muskets seemed to
be that the second amendment only applied to antique
weapons. As I said, it applied and still applies to the
most modern weapons that an army can carry. Also, any
weapon that our country can provide for militants and
rebels in other countries.

If Saddam Hussein could buy F-15s (or their equivalent),
then why couldn't I, if I had about 30 million to spare?

 

[miamited]

Hi RD,

A while back you posted to me:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, getting the same result each time, but always saying, 'Next time, for sure!'"

I absolutely agree with that statement and it is because of that very truth that I find myself flabbergasted how we, as a nation regarding this issue of guns, continue to do the same thing.

You're right! What I, and others of a similar mind as myself regarding this subject, are proposing is a radical change and that's exactly why this law that you've posted wouldn't apply.

You also replied:

Actually eliminating--even substantially reducing--the number of guns in the US would require significantly changing the nature of the concept of freedom and policing in the nation.

Why would reducing the right of citizens to own firearms in some major manor, significantly change the nature and concept of freedom and policing in our nation?

Is it your position that Canadians aren't free because they don't have the easy access to firearms that we have? Great Britain? Are neither of these nations able to police themselves because the citizens don't have easy access to firearms? Where do we find support in this idea that some serious restrictions on firearms ownership would drastically effect our ability to be any less free than we are today?

Would we not be able to vote for our democratically elected officials of government? Would we not be able to enjoy free access and travel across state or municipal jurisdictions freely? Would we not be able to raise our families and enjoy July 4th celebrations? Would we not be able to say the things that we are free to say today? Personally, I can see where the serious restriction of firearms would make all these freedoms that we enjoy, even more enjoyable.

People could go to outdoor concerts without fear of being gun downed from above. Children could go to school without fear that someone might walk in one day and start blazing away at them. Our police officers could enforce the righteous laws of the land with much less fear that it might cost them their lives to work in their profession.

On the news the other evening a reporter was interviewing one of the victims of the Las Vegas massacre. She was asked if she'e ever attend an outdoor concert again. She was adamant that she would never be able to feel safe at any concert. Have our lax gun laws allowed her to enjoy the freedoms that this great country stands for? Your idea of freedom seems to be tied to one's ability to walk around as freely as they please with a firearm or to fill their homes with all sorts of firearms. Many of us others believe that it is just such freedom the instills fear in others that prevents them from truly enjoying the freedoms of our great nation.

I'm hopeful that when the older generation of today passes away and the new older generation has had to live with this near daily death and massacre, the laws will finally be corrected. I won't be here to see it, but it is my hope. Of course, that's assuming that there are any people left by then.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[hedrick]

I'm hopeful that when the older generation of today passes away and the new older generation has had to live with this near daily death and massacre, the laws will finally be corrected. I won't be here to see it, but it is my hope. Of course, that's assuming that there are any people left by then.

I agree. But most studies show that most laws don't actually help. There are things that can be done, but usually what has an effect is a combination of things. Some of the studies suggest that not all of the things are gun control. The best hope is to tone down the ideology and start looking at evidence. Maybe the younger generations will be willing to do that. My generation seems like it's not. And it's getting worse.

 

[Armoured]

I agree. But most studies show that most laws don't actually help.

Got a citation on that claim?

 

[hedrick]

Got a citation on that claim?

A major metaanalysis by the National Academy of Science showed little effect, except possibly on suicides: National Academy of Sciences reports on Firearms and Violence

What they did show is the need to collect better data, a recommendation that should be implemented. We should also have mandatory reporting of police-related deaths, of both police and civilians. We should also get rid of the stupid rule that the CDC isn't allowed to study the issue.

This the most hopeful analysis I've seen: Largest Study to Date Finds Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Actually Works. Note, however, that it suggests that single laws won't do it. Only a combination of things will.

For a sobering view see A Statistician Reconsiders Her Support for Gun Control After Looking at the Data. (This isn't the best source, but the one I can most quickly find. A more detailed presentation did find combinations of actions that could affect specific situations, but not general success against gun death as a whole.)

I did not say that nothing could be done, just that the data is complex, and the best interventions are probably ones that don't quite fit anyone's ideology.

 

[hedrick]

One complication is that there are different problems, which will probably require different interventions:

* Suicides
* Accidents
* Gang-related shootings
* People with mental problems

 

[Fireinfolding]

Shows how difficult the data can be here also

 

[hedrick]

Shows how difficult the data can be here also

This seems to be analysis done by someone who shows no sign of social-science expertise.

 

[Fireinfolding]

This seems to be analysis done by someone who shows no sign of social-science expertise.

I dont know too many who look at such data who actually have or show signs of social science expertise

 

[miamited]

I agree. But most studies show that most laws don't actually help. There are things that can be done, but usually what has an effect is a combination of things. Some of the studies suggest that not all of the things are gun control. The best hope is to tone down the ideology and start looking at evidence. Maybe the younger generations will be willing to do that. My generation seems like it's not. And it's getting worse.

Hi hedrick,

Could you provide me with total number of studies that have shown what you believe they show and how many total studies there have been? Using the word 'most' means that there is a verifiable number that is over half of the total number. I understand that there are some. Many of them are found on the NRA website. I wouldn't consider that a non-biased source of such things. All I can offer, and yes most studies do show this, that overall, nations with strong firearms restrictions have lower firearms deaths.

I imagine that the studies your looking at are ones that have seen attempts to do such things an an open system. Firearm regulations, as with many other laws, only work if it covers a much larger study base. Even abortion can be illegal in a city or county, but that doesn't generally have a serious effect on the total number of abortions in that city because they are legally obtained just a few miles away. We see this with dry counties regarding alcohol. Someone throwing a party in such an area can still get plenty of alcohol. He just has to drive a ways to get it.

I hope to hear from you on those numbers. I'm interested in checking out your claim.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SBC]

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

• The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
• But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
• Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

Gun ownership doesn't stop crime any more than owning a penal law book stops crime.

Having and or using an operable gun in the hand of skilled law abiding citizen is purposed for a deterrent against an invasive oppressor, which is just, notwithstanding slanted "careful" studies, claims and interviews.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

The only way to stop a bad toddler with a gun is with a good toddler with a gun???

Depends on whose turf they are toddling.

God Bless,
SBC