Violent crime still going down.

[Seth]

By carefully selecting statistics you can also show that Gay Marriage causes Libertarianism

Go bitch to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[Seth]

You speak of inconvenient facts while reciting the "more guns less crime" mantra ad nauseam?



Four times now I've asked you to explain where one can see causality, or even correlation between gun ownership and crime in this graph provided by a pro-gun site. Will you fail to attempt this for a fifth time?



Same goes for Blind Groper. Both of you are stuck in the rut of your respective idée fixe.

Let's agree arguendo that more guns aren't causative in the drop in crime. What your chart, and the BJS figures show is that more guns DOES NOT equal more crime, in fact the opposite is true. Therefore there a far better causative link between more guns, less crime than there is more guns, more crime.

Since it's clear that more guns does not equal more crime, there is no compelling government need to further regulate guns in the US.

[Seth]

After taking some time to look up some more actual facts I finished up exporting this table of statistics into a spreadsheet and sorted them to produce a couple of graphs.

Blind Groper, would you be so kind as to match your assertion that more guns equal more murders with this graph?



And, Seth, would you please do likewise with your contrary one with this one? I'll be happy to provide you with another one that shows that you wrong in regard to your more general assertion that "more guns equals less crime", once you have replied to the question I have directed to you on five previous occasions.

District of Columbia: Gun ownership <5%. Murders per 100,000 > 20%

Wyoming: Gun ownership >60%. Murders per 100,000 <5%

More guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime.

[Seth]

I still say violent crime is falling in many places with or without restictions in gun laws, because of mobile phone use, predominantly (there are other major factors). If everyone can film you committing a crime there is less opportunity to do so anonymously.

That may well be true. But the fact remains that in places where there are more guns, there is less crime. If you care to take it on you might do more graphs from data from before the concealed carry movement began and from now showing the delta in gun ownership versus the delta in crime as related to the existence or non-existence of "shall issue" concealed carry laws with due consideration for the respective percentages of CCW permittees in each jurisdiction. I suggest you do this study at the county level rather than the state level because that will give you a more accurate data set and help you deal with other variables you might want to control for.

Oh, wait, that's what John Lott already did, a couple of times.

Never mind.

[Seth]

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-r ... homicides/

Now, referring to matters of actual facts, would you please relate your claim that there is a correlation between gun ownership and murder to the graphs I have provided four posts above yours?

Hermit

You are basing your argument on a fallacy. I have never said that gun ownership is the only factor determining violent crime rates.

What a load of mendacious shit. You're pettifogging and backpedaling furiously again. Everybody knows you've been cherry-picking, strawmanning and moving the goalposts around constantly every time your bullshit claims are debunked by the data. You're trying to do it again now.

[Hermit]

After taking some time to look up some more actual facts I finished up exporting this table of statistics into a spreadsheet and sorted them to produce a couple of graphs.

Blind Groper, would you be so kind as to match your assertion that more guns equal more murders with this graph?



And, Seth, would you please do likewise with your contrary one with this one? I'll be happy to provide you with another one that shows that you wrong in regard to your more general assertion that "more guns equals less crime", once you have replied to the question I have directed to you on five previous occasions.

District of Columbia: Gun ownership <5%. Murders per 100,000 > 20%

Wyoming: Gun ownership >60%. Murders per 100,000 <5%

More guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime.

Nice piece of cherry-picking. As Rainbow said a short while ago,

By carefully selecting statistics you can also show that Gay Marriage causes Libertarianism

When you look at all the data available, not even a correlation - let alone a causal relationship - between gun ownership and crime is evident. Both you and Blind Groper are barking up the wrong tree.

[Seth]

After taking some time to look up some more actual facts I finished up exporting this table of statistics into a spreadsheet and sorted them to produce a couple of graphs.

Blind Groper, would you be so kind as to match your assertion that more guns equal more murders with this graph?



And, Seth, would you please do likewise with your contrary one with this one? I'll be happy to provide you with another one that shows that you wrong in regard to your more general assertion that "more guns equals less crime", once you have replied to the question I have directed to you on five previous occasions.

District of Columbia: Gun ownership <5%. Murders per 100,000 > 20%

Wyoming: Gun ownership >60%. Murders per 100,000 <5%

More guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime.

Nice piece of cherry-picking. As Rainbow said a short while ago,

By carefully selecting statistics you can also show that Gay Marriage causes Libertarianism

When you look at all the data available, not even a correlation - let alone a causal relationship - between gun ownership and crime is evident. Both you and Blind Groper are barking up the wrong tree.

What's cherry picking about it? If the opposite were true, Wyoming would have a murder rate many times higher per 100,000 than DC does. It doesn't.

Therefore it is inexorably true that there are more guns in Wyoming than in DC, and there are substantially fewer murders (crimes) in Wyoming than in DC.

How much more clear does it get than that?

But if you like I'll restate it slightly: More guns =/= more crime.

Would you mind very much replotting the data you used and ranking it by murders instead of gun ownership? I'd like to see how that looks.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You still quote John Lott. As I said, his views are diametrically opposite to that of a number of academics, which I have referenced. The major difference is that Lott makes millions of dollars from his views, while his opponents are honest researchers.

I have said several times that gun ownership and total crime are not related. A burglar can carry out his burglary without a gun. What guns are related to is murders and suicides. The references I posted show that both increase where gun ownership is higher.

Even the relationship between guns and armed robbery is less. The reason, according to an article I read is as follows. Armed robbers need a getaway car. The traditional choice is a stolen car. Today, though, stealing cars is much more difficult due to engine immobiliser technology. If a would-be armed robber wants a stolen car, he is much less likely to get one. Casual (as opposed to skilled and professional) car thefts have dropped dramatically. It is now kinda necessary to find a car that some idiot has left his keys in. If the robber cannot find such a car, the armed robbery will not happen.

For this reason, and others, overall crime rates have been falling. Murder rates have been falling also, independently of gun ownership, globally. But within the USA those murder rates are higher (4 times) than other OECD countries, because of the vigilante/gun culture, and because of the high gun ownership rate.

This is shown by a number of facts.
1. Half of all murders in the USA are done by hand guns.
2. The USA has 4 times the murder rate of other OECD nations, and has the highest gun ownership. The main exception is Finland, which has only half the murder rate. Finland is also the OECD country with the second highest rate of gun ownership. The lowest murder rate is Japan, which has (surprise, surprise) the lowest rate of gun ownership. Harvard also found a clear cut correlation across all OECD nations, except Switzerland, of gun ownership and murder rates.
3. Harvard University studies show that more guns in a state mean more murders.
4. FBI statistics show a quarter of all murders consist of two people having an argument, until one whips out a hand gun and shoots the other. Rather obviously, if there were fewer hand guns, there would be fewer such murders, and this is a major source of murders.

[Seth]

Seth

You still quote John Lott. As I said, his views are diametrically opposite to that of a number of academics, which I have referenced. The major difference is that Lott makes millions of dollars from his views, while his opponents are honest researchers.

Ad hom red herring. Until YOU can demonstrate that his conclusions are invalid you're just maligning him in favor of the opinions of your gun control buddies...who by the way have themselves been debunked by Lott and others as it pertains to their critiques of Lott's work. The rest is repetitive blather I'm not interested in wasting more time debunking.

The obvious fact remains: There are tens of millions more guns in US society now than there were 30 years ago when Florida started the grand CCW experiment, and there is less crime in US society now. A LOT less crime.

If what you constantly claim were remotely true the crime rate in the US would be going up, not down, as the number of guns in our society increases. That's not true. Even your favorite cherry of "handgun murders" is down despite the massive increase of handguns in private ownership.

Those facts are simply beyond dispute.

[Hermit]

You speak of inconvenient facts while reciting the "more guns less crime" mantra ad nauseam?



Four times now I've asked you to explain where one can see causality, or even correlation between gun ownership and crime in this graph provided by a pro-gun site. Will you fail to attempt this for a fifth time?



Same goes for Blind Groper. Both of you are stuck in the rut of your respective idée fixe.

Let's agree arguendo that more guns aren't causative in the drop in crime. What your chart, and the BJS figures show is that more guns DOES NOT equal more crime, in fact the opposite is true.

If the opposite was true, the two lines in the above graph would form more or less a mirror image of each other. They manifestly do no such thing.

As for my view on gun control, it has changed a few years ago. While I agree that there should be some form of gun control*, I think the laws enacted in 1996 in Australia are totally over the top.


* All guns should be registered like cars are, there should be age restrictions, comprehensive training for prospective gun owners, and secure lock-up storage for firearms and ammunition should be mandatory. Also, people convicted of violent crimes and those with demonstrably significant mental problems should be excluded.

[Blind groper]

http://abcnews.go.com/health/t/blogEntry?id=20303432

This reference contains data on murders and gun ownership, showing the correlation across nations of high gun ownership meaning high murder rate, with the sole and interesting exception of Switzerland. Maybe the Swiss are just naturally nicer people?

Seth

I do not dispute facts. I quote them. Like the fact that Lott makes millions from his views and his opponents do not. That makes Lott's views very suspect, while his opponents, like Harvard's David Hemenway make an academic's salary.

[Hermit]

But if you like I'll restate it slightly: More guns =/= more crime.

It would be easy to do the kind of cherry-picking to claim More guns =/= less crime. I won't bother, though, because neither claim is borne out when looking at the statistics in toto.

Would you mind very much replotting the data you used and ranking it by murders instead of gun ownership? I'd like to see how that looks.

I already have. It is the second graph. The one you snipped. To spare you the effort of scrolling up, here it is again:



Once again, there is no discernible correlation, let alone causal relationship that would either support your assertion or Blind Groper's.

[Seth]

Here's crime going down again in the presence of a gun possessed by a potential victim:

Crime
Machete-Wielding Suspect Gets a 2nd Amendment Lesson When He Targets the Wrong Woman
Feb. 3, 2014 11:08am Becket Adams

Machete Wielding Suspect Gets a 2nd Amendment Lesson When He Targets the Wrong Woman

A Mich. woman whose husband is currently serving overseas in Afghanistan was forced to exercise her Second Amendment rights after she was confronted by a heavily-armed would-be home invader (image source: WOOD-TV)

A Michigan woman was confronted last week by a machete-wielding, ski mask-wearing would-be home invader, forcing her to exercise her Second Amendment rights. As if that’s not scary enough, what alerted her to the intruder is downright terrifying.

The suspect, a 15-year-old teen who was also armed with a shotgun, woke up the Michigan woman at around 1:00 a.m. Friday as he repeatedly tried to break into her home.

The woman, who asked not to be identified, told WOOD-TV she heard a mysterious tapping noise from the floor below her.

“I kept hearing, ‘Tap, tap, tap. Tap, tap, tap,’” she said.

As it turns out, the tapping noise was the sound of a machete being scrapped against the front door.

Her children asleep in the next room, the woman grabbed her gun, rushed to the top of the stairs and drew a bead on the teenage suspect.

“And I pointed my gun right at him, and he took a couple of steps back,” she said.

It was all her at that moment. With her husband still serving overseas in Afghanistan, it was up to her to defend her children from the “relentless” suspect.

“I felt like I was playing a game with him that he would step up closer to the door. I would raise the gun and he would step back,” she said.

The teen prowled around the house, looking for a way into her home.

“My biggest fear was if he shot me and killed me, or if I shot him and he shot back – and I have two kids,” she said.

County Sheriff Dale Miller told WOOD-TV the woman would have been justified had she opened fire on the suspect.

“I believe so,” Miller said. “If he had gone to the point of trying to get into the house.”

The woman was able to call the police and they responded promptly to the call. Amazingly enough, the suspect didn’t surrender immediately and led authorities on a short foot chase before being apprehended and taken into custody.

“At first he hid behind a car, then there was a short foot chase where he finally threw down the weapon and we were able to take him into custody,” Miller said.

It wasn’t until police had arrested the suspect and removed his ski mask that they discovered he was only 15-years-old.

Law enforcement officials said they’re confused by the entire situation, explaining that they’re not sure what the adolescent hoped to achieve with the potentially deadly act.

[Seth]

But if you like I'll restate it slightly: More guns =/= more crime.

It would be easy to do the kind of cherry-picking to claim More guns =/= less crime. I won't bother, though, because neither claim is borne out when looking at the statistics in toto.

Look, it's quite simple: Has the number of guns in US society gone up or down in the last 30 years? The answer is "up, by tens of millions of guns."

What direction has the crime rate been going in the last 30 years, up or down? The answer is "down, by a lot."

Ergo, more guns, less crime.

Whether correlation means causation is irrelevant, the facts speak for themselves. More guns, less crime.

[Audley Strange]

I still say violent crime is falling in many places with or without restictions in gun laws, because of mobile phone use, predominantly (there are other major factors). If everyone can film you committing a crime there is less opportunity to do so anonymously.

That may well be true. But the fact remains that in places where there are more guns, there is less crime. If you care to take it on you might do more graphs from data from before the concealed carry movement began and from now showing the delta in gun ownership versus the delta in crime as related to the existence or non-existence of "shall issue" concealed carry laws with due consideration for the respective percentages of CCW permittees in each jurisdiction. I suggest you do this study at the county level rather than the state level because that will give you a more accurate data set and help you deal with other variables you might want to control for.

Oh, wait, that's what John Lott already did, a couple of times.

Never mind.

Sure, one can make many correlations. However there is also the fact than in many other places where gun control is strictly regulated there is less crime. Which suggests that lots of guns is not the causative factor for less crime (nor for more crime either it seems). I find it perfectly plausible that one could find correlations between increase in urban rat population and less crime and also that areas who have better resolution on T.V.'s and less crime but I stil do not think one could reasonable claim they are causative factors. If it's not guns and it appears that it is not guns, that is the causative factor, why use it as an argument for or against ownership of guns?