Guns, crime and reduction of crime with guns.

Forums: Guns, Philosophy, Gun Control
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It is no secret that Americans, particularly conservative and republican Americans, love their guns.
The second amendment aside, it seems that many in the pro-gun crowd favor increased possession of firearms because it would both de-escalate some crimes, and reduce overall crime.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Although I can see how certain crimes might be de-escalated, and where certain instances a gun in the home, or in the desk of a teacher, would prevent crimes from happening or achieving tragedy status, I fail to see how more guns, be it in the hands of the "good" guys or not, are good for society. A good guy is just one bad day at work away from beigna bad guyy, there are compelling arguments demonstrating how the introduction of a firearm to a dispute can escalate it.

I think the US has a gun problem. In per capita terms, the US is off the charts compared to 26 other developed countries for gun realted deaths and injuries. Some 30 000 people die every year and 100 000+ are injured as a result of firearm related incidences, and the financial costs of caring for these people is in the ballpark of $15 000 per person.

So, I simply wish to hear from both sides of the discussion.
...if it is a true that more guns = decreased crime, will that be true if and when everbody is armed? Will more guns in the hands of private citizens take society in the direction society should go?

I would just like to see where the discussion goes....

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,143 • Replies: 17

No top replies

If you're just a bad day at work away, who are you to tell me what I can and can't do to cover my own ass?

0 Replies

That is precisely one of the questions I could be asking.

Are guns necessary, should they be necessary, are they the solution to crime, are they the solution to the gun problem in the US?

0 Replies

Found something interesting :

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB03014.pdf

It's a list of Australian mass killings. One point of interest is that only 2 out of the 11 incidents involved someone with a previous conviction for a violent offence.

1996 is when Australia introduced tighter gun control (not that that means anything in the article, which only goes up to 2000)

0 Replies

Re: Guns, crime and reduction of crime with guns.

candidone1 wrote:

I think the US has a gun problem. In per capita terms, the US is off the charts compared to 26 other developed countries for gun realted deaths and injuries. Some 30 000 people die every year and 100 000+ are injured as a result of firearm related incidences, and the financial costs of caring for these people is in the ballpark of $15 000 per person.

IMO, the U.S. has a violence problem in general. Guns get used in crimes but our crime stats are much higher than other countries (in general) even without guns in the mix. As an example:

"In 2000, America had more than double the rate of forcible rape per capita than New Zealand, more than three times the rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter and robbery than New Zealand per capita, and over four times the rate of aggravated assault per capita than New Zealand. The rate of total violent crime for America in 2000 was 506.1 per 100,000 population; almost four times the rate of 132.6 for New Zealand."

Guns become the focus because they are a simple target to pick out instead of worrying about and dealing with the larger issue. Of the 30,000 gun related deaths you mention, over half are suicides. While the U.S. has a higher rate of suicides committed with a firearm than other countries, the rate of suicides overall is lower than many countries that have much more stringent gun control laws. So is the issue there one of access to guns or one of suicide in general?

Quote:

So, I simply wish to hear from both sides of the discussion.
...if it is a true that more guns = decreased crime, will that be true if and when everbody is armed? Will more guns in the hands of private citizens take society in the direction society should go?

Errr... well, if it IS true then there really isn't any question is there? Wink

Methinks the question is whether or not it is true.

Arming everyone probably would reduce crime in the short term. I doubt that would last for long though. But the argument that more guns = less crime isn't based on the idea that everyone has a gun. The idea is that by disarming everyone, the criminal knows that there is little chance of being shot while they carry out their crimes. If everyone is allowed to have a gun the criminal has to think twice because they have no way of knowing if their chosen target is armed or not.

The deterent effect theory isn't based on everyone actually having a firearm. It is based on the possibility that any given person might have one. I suspect the effect would wear off if/when everyone having access to a firearm wasn't "new" any more and any change in crime rates would revert to what it is now.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

That is precisely one of the questions I could be asking.

Are guns necessary, should they be necessary, are they the solution to crime, are they the solution to the gun problem in the US?

I don't mean 'you' in the sense of a broad generalization, I mean you as a person. If you think we're all nut jobs you must be one too, what do you want to do hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500?

0 Replies

Re: Guns, crime and reduction of crime with guns.

candidone1 wrote:

It is no secret that Americans,
particularly conservative and republican Americans, love their guns.

I am a conservative Republican
who only buys the guns he loves.

Quote:

The second amendment aside, it seems that many in the pro-gun crowd favor
increased possession of firearms because it would both de-escalate some crimes, and reduce overall crime.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Yes.
I don 't know what " de-escalate " means,
but criminals interviewed in prison have admitted
that thay fear armed victims more than anything else.
Thay know that the police won 't hurt them if thay give up.

Quote:

Although I can see how certain crimes might be de-escalated,
and where certain instances a gun in the home, or in the desk of a teacher,
would prevent crimes from happening or achieving tragedy status,
I fail to see how more guns, be it in the hands of the "good" guys or not, are good for society.

1 ) We arm ourselves for INDIVIDUAL survival,
not for the good of society. Many conservative Republicans like me
take a " screw society " point of vu.
We do not visit our gun stores for the good of SOCIETY.

2 ) However, it has come to our attention that a well armed populace
is too dangerous for criminals to ply their trade ( so to speak ),
and hence is somewhat dissuasive to some criminals who don 't wanna get shot.
In other words, " gun control "
( meaning government discrimination as to the right to defend your life )
is O.S.H.A. ( i.e., the US Dept. of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration )
for violent criminals, protecting them on-the-job from the violent defenses of their victims,
thus enabling criminals to safely rob & slaughter the victims.
This means government goes into partnership with violent criminals,
against the victimized citizens.

Quote:

A good guy is just one bad day at work away from beigna bad guyy,

Nonsense.
The vast proportion of employees wud not become violent
because of bad days at work.
I wud not; wud YOU ??

Quote:

there are compelling arguments demonstrating how the introduction of a firearm
to a dispute can escalate it.

Thereby resulting in the early death of the criminal.

Let me add that I have long advocated getting rid of
violently recidivistic felons by permanent isolation.

Repressionists want to remove guns, saying they are sometimes used to facilitate crime.
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND,
whose cleverness has not been controlled nor restrained (even in prison).
This mind expresses itself perseveringly, into the manifestation of its felt needs
or desires, and it has FOREVER to do the job that it selects
(e.g., the art of the gunsmith/merchant). Prohibition is futile.

David

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

That is precisely one of the questions I could be asking.

Are guns necessary,
should they be necessary,
are they the solution to crime,
are they the solution to the gun problem in the US?

Yes,
taken together with permanent isolation of violently recidivistic felons,
either by long term incarceration or by BANISHMENT.

David

0 Replies

I do not believe that fewer guns would result in less violence in the US. It's possible, but the only way to find out for sure would be to remove them from the population. This is somewhat like clearing a rain forest to put the land into agricultural production. Once it's gone, you don't get it back.

I own several guns. I also own several bicycles. I appreciate the quality of both. I don't "love" any of them.

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not believe that fewer guns would result in less violence in the US.

Funny, that's exactly what I think. Lack of gun control is one of the major reasons why our major cities are being destroyed from the inside out.

0 Replies

Jonsey wrote:

Quote:
I do not believe that fewer guns would result in less violence in the US.

Funny, that's exactly what I think. Lack of gun control is one of the major reasons why our major cities are being destroyed from the inside out.

Unless there's a typo involved, I don't believe we are really in agreement. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

0 Replies

Jonsey wrote:

Quote:
I do not believe that fewer guns would result in less violence in the US.

Funny, that's exactly what I think.
Lack of gun control is one of the major reasons why our major cities
are being destroyed from the inside out.

U leave it UNCLEAR which side of the debate u favor.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

I do not believe that fewer guns would result in less violence in the US.

It's possible, but the only way to find out for sure would be to remove them
from the population.

I am skeptical that guns can be removed from the population
with better success than marijuana has been removed,
or that beer was removed in the 1920s.
Only people who value OBEDIENCE to the LAW over preservation of their own lives
( and their families' lives ) wud surrender their guns.

Historically, criminals have shown not much interest in obeying the law.

If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws?

David

0 Replies

There's this about it, David; ammunition eventually degrades, and home brewed black powder just won't cut it.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

There's this about it, David; ammunition eventually degrades,
and home brewed black powder just won't cut it.

The Law of Supply n Demand is the REAL Supreme Law of the Land.

1 ) If thay can make LSD and PCP thay can make smokeless powder.

2 ) Ordinary black powder did the trick for centuries.

It can still save your life, in a pinch.

Guns, crime and reduction of crime with guns.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know