Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Willravel · 08-28-2004, 08:39 PM

Gun ownership probably does deter crime in some way. I'm sure a few potential agessors think twice about robbing a house, because the 'guy might have a gun'. The bottom line is that in a study done by the NBER 'home weapons did not enter into the assailants mind before comitting the violent crime' in over 97% of home invasion cases in which there was a violent crime. According to a recent NBER Working Paper by MMark Duggan, after 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36% by 1998, while non-gun homicidesdeclined by only 18%. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42% to less than 35%. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occour in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership. His conclusion was that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.

In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim's death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.

Proving one theory over the other has been difficult because of the lack of adequate data on gun ownership measured across geographic areas over time. But as evidence of the accuracy of the gun magazine subscription data, Duggan shows that sales rates are significantly higher in counties whose average demographic characteristics are similar to those of the typical gun owner according to national surveys. Furthermore, he shows that the death rate from gun accidents and the number of gun shows per capita are positively related to the magazine sales. While Duggan admits that relatively few readers may be criminals, he points out that the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase.

Duggan finds that state and county-level changes in the rate of gun ownership are positively related to changes in the homicide rate. His findings suggest that gun ownership causes crime, and does not simply reflect individuals purchasing guns in response to increases in criminal activity. In support of this, he finds that increases in gun ownership are positively related to future increases in the gun homicide rate, but bear no corresponding relationship to non-gun homicides. His findings reveal that the relationship with other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.

He then examines whether legislation that allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons had an important impact on the crime rate. He shows that this legislation did not lead to a substantial increase in gun ownership, nor did it reduce crime relatively more in counties with high rates of gun ownership. This latter finding suggests, Duggan writes, "either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not deterred by the greater likelihood that their victims would be armed." Taken together, his results suggest that Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation did not have an important effect on the rate of gun ownership or on the crime rate.

I hope that successfully shut down your claim that "Gun ownership deters crime". I guess that there are a lot of people out there that are honestly afraid of the government or the military conquering (did't feel the need to use "subjugate" or "quell") the citizens of the United States (assuming you are from the US). The only argument I haven't yet addressed, that has been brought up several times, is this one. I want to clarify, because you suddenly become quite cryptic when it comes to this: are you afraid that the US government and/or the US military are going to take your freedom if you don't have guns in your homes? "It is much more difficult to quell or subjugate an armed populace" those are your words. The only other way I can interpret this is that you beleive that either a non government/military power in the US or a foreign force is immediatally threatening our freedoms. Now as far as a US civilian force, I don't know of any civilian group that can challenge the US police forces and/or military forces that will take YOUR freedoms. I can't imagine an independant group based in the US comming to your home and enslaving you. Most people would say that is either absurd or paranoid. As far as a foreign group, we do have enemys out there. We learned that they have tactics to strike on American soil on September 11, 2001. I know that freaked a lot of people out. BUT, there is no precedent to a foreign force taking over a residential area. The likelyhood of that happening is probably in the same range as alien abduction or being hit by lightning three or four times in a row.

As for your run on sentance, yes, for the most part. I beleive guns are unwanted elements. I beleive that on the whole, they are unnecessary outside of law enforcement (including military). Yes, I was surprised that people were claiming that I was infringing on their rights by my simply stating that I am against private or civilian gun ownership. My argument about gun ownership is not about how people live. If guns are a way of life for you, then I feel pity for you. A way of life should not be around weapons of any sort, but about larger beliefs and values and morals and ethics. A gun is not a belief.

To answer more specifically your question "Also I'm curious, how do you think of guns?": I think them to be a necessary evil for military and police forces. I do not, however, see the logic behind alowing such power to be given simply by background check and a few days to any citizen. Guns find their way to the wrong people too easily this way. How many guns used illegally do you think are from the military or police forces? I would assume very few, if any. As for sport, I know hunting can be fun for people. I've hunted on several occasions. I'd much rather hunt with an older weapon, such as a sword, dagger, or spear, in order to give the prey a chance. You do not hunt for food, but for sport. I hunt on the off chance that I am left away from civilization (meaning grocery stores or markets) and I need to hunt for food. As someone who hikes in very secluded areas and loves to travel to areas that are, in fact, far from civilization, I consider it a necessary evil. I do catch and release 100% of the time. In case you are wondering, I am not a big fan of any projectile weapons.

Damn, I love to babble on. Please feel free to respond, as I welcome a good discussion.

08-28-2004, 08:39 PM	#45 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Gun ownership probably does deter crime in some way. I'm sure a few potential agessors think twice about robbing a house, because the 'guy might have a gun'. The bottom line is that in a study done by the NBER 'home weapons did not enter into the assailants mind before comitting the violent crime' in over 97% of home invasion cases in which there was a violent crime. According to a recent NBER Working Paper by MMark Duggan, after 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36% by 1998, while non-gun homicidesdeclined by only 18%. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42% to less than 35%. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occour in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership. His conclusion was that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity. In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim's death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate. Proving one theory over the other has been difficult because of the lack of adequate data on gun ownership measured across geographic areas over time. But as evidence of the accuracy of the gun magazine subscription data, Duggan shows that sales rates are significantly higher in counties whose average demographic characteristics are similar to those of the typical gun owner according to national surveys. Furthermore, he shows that the death rate from gun accidents and the number of gun shows per capita are positively related to the magazine sales. While Duggan admits that relatively few readers may be criminals, he points out that the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase. Duggan finds that state and county-level changes in the rate of gun ownership are positively related to changes in the homicide rate. His findings suggest that gun ownership causes crime, and does not simply reflect individuals purchasing guns in response to increases in criminal activity. In support of this, he finds that increases in gun ownership are positively related to future increases in the gun homicide rate, but bear no corresponding relationship to non-gun homicides. His findings reveal that the relationship with other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate. He then examines whether legislation that allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons had an important impact on the crime rate. He shows that this legislation did not lead to a substantial increase in gun ownership, nor did it reduce crime relatively more in counties with high rates of gun ownership. This latter finding suggests, Duggan writes, "either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not deterred by the greater likelihood that their victims would be armed." Taken together, his results suggest that Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation did not have an important effect on the rate of gun ownership or on the crime rate. I hope that successfully shut down your claim that "Gun ownership deters crime". I guess that there are a lot of people out there that are honestly afraid of the government or the military conquering (did't feel the need to use "subjugate" or "quell") the citizens of the United States (assuming you are from the US). The only argument I haven't yet addressed, that has been brought up several times, is this one. I want to clarify, because you suddenly become quite cryptic when it comes to this: are you afraid that the US government and/or the US military are going to take your freedom if you don't have guns in your homes? "It is much more difficult to quell or subjugate an armed populace" those are your words. The only other way I can interpret this is that you beleive that either a non government/military power in the US or a foreign force is immediatally threatening our freedoms. Now as far as a US civilian force, I don't know of any civilian group that can challenge the US police forces and/or military forces that will take YOUR freedoms. I can't imagine an independant group based in the US comming to your home and enslaving you. Most people would say that is either absurd or paranoid. As far as a foreign group, we do have enemys out there. We learned that they have tactics to strike on American soil on September 11, 2001. I know that freaked a lot of people out. BUT, there is no precedent to a foreign force taking over a residential area. The likelyhood of that happening is probably in the same range as alien abduction or being hit by lightning three or four times in a row. As for your run on sentance, yes, for the most part. I beleive guns are unwanted elements. I beleive that on the whole, they are unnecessary outside of law enforcement (including military). Yes, I was surprised that people were claiming that I was infringing on their rights by my simply stating that I am against private or civilian gun ownership. My argument about gun ownership is not about how people live. If guns are a way of life for you, then I feel pity for you. A way of life should not be around weapons of any sort, but about larger beliefs and values and morals and ethics. A gun is not a belief. To answer more specifically your question "Also I'm curious, how do you think of guns?": I think them to be a necessary evil for military and police forces. I do not, however, see the logic behind alowing such power to be given simply by background check and a few days to any citizen. Guns find their way to the wrong people too easily this way. How many guns used illegally do you think are from the military or police forces? I would assume very few, if any. As for sport, I know hunting can be fun for people. I've hunted on several occasions. I'd much rather hunt with an older weapon, such as a sword, dagger, or spear, in order to give the prey a chance. You do not hunt for food, but for sport. I hunt on the off chance that I am left away from civilization (meaning grocery stores or markets) and I need to hunt for food. As someone who hikes in very secluded areas and loves to travel to areas that are, in fact, far from civilization, I consider it a necessary evil. I do catch and release 100% of the time. In case you are wondering, I am not a big fan of any projectile weapons. Damn, I love to babble on. Please feel free to respond, as I welcome a good discussion.