The case against guns

[Seth]

Seth

We can say with almost 100% certainty that with more hand guns in the community, the murder rate goes up substantially.

Except it doesn't, as you yourself have stated numerous times. Shall I bother to quote you? No, I think not.

Of course, hand guns are not the only factor determining murder rate, but if the number is high enough, it becomes a very, very important factor. This is especially true in societies with a gun culture.

Unsupported assertion.

If we look at the five developed and mainly English speaking countries, which is as close as I can get to comparing apples with apples, we can see this point clearly demonstrated. The five countries are NZ, Australia, USA, Canada and Britain. What is the murder rate and the hand gun ownership?

Since you have repeatedly admitted that the number of handguns in society have no effect on the crime rate you're asking a red herring question.

Highest murder rate and highest hand gun ownership is USA, with 1 in 3 people owning a hand gun, and a murder rate of 4.3 killings per 100,000 people per year. Half those killings are done with hand guns.

By criminals with guns.

The second is Canada. A lot fewer hand guns, but still way too many. Murder rate 1.6 per 100,000 per year, and over half those murders with hand guns.

By criminals with guns.

Then Britain (1.2), Australia (1.0) and NZ (0.9). All three have next to zero hand guns in the community and the number of hand gun murders are also next to zero. In my country, we get about 40 murders per year and about 1 hand gun killing per decade.

And yet you still have homicides. And each and every person killed unlawfully by another has an absolute and unquestioned right to be armed to defend themselves against that attack, whether it's committed with a handgun, a baseball bat or someone's feet.

The data is pretty damn clear cut. More hand guns means more murders.

Except it doesn't, as you have repeatedly admitted. The fact is that there are fewer and fewer murders each year and yet more and more handguns in our society, therefore, as you have repeatedly acknowledged, the murder rate is unconnected to the level of legitimate handgun ownership.

In the case of the USA, one hell of a lot more murders. 8,000 hand gun murders per year.

A number which would probably be much higher if attempts to take handguns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens were attempted...which is amply demonstrated by the murder rates in Chicago, where citizens are virtually forbidden to have ANY firearms in public, or in their homes, versus places like Denver and other cities in states where concealed carry is lawful and a citizen's right to be armed for self defense is respected.

As far as other crimes are concerned, the only 'evidence' I have seen to show more guns less crime is that published by John Lott, and his academic peers have no confidence in his work. In fact, from the reading I have done, it appears that his peers think that Lott's data is a pack of lies.

Just because you haven't seen it, or choose not to believe it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not true. And Lott's critics are hardly his "peers," they are universally well-recognized extreme anti-gun individuals and organizations with an axe to grind and who therefore cannot be trusted to be either objective or truthful.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Please stop misquoting me. I have never, never, never said that murder rates have nothing to do with hand guns. What I said was that there is a long term, 1,000 year trend, toward lower levels of murder and violence. This trend, and this trend only, is not related to how many guns there are. After all, it began well before guns were invented.

However, in the modern world, there is a very clear cut indicator that large numbers of hand guns in any particular society means much higher murder rates.

As I said, among English speaking countries, the highest ownership of hand guns is the USA, which has by far the highest murder rate. The second is Canada with far too many hand guns, (bought in the USA) and a murder rate 40% higher than the next highest, Britain. The three countries with the least hand guns (Britain, Oz and NZ) also have substantially lower murder rates.

I have also pointed out that local laws inside the USA make no difference. If a person cannot buy hand guns in Chicago, he just has to move outside the state. I believe there is a gun shop that sells hand guns within 100 metres of the state border, which does a roaring trade with Chicago residents.

Local laws mean nothing if people can buy murder weapons in the next state.

[Daedalus]

Seth

I have told you many times that surveys show the number of gun owners in the USA is dropping, at the same time as the murder rate is dropping.

Yup. More guns, less crime.

New hand gun sales are up, but apparently to existing gun owners, so that the extra guns have no influence on crime rates.

So you say. There is no conclusive evidence that what you claim is true, but even if it is, more guns, less crime.

After all, whether a criminal owns one gun or 100 is not going to change the number of crimes he/she commits.

Nor does the number of handguns owned by a law abiding citizen. More guns, less crime.

Of course, this is not the reason crime rates are dropping. Crime rates have been dropping globally for the past 1,000 years. It is a function of the fact that most societies are getting more civilised. The drop in crime rates is certainly not due to extra guns, both the for reason above, and because it is a consistent trend everywhere regardless of how guns increase or decrease.

Yup, more guns, less crime. Therefore there is no need to reduce the number of guns in society.

Thanks for proving my case.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that guns in the population lead to less or more crime. You might as well note that more cases of HPV in young adults, less crime.

Quite right. Just as HPV is unrelated to crime, so is gun ownership by law-abiding citizens...or so BG believes. I happen to believe, based on plenty of credible evidence that MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does in fact lead to less crime because that's what the research shows.

But what we know without question, based on the US "experiment" in arming the citizenry with concealed handguns is that more handguns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not result in MORE crime. It results in either less crime or zero impact on crime, depending on who you believe, but since it doesn't INCREASE crime there is no reason not to allow law abiding citizens to carry such arms.

What evidence? I can't say that I've ever seen such evidence, only speculation and wishful thinking. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get funding to study gun violence given the law and social reactions. Generally only the basic stats are available.

In fact, crime stats in general are often tough to find causation for, but everyone has a reason. It's the loss of religion, it's the rise of drug X, it's the violence in media, it's the decline of morals, it's broken families, it's poverty, it's the economy,it's race, it's guns. What it really seems to be is a Rorschach inkblot.

AFAIK the only thing that's truly correlated with a reduction in crime is is the kind of modern policing that NYC adopted to reverse its trend of being a hell-hole. Even then, it may have ridden a pre-existing reduction in violent crime.

[Blind groper]

To Daedalus

The 'evidence' for Seth's oft repeated mantra about more guns less crime is material published by that arch swindler, John Lott. Apart from his sidekick, Kleck, his work is mistrusted by every other academic in the USA in his field, as far as my reading takes me. His motive for publishing false material is clear. He has made millions of dollars writing two books that suck up to the gun nutter fraternity.

If you look for evidence outside the writings of Lott and Kleck, you will not find it, because it does not exist. A basic principle in science is repeatability. Data that one pair of people claim to have obtained, which cannot be gained by other researchers is considered to have failed the test of repeatability, and therefore to be very bad science.

[Seth]

To Seth

Please stop misquoting me. I have never, never, never said that murder rates have nothing to do with hand guns.

Liar.

I have told you many times that surveys show the number of gun owners in the USA is dropping, at the same time as the murder rate is dropping. New hand gun sales are up, but apparently to existing gun owners, so that the extra guns have no influence on crime rates. After all, whether a criminal owns one gun or 100 is not going to change the number of crimes he/she commits.

Murder rates world wide are falling. In fact, they have been falling for 1000 years or more. Since long before guns were even invented. This overall trend has nothing to do with guns.

Murder rates world wide are dropping. Get this into your thick skull. Those murder rates dropping have nothing to do with any increase in gun ownership. It is a global phenomenon, and happens all round the world regardless of whether gun ownership is growing or falling. Other factors are at work.

It does not bother me that gun owners buy more guns. That will not increase the crime or murder rate. They can only murder one person at a time, anyway.

I could go on and on and on, but won't.

[Seth]

To Daedalus

The 'evidence' for Seth's oft repeated mantra about more guns less crime is material published by that arch swindler, John Lott. Apart from his sidekick, Kleck, his work is mistrusted by every other academic in the USA in his field, as far as my reading takes me. His motive for publishing false material is clear. He has made millions of dollars writing two books that suck up to the gun nutter fraternity.

If you look for evidence outside the writings of Lott and Kleck, you will not find it, because it does not exist. A basic principle in science is repeatability. Data that one pair of people claim to have obtained, which cannot be gained by other researchers is considered to have failed the test of repeatability, and therefore to be very bad science.

Liar.

[Daedalus]

To Daedalus

The 'evidence' for Seth's oft repeated mantra about more guns less crime is material published by that arch swindler, John Lott. Apart from his sidekick, Kleck, his work is mistrusted by every other academic in the USA in his field, as far as my reading takes me. His motive for publishing false material is clear. He has made millions of dollars writing two books that suck up to the gun nutter fraternity.

If you look for evidence outside the writings of Lott and Kleck, you will not find it, because it does not exist. A basic principle in science is repeatability. Data that one pair of people claim to have obtained, which cannot be gained by other researchers is considered to have failed the test of repeatability, and therefore to be very bad science.

Liar.

Fair enough, but I'm still waiting for that evidence.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

The claim that more guns reduces crime is your claim, your slogan, and your mantra. Never mine.

I have said, obviously insufficiently clearly, that the long term trend from 1,000 years ago towards lower murder rates, has nothing to do with numbers of guns, and it does not. However, within that long term trend are smaller sub-trends, including the fact that nations with more hand guns have more murders, as I have amply demonstrated.

This is most marked with the USA, but it overflows into adjacent nations, whose citizens can slip across the border to buy hand guns in the USA. That has increased the murder rate in both Canada and Mexico.

[Jason]

I'm as impressed by the evidence against 'guns' as I am by the evidence for it. Non-issue.. but of course we must debate it.

How does that Douglas Adams quote about "effing the ineffable" go?

[Blind groper]

To Fakuname

The one thing this debate shows very clearly is the power of emotion on belief. Despite the fact that this is Rationalia, supposedly made up of people who think rationally, the gun issue is very much emotional (except for me and the other pro-gun control debaters).

You will note that the strong pro-gun people are all people who love guns. Seth, Collector, and Gallstones are all people who own lots of guns and spend lots of time shooting them. They have an emotional obsession with owning and firing guns. Thus, they argue pro-gun and are blind to any alternate argument. No rational thinking. All emotion.

If you, Fakuname, are neutral to the issue, it just shows that you lack the emotional hang up that the pro-gun people have.

Seth will, no doubt, argue that I am emotional on the issue. That is actually true. I am not pro-gun. I am pro-people. And I oppose anything that kills people. My personal philosophy is that there is no after-life. This life is all we have. So to kill someone, and prematurely take from them the only thing they have or ever will have, is a crime of the greatest evil. With this respect for human life, I can be only opposed to gun culture - the culture of killing - and opposed to widespread ownership of the tool designed specifically for killing people.

[Seth]

To Seth

The claim that more guns reduces crime is your claim, your slogan, and your mantra. Never mine.

Strawman argument. I quoted several passages of yours saying that the number of guns HAS NO EFFECT on crime. The obvious logic is as follows: If the number of guns in society has no effect on crime, then gun-related crime has a cause OTHER than guns. If the crime rate, overall and/or handgun murders continues to fall as the number of guns in society continues to climb, then it is inexorably true that the statement "more guns, less crime" is true. You don't believe there is a causal connection between more guns and less crime. I do. I have plenty of evidence, both empirical and scientific, that this is true so I reject your assertion that it is not, particularly when it's based on ambiguous and biased criticisms by well-known anti-gun zealots whom I deem unreliable. If you want me to believe you, then you will need to REPLICATE Lott and Kleck et al's work and PROVE that their conclusions are wrong. A review of their work by anti-gun zealots at Harvard doesn't cut the mustard particularly when the authors admit they DID NOT review the raw data. They were pissed because Lott would not give them access to his laboriously-collected data so they maligned him without any actual evidence that his study was improperly conducted or his conclusions were invalid. If the Harvard researchers were honest scientists they would have REPLICATED the study using the same (or another) methodology to survey every county in the nation and presented THEIR findings for peer review. They didn't do that, they just carped about Lott's work and enunciated a minimal degree of skepticism about the validity of his conclusions based, IMO, on their pre-existing biases.

And YOU certainly have shown me nothing that convinces me that more guns equals MORE crime. You've admitted numerous times that more guns DOES NOT equal more crime. I agree with you in that claim. Which makes it perfectly obvious that there is no need, much less a compelling government need, to further regulate or ban lawful access to handguns by the law-abiding public. The facts show that less than one hundredth of one percent of handguns in private hands in the US are ever used unlawfully. This does not create the kind of compelling government need that is required in order to overcome the superior Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms that all law-abiding citizens enjoy.

I have said, obviously insufficiently clearly, that the long term trend from 1,000 years ago towards lower murder rates, has nothing to do with numbers of guns, and it does not.

Right. More guns, less crime.

However, within that long term trend are smaller sub-trends, including the fact that nations with more hand guns have more murders, as I have amply demonstrated.

Yes, you have stated a trend. You have not, however, proven a causal link between possession of handguns by the law abiding and the murder rates, much less proven your claim that removing handguns from the law abiding will result in LESS crime or fewer murders. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that where handguns are banned, violent crime is substantially higher than it is in places where concealed carry of handguns is lawful. One look at Chicago is proof of that, but we can also observe the violent crime rate in the UK after the banning of handguns as further proof.

This is most marked with the USA, but it overflows into adjacent nations, whose citizens can slip across the border to buy hand guns in the USA. That has increased the murder rate in both Canada and Mexico.

Has it? Show your work. Prove that the availability of US handguns is causally responsible for more murders in Canada OR Mexico. Please.

As you yourself have stated repeatedly, the number of handguns in society has NO EFFECT on crime rates, so there must be some other reason that murders in Canada and Mexico are up....perhaps drug smuggling. Perhaps the societies involved are simply insane. Guns from the US may be INVOLVED, but that does not make them causal, much less demonstrate that banning guns will reduce violent crime...because it doesn't. Ever. As Chicago and the UK, among other nations and cities prove beyond any doubt.

And since you have admitted that the number of guns in the US has no effect on crime rates, and I agree, there is no reason to ban them.

[Seth]

To Daedalus

The 'evidence' for Seth's oft repeated mantra about more guns less crime is material published by that arch swindler, John Lott. Apart from his sidekick, Kleck, his work is mistrusted by every other academic in the USA in his field, as far as my reading takes me. His motive for publishing false material is clear. He has made millions of dollars writing two books that suck up to the gun nutter fraternity.

If you look for evidence outside the writings of Lott and Kleck, you will not find it, because it does not exist. A basic principle in science is repeatability. Data that one pair of people claim to have obtained, which cannot be gained by other researchers is considered to have failed the test of repeatability, and therefore to be very bad science.

Liar.

Fair enough, but I'm still waiting for that evidence.

The evidence is in the Harvard report BG keeps pandering. They DID NOT replicate Lott's exhaustive national survey, they simply tried to examine his data. He, for obvious reasons, knowing that the researchers involved are notorious anti-gun zealots and not dispassionate professional researchers (as Lott himself is) refused to give them the data set. Being unable to analyze the data set the best the Harvard people could do was to speculate and announce their incredulity at the conclusions Lott drew because they offended the anti-gun sensibilities and hard-line anti-gun dogma of the researchers. Their "critique" amounts to little more than a sour-grapes bitch-fest because Lott refused to cooperate with them. It does NOT comprise proper research refuting Lott's conclusions. To do that the Harvard folks would have had to replicate Lott's county-by-county nationwide survey and then come up with different numbers. IMO, they were afraid to do so because they feared that their preconceptions about guns and crime would be shattered, as they were for Lott, who started out with an anti-gun bias of his own but was convinced of the error of his ways when he looked at the actual facts.

It's interesting that in the long period since Lott first published, NOT ONE anti-gun group has ever even attempted to replicate his work and present an opposite conclusion, and in point of fact several OTHER researchers have done studies on the issue which largely agree with Lott's conclusion: More guns, less crime.

If the hoplophobes had the data, where is it? Just because Lott won't share his data with his sworn enemies doesn't excuse them of the duty of doing the research before they challenge the conclusions. Why do we have to listen to BG blather ignorantly on about his fallacious conclusions based upon an amateurish at best "analysis" of the meta-question of guns in society that completely ignores so many variables and confounders that it makes his "conclusion" nothing less than utter ignorant nonsense?

[Daedalus]

To Daedalus

The 'evidence' for Seth's oft repeated mantra about more guns less crime is material published by that arch swindler, John Lott. Apart from his sidekick, Kleck, his work is mistrusted by every other academic in the USA in his field, as far as my reading takes me. His motive for publishing false material is clear. He has made millions of dollars writing two books that suck up to the gun nutter fraternity.

If you look for evidence outside the writings of Lott and Kleck, you will not find it, because it does not exist. A basic principle in science is repeatability. Data that one pair of people claim to have obtained, which cannot be gained by other researchers is considered to have failed the test of repeatability, and therefore to be very bad science.

Liar.

Fair enough, but I'm still waiting for that evidence.

The evidence is in the Harvard report BG keeps pandering. They DID NOT replicate Lott's exhaustive national survey, they simply tried to examine his data. He, for obvious reasons, knowing that the researchers involved are notorious anti-gun zealots and not dispassionate professional researchers (as Lott himself is) refused to give them the data set. Being unable to analyze the data set the best the Harvard people could do was to speculate and announce their incredulity at the conclusions Lott drew because they offended the anti-gun sensibilities and hard-line anti-gun dogma of the researchers. Their "critique" amounts to little more than a sour-grapes bitch-fest because Lott refused to cooperate with them. It does NOT comprise proper research refuting Lott's conclusions. To do that the Harvard folks would have had to replicate Lott's county-by-county nationwide survey and then come up with different numbers. IMO, they were afraid to do so because they feared that their preconceptions about guns and crime would be shattered, as they were for Lott, who started out with an anti-gun bias of his own but was convinced of the error of his ways when he looked at the actual facts.

It's interesting that in the long period since Lott first published, NOT ONE anti-gun group has ever even attempted to replicate his work and present an opposite conclusion, and in point of fact several OTHER researchers have done studies on the issue which largely agree with Lott's conclusion: More guns, less crime.

If the hoplophobes had the data, where is it? Just because Lott won't share his data with his sworn enemies doesn't excuse them of the duty of doing the research before they challenge the conclusions. Why do we have to listen to BG blather ignorantly on about his fallacious conclusions based upon an amateurish at best "analysis" of the meta-question of guns in society that completely ignores so many variables and confounders that it makes his "conclusion" nothing less than utter ignorant nonsense?

What Harvard report? I'm new here, link?

[Coito ergo sum]

However, in the modern world, there is a very clear cut indicator that large numbers of hand guns in any particular society means much higher murder rates.

While I have no objection to reasonable regulations on firearms, as well as their use and possession, I have to disagree with you here. There is no such "clear indicator." I've cited many times the discrepancy between lots of murder in Washington DC and Chicago, which have very strict gun laws, and the nearly nonexistent murder rate (even firearms murder rate) in places like New Hamphsire, where the gun laws are practically nonexistent. This kind of discrepancy points to cultural factors predominating.

As I said, among English speaking countries, the highest ownership of hand guns is the USA, which has by far the highest murder rate.

Yes, but taking the US as a homogenous mass is about the same as taking Europe as a homogeneous mass. It's not really rational to do that. The reason why the US has a high murder rate seems to have a large cultural component, as the areas in which murder rates are high are in certain cultural areas, and not in others. I.e. - it's like comparing the murder rate in Eastern Europe, which is very high, to that in northern Europe, which is very low. In the US, if you eliminated the murder rates for our inner cities, we would not even be having this conversation because the US would look like a country whose citizenry could eminently be trusted with guns.

[Blind groper]

Coito

The USA as a 'homogeneous mass'.
In one respect it is. That is, in terms of hand gun availability. The pro-gun lobby here on this forum makes a big deal about the fact that murder rates are still high in places with stronger anti-gun laws. Of course they are. The laws may be better, but the gun availability is still there, since anyone who wants a hand gun can just slip across the state border and buy one. So the result of stronger gun laws in single states on hand gun availability is pretty much zero.

The same applies to Canada and Mexico. Their citizens who want hand guns can buy one in the USA, whch results in those nations having a high murder rate also.

Europe is different, since there is nowhere that hand guns are readily available, so people who want one have to go without. The result is a murder rate that is a quarter that of the USA. My country, which has even more limited access to hand guns, has a murder rate one fifth of that of the USA, in spite of the fact that our violent crime rate is actually higher.

Your suggestion that the high murder rate in the USA came from a culture of violence is proven wrong by cases like NZ, where the amount of violence is as great, or greater than the USA, but the murder rate is a lot lower. Being violent does not make a person a murderer. I pointed out that, in Britain, only 1 stabbing in 400 results in death. However, in the USA, 1 shooting in 5 results in death. Britain has more violence overall than the USA, but has a quarter of the murders, for the simple reason that strongly violent attacks in Britain usually involve knives, whereas far too many of the same things in the USA involves hand guns.

It is very simple. If you stop people having possession of hand guns, the murder rate falls.