Murders per 100,000 citizens:slowdime
Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6
New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0
Does gun control reduce crime?
If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.
http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html
gun violence has been dropping the last 6 years straightMe
And more people own more guns.***
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/gun-sales-2012_n_2303513.html
Me
Murders per 100,000 citizens:Romeover
Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6
New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0
Does gun control reduce crime?
If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.
http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html
Murders per 100,000 citizensMe
United States = 4.2
Finland = 2.2
Canada = 1.6
France = 1.1
Spain = 0,8
Iceland = 0.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun = 0.7***
Gun crime in England, where guns are banned, up 35%
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html
The problem with comparing countries comes from the fact that there are too many variables. Comparing a relatively homogenous country like Spain, Finland, and Iceland to the US which has a varied culture and population is misleading.
My stats compared similar states to each other. There are more murders per capita in Illinois than in Indiana and IL has more restrictive gun laws.
There are more murders per capita in Vermont than in New Hampshire and NH has the least restrictive gun laws in the country and the lowest number of murders per capita in the country.
Compare like place to like place.
Me
Murders per 100,000 citizens:the-lexicon
Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6
New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0
Does gun control reduce crime?
If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.
http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html
ALL studies that report numbers like this are false on their face. FALSE. They are statistically corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage.Me
You can't compare murder rates to gun laws, state-by-state, and expect it to mean ANYTHING.
the inference here is that concealed carry in a state like NH is CAUSAL to the low murder rate. It's simply false. People carrying guns is not stopping other people from murdering. It's simply not. It's a ridiculous conclusion.
All studies that report numbers that are the opposite are false. They are statistically corrupt corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage....
Do you see what I did there (and without all caps)?
It must me nice to able to win an argument merely by declaring all of your opponents' claims to be wrong.
The claim being made by the left is that if we had more restrictive gun laws, we would have fewer gun crimes. The opposite is precisely true.
Is it just a coincidence that the states that have more restrictive gun control also have more murders per capita then their neighbors with less restrictive gun control?
Also: the source for my stats was the U.S. Census Bureau.the-lexicon
If you are claiming that a part of the government cannot be trusted, then we will agree. And I will question why you want an entity that cannot be trusted to have more control over our lives.
I don't know if it's a coincidence... but the correlation between restrictive gun control and murders per capita is specious and does not point to any actual accrued benefit either way.
I'll bet there's a correlation between less restrictive gun control and the number of sunny days in a year, on average.
Meaningful? you tell me.
nope, you can't put words in my mouth and make me speak them. I think the government CAN be trusted. ADDITIONALLY, I think that people who hoard weapons to fight the government are INSANE.Me
If your claim is that more gun control will reduce crime, and the data shows the exact opposite, and that still doesn't convince you, then what would?
Would any amount of evidence convince you that gun control makes the world more dangerous?
With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
The CO shooter went out of his way to the one movie theater that bans guns for his attack.
The CT shooter got his guns illegally and went to were guns were not allowed. How would adding one more law, that he would not have cared about, prevented this shooting?
Why can the government be trusted? Don't those of you on the left complain that the government is too friendly with the 1%? Don't those of you on the left complain that the government can not be trusted on abortion, gay marriage, right to work laws, etc?
We would people that have guns be insane? Because the governments of the world have killed more than 50 million people this century, but only after the citizens were disarmed? See: the Holocaust for the first example
***
Me
Murders per 100,000 citizens:ChineseBracelet
Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6
New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0
Does gun control reduce crime?
If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.
http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html
Nice blog post you are quoting there. Unfortunately, "Spootville" (for god's sake) makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causality.Me
Besides, are law-abiding gun carriers in those neighboring states actually drawing their guns and chasing off would-be shooters? Do you have any numbers on that?
And: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
Thanks for the compliment for my blog. It is quite nice isn't it. :)
If I made that mistake, then everyone who is calling for gun control to prevent shootings is making the same mistake.
Isn't the claim from the left that: if we had more restrictive gun control, then shootings would not happen, or happen as often?
I don't have the stats for guns saving lives easily accessible. If you want them, then I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355687849&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime
Here is a website that lists lives potentially saved by guns. I'd bet that you have not heard about one of them thanks to the media. http://gunssavelives.net/
Here is video of a 71 year old using his gun to save people. Would he have been able to save anyone if he had been unarmed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4
The study you linked to has issues. Starting with missing this:
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/mass-shootings-stopped-by-citizens-vs-mass-shooting-stopped-by-police-2511412.html
I wrote a post called the moon is made of cheese logic detailing the very thing you are dealing with. Gun grabbers view their calls for gun control as logically sound. After all, America has a lot of guns, and most of those murders are committed with guns. Therefore if we eliminated, or restricted, firearms then crime would go down.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is tauntamount to saying the moon is made of cheese. If we assumed that the astronaughts brought back rocks, and that the rocks were made of cheese, then it would be logical to assume the moon is made of cheese. As absurd as it is, this is a logic argument if we assume that the first statement is true. However, we know that it is not, so the argument is wrong even if it is logically coherent within its own framework.
This is were gun grabbers break down, their arguments are logical, but they are wrong. As you said, there are numerous documented examples that show that there is no correlation between firearm ownership and crime. Rather then revisit their hypothises they then disregard the scientific data, even if it comes from a place like Harvard, because it doens't conform with their world view.
Best comment on this blog.
Delete