FBI's latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged. Deterrent effect may have a role, but others see no correlation.
So, some say more guns produces a deterrent effect and therefore we have less crime and another group says there's no correlation. I think I'll number myself in the second group, but I must admit this is good stuff for the pro-gun folks. It is exactly what they predicted.
Pro-gun groups jumped at the FBI report, saying it disproves a long-running theory posited by gun-control groups and many in the mainstream media that gun ownership spawns crime and violence. “Anti-gunners have lost another one of their baseless arguments,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Well, of course Mr. Gottlieb would say that. But isn't it a bit premature to draw such conclusions? Aren't there any number of other factors involved in something as sweeping as crime stats?
The debate over whether guns spur or deter crime has been under way for decades. So far, research has come out with, in essence, a net-zero correlation between gun sales and crime rates. More likely factors for the crime rate decline have to do with Americans hunkering down, spending less time out on the town with cash in their pockets and more time at home with the porch lights on, experts say. So-called "smart policing" that focuses specifically on repeat offenders and troubled areas could also be playing a role, as could extended unemployment benefits that staved off desperation.
So there you have a couple of viable factors, including the economy, which some say would add to the crime rate. This article points out how that can work in reverse. Of course, the way the police do their job, which hopefully is always improving, would have a positive effect too.
One of the ideas mentioned was the fact that this debate has been under way for decades. Any six-month change has to be watched for a while to determine if it's nothing more than a temporary fluctuation. So, let's keep watching, by all means.
What's your opinion? Is the first-half-of-2009 stats an indication that more guns equals less crime? Do you think this is the beginning of the end for the gun control argument that guns are a major part of the problem?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I find it funny how gun controllers are quick to blame guns when crime goes up, but refuse to blame guns when crime goes down.ReplyDelete
I agree that a short-term increase in sales is unlikely to have much immediate impact on crime rates. More important for either side is the number of armed households. Guns last considerably longer than most consumer goods, and a drastic increase in sales doesn't equate to a major increase in ownership.ReplyDelete
However, the fact that we have had a long term increase in ownership with long term reduction in crime rates does weaken the argument that ownership increases crime.
So if there is NOT a correlation, why restrict?
Whatever else this article signifies...ReplyDelete
1) It's the OPPOSITE of what gun control advocates were predicting.
2) Imagine that the article reported the same degree of INCREASE instead of a DECREASE. Now, take a moment and imagine what gun control advocates would be saying right now.
And imagine how they would contemptuously dismiss you if you tried to say: "But isn't it a bit premature to draw such conclusions? Aren't there any number of other factors involved in something as sweeping as crime stats?"
FishyJay, I think you're right about that. If there were a drop we'd be saying it's proof. Then you guys would say, wait a minute there are other factors. Then, speaking for myself, I'd say you're right so let's wait and see.ReplyDelete
A true gunowner advocate would say that more guns CAUSE less crime, and that gun control CAUSES more crime.ReplyDelete
IMO, gun availability probably has much less effect than other factors on most increases or decreases in crime.
I hope that you agree that the best time for me to say that is when the recent numbers are on my side.
FishJay needs a basic course in probability and statistics.ReplyDelete
The fact is this is far too short a time period to discern much of anything.
Note, too, that many gunloons also discount the fact that Chicago's homicide numbers have a 15-16 year trend downwards--yet they don't hesitate to claim Chicago's gun laws are causing high homicide numbers.
It's also important to note crime isn't dropping everywhere. It's dropping like a stone in big cities which tend to have stricter gun laws. Meanwhile, crime is going up in small towns where guns are often plentiful.
I wrote: "IMO, gun availability probably has much less effect than other factors on most increases or decreases in crime."ReplyDelete
JadeGold wrote: "FishJay needs a basic course in probability and statistics."
HUH? Jadegold's problem is with the (anti-gunowner) Christian Science Monitor. He should suggest "a basic course in probability and statistics" to THEM.
JadeGold wrote: "The fact is this is far too short a time period to discern much of anything."
I agree -- but it's the OPPOSITE of what some gun control advocates were predicting, given the year's brisk gun sales.
However, if the article reported the same degree of INCREASE instead of a DECREASE, I am confident that JadeGold would find no significance in that, and also write "The fact is this is far too short a time period to discern much of anything."
Yes, he would.
No doubt about it.
No one would think otherwise, right?
"Note, too, that many gunloons also discount the fact that Chicago's homicide numbers have a 15-16 year trend downwards--yet they don't hesitate to claim Chicago's gun laws are causing high homicide numbers."ReplyDelete
This wouldn't be the same JadeGold that magically tripled the population of Chicago would it?
AztecRed, What's your point? Is JadeGold wrong when he says "Chicago's homicide numbers have a 15-16 year trend downwards?"ReplyDelete
It's dropping like a stone in big cities which tend to have stricter gun laws. Meanwhile, crime is going up in small towns where guns are often plentiful.ReplyDelete
Have any proof? No, of course not.
Jadegold is a proven liar and a troll. Nothing he says should ever be taken seriously.
Mike W., Do me a favor please and try to leave the personal attacks, name-calling and superfluous derogatory remarks out. I do appreciate you substantive comments, but please lighten up on the nastiness.ReplyDelete
Funny, you constantly claim we'll see increased crime and "blood in the streets" will surely come with more guns.ReplyDelete
Do you ever get sick of having the facts prove you wrong MikeB.