More Guns, Less Crime

[Commander-K25]

THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS

By John R. Lott Jr.

John Lott Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of
Chicago School of Law, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions.

Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety.

Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims:

1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and
2) anyone could be a murderer. With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer.

However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on.

Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995, just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's.

When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.

Copyright (c) 1998, Chicago Tribune

[MarijuanaClock]

Well thats a rather ignorant statement, "More guns, less cire." Really I doubt guns are a factor in crime, if people want to commit crime they would just obtain a different type weapon. I really don't see how more guns would reduce crime. More people would die surely, but crime would be the same.

The only way to reduce crime is to increase the standard of living, pass fair laws, educate the masses, and promote good citizen ship.

Guns really shouldn't impact crime at all, if the need is there people will commit crimes. Adding more guns will do nothing and is quite ignorant. Taking away guns will do nothing and is quite ignorant. To solve a problem you most deal with the root of the problem.

Lastly do you write anything yourself, or do you just regurgetate articles written by other people?

[Angryjeff]

I can admit that at first more guns less crime would make more sense but not really. If everyone had a gun sure we'd all be even but that would mean instead of the mugger using a knife to cut u or threaten they'd have a gun and knowing u have a gun to would proubly use it more easily. The solution is to stop giving guns to CIVILIANS. Please don't use that stupid "every american has the right to bear arms" it's the dumbest thing ever it was written during the Revoltion, i'm sure if the continetal congress was around today they wouldn't have put that in, It's jsut plain common sense

[P-Chan]

If more guns means less crime, then why do many nations have little crime with less guns?

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

"See I was over in england... NO-one in England has handguns, not even the cops. True or false? (crowd responds "true") Right. now, in england last year they had 14 deaths from handguns ...fffffffffffffffffffff-FOURTteen. now... the united states, I think you know how we feel about handguns, *WHOOOOP* im gettin a warm tingly feeling just saying the fuckin word to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard.
23,000 deaths from handguns, lets go through those numbers again cus their a little baffling at a first glance:

England where no-one has guns ....ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffFOURteen deaths.

The united states *WHOOOOP* im gettin a stiffy...
23,000 deaths from handguns.

But there's no connection. And you'd be a fool and a communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it... and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone with it. There have been studies made and there is NO connection at all. Hell the 14 deaths were probably from american tourists."

- Bill Hicks
A clip from the "Relentless" Album

[Angryjeff]

lol that was the funniest thing iv'e read in a long time.

[MarijuanaClock]

Hitler
Stalin
Mao

All these people supported gun control. If you take away the guns you take away the peoples means of protecting themselves. Do you honestly trust the American gov't? Fuck no!

Secondly you can obtain a gun just as easily here in Canada as you can in America, by some people's logic that would mean Canada would have a large number of gun related homicides. However, America has 600 times the amount of gun related homicides. Believe me, in Britian you have big brother everywhere you go, cctv, and less civil liberties then in America.

The fact is guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Crime isn't caused by guns, you can't solve crime by taking away the means. There is always another way. You stop crime by incresing education, and the countries standard of living. And by decreasing hard narcotics, and poverty.

[Angryjeff]

ae u stupid??? it is no where near the same to get a gun here in canada than it is in the states. It can literly take a YEAR to get a gun and even then your only limited to certin guns. Compare that to the states wher eu can by automatic weapons for "hunting". BTW when hitler, mao, and stalin were in power there was little to no crime in there countrys. Besides thats an idiotic arugument jsut beacause some of them did bad things (mao should not be included with those two he was a genuis) there are plenty of good ppl that support gun control. There are also many evil people that don't support it, Castro for one, hmm bush doesn't support gun control and in your post i do belive u took a jab at the US gov??? a lil hypocrtical of u isn't it

[MarijuanaClock]

Dude my dad just bought a go, wtf are you talking about?

[MarijuanaClock]

At 12/5/02 07:42 PM, Angryjeff wrote: ae u stupid???

Thats really intelligent, that says more about you then me right there.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 12/5/02 07:42 PM, Angryjeff wrote: Castro for one, hmm bush doesn't support gun control and in your post i do belive u took a jab at the US gov??? a lil hypocrtical of u isn't it

I don't trust the America gov't? How does supporting the ownership of guns change that?

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

I don't trust the US gov't becuase it is limiting civil liberties and spies on American and Canadian citizens.

Go buy a dictionary and look up hypocracy before you use words you don't understand.

[Junobar]

More Guns, Less Crime. Thats exactly right...
Look at Arizona... everyone carrys guns there... it barely has any crime rate. Why? Well... everyone has a gun... self protection. Thats my thought.

[The-Raven]

At 12/5/02 09:32 PM, Junobar wrote: More Guns, Less Crime. Thats exactly right...
Look at Arizona... everyone carrys guns there... it barely has any crime rate. Why? Well... everyone has a gun... self protection. Thats my thought.

•Arizona 10 Largest Cities by Population (2000)
Phoenix 1,321,045
Tucson 486,699
Mesa 396,375
Glendale 218,812
Scottsdale 202,705
Chandler 176,581
Tempe 158,625
Gilbert 109,697
Peoria 108,364
Yuma 77.515

Those are low populations for the biggest cities,

•Land area: 113,642 sq mi. (296,400 sq km)

Especially with that much land, low population density, low crime rate. Everyone carries guns = irrevelant information for the "low" crime rate.

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

Good point raven, you beat me to it. Another thing to consider is that Arizona doesn't come in mind as a state to attract a lot of crime.
Also, consider this. If a guy wants to rob a house, he's not gonna think "this guy MIGHT have a gun." If he wants something bad enough, he's gonna go for it, and he'll make the proper preparations. Suppose he goes into a house, and gets shot in the process. Hasn't a crime still been comitted? Guns didn't stop crime rate there. It protected a household, however, it took a life. You may ask, "suppose the owner of the house believes his life is in check." In that case, a CONCEALABLE weapon is not needed (handguns). A hunting rifle or a shotgun can easily replace that. And on the lighter side, would you rather bus'a cap in someone who's threatening you, or blow his back out with a 12-guage.

On a case aside from robbery, a case OUTSIDE of one's household, suppose someone is getting mugged. There are modes of non-deadly defense to use instead of a gun. One can suppose when they are being mugged that their life is in danger.

Well, suppose the mugger has a hand gun? One can't carry a rifle with them in self defense. How does one defend themself the best? Good point. I agree with those bumper stickers saying "5 seconds (picture of a gun next to it), or 5 minutes (picture of a cruiser next to it), your choice." As an immediate problem, yeah, you wish you had the hand gun.

However, the robber's not always going to have the handgun if you change the laws. For the best interest of EVERYONE's well being, it would be better if handgun ownership was checked MUCH more thuroughly than it is now. Taking away all handguns is a reasonable LONG-TERM goal for the country, and its not something that can be achieved in one, or two terms in office for the president (like we have hope in the one now to solve this problem).

Reasonalbe Short-term goals are the limitations and checks on purchasing handguns: limiting WHAT handguns may be purchased, HOW MANY may be purchased or owned at one time, scrutinizing people's records even to the point of looking beyond just their criminal record. Even creating programs that INTERVIEW new handgun purchasers would create a lot of jobs AND put more reasonable limitations. And if the proper concessions were made, even NRA members could participate in interviewing since their place is best in guns. These are just few suggestions

Now, as for long term. I have little doubt in my mind that guns kill people. Now I don't wanna hear "no, people do." Considering human nature, yeah its true. But telling that to a cop who got shot by his OWN GUN by a criminal who obtained it while he was trying to cuff him, thats a crock of shit. If its true that guns don't kill people, but PEOPLE kill PEOPLE, then one cannot deny that handguns or arms in general are quite a POWERFUL CATALYST for digging those 6-foor ditches.

Long term, if you take away hand guns from the citizens, then homes can STILL be protected by rifles or shotguns. In mugging situations when guns are not present at all, there are pleanty of deviced with enough stopping power to render a person incapacitated long enough to escape (just ask johnny knoxville).

As for police owning handguns, this should definately be limited at first. The example i mentioned before where an assailent killed an officer with the officer's gun isn't a rare occurence. It is the most common way that police officers are killed in the line of duty. Handguns in the hands of police officers should definately be limited. After several of the short term goals are obtained to the point where a vast majority of handgun ownership is diminished, police officers can limit their use of guns.

In a case a case when apprehending a single assailent (keep in mind, most policemen work in pairs)... If ONE carried a gun, while the other engaged in cuffing unarmed, there is pleanty of stopping power to neuturalize the subject if deemed necessary and at the same time allows the "cuffing" officer to more safely do his job. Of course, in the case of more than one criminal, more backup could be used with the same gun possession ratio among the officers.

Eventually, the nation will have fully taken example of England's ways of gun control and still be able to keep a low crime rate. Sure, in some cases "more guns, less crime" deems itself true. But does "more guns, less death" ring more accurate? absolutely not. Not even considering the crime rate in england, look at the number of LIVES that were taken by handguns in England compared to America one year..

England, FOURTEEN

America... 23,000!!!!

The second amendment is a very strong sheild that the NRA and other gun enthusiasts hide behind. However, our government has NEVER been limited solely to the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights and the laws therein have been revised, altered, and in some cases, revamped over the entire existence of the United States. Take a look on the shelves of a Judge's chambers, or in the office of a law firm. There are...and don't think about the number of BOOKS, but the number of PAGES, and PAGES, and PAGES of revisions to the laws that are imposed on us, and they change EVERY DAY.

But regardless of that point, many people, including gun enthusiasts, have never been psyched about this fact; the fact that the bill of rights is altered and stretched so much. I'm not happy about it either. Hell, i LOATHE censorship and i believe that it flat-out takes away some of our Rights given to us as americans. But when it comes to providing PROTECTION for the LIVES of others, that IMMEDIATELY becomes a higher priority to me than rights that allow us to... what do we do with those handguns again?...oh yea, "Shoot at Targets" if thats all these gun enthusiasts are doing.

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

(RESPONSE CONT'D)

As i read that statement, I feel that I contradict a new quote that I take a liking to, a quote i found in a BBS signature in this forum:

"He who gives up freedom for security is neither free nor secure." - Bennie F.

In several sides of my brain, I can see how I am being like a typical american and rolling over on command for the government, which i many more times than not DONT TRUST. But I, unlike many others, am a selfless person when it comes to aiding the masses (cus many times, person to person, im an asshole). For instance, I LOVE music. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVEEEE music. I love music more than most gun enthusiats enjoy their boom-sticks, i shit you not. Hell most people love music more than that. However, if LYRICS had the same DIRECT killing power that guns have, I would utter nary a complaint to the PMRC. But thats not the case.

The second amendment was issued understanding that the citizens of America would be upstanding and RESPECTFUL to the right provided to them. 200 years ago, the ideas being layed down in the Continental congress, and then on when the Bill of Rights was written, our fore-fathers wrote these laws in understanding that they would be applied respectfully by the citizens of America whether they were state or national laws. When people abuse their rights that are given to them, they are being good citizens only by an illusion. They blanket themselves with this illusion so that they may disregard the concepts of ethics and Human Compassion.

In conclusion, handguns are harmful devices that are made to cause harm to humans whether in self-defense or cold blood. There are other reasonable modes of defense aside from using handguns, and if handguns in the LONG RUN are abolished for the most part, these other modes of non-deadly defense can become much more powerful in contrast to criminals without handguns. However, this cannot be achieved immediately, possibly not in a lifetime. However, the long term goal, like any long term goal, is obtainable by creating REASONABLE limitations on handgun production, purchasing, and possession, and slowly tightening them over time. At the same time, these limitations must find a way to make concessions and COMPROMISE, the cornerstone of this nation, to opposing parties (NRA, Hunting organizations, Arms Companies). Many of the same limitations must be placed on law enforcement to achieve a balance of control between authority, and those who define authority, the people.

By making these limitations, we do not hand away our rights. By slowly placing limitations, we can learn how to correctly respect the laws provided to us by our fore-fathers, and create examples of the good citizens that they hoped for us to be. By placing these limitations, we understand that the vast numbers of human lives that will be saved will greatly outweigh the desire to use deadly devices, and out Human Compassion will overcome our Animal Instincts.

...Kill Whitey

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

Sorry if that was a long post, but please take time to read it. I would LOVE for someone to rebuttle for a discussion's sake... and I want that post to kinda be worth its while.

[Angryjeff]

thats exactly what i said earlier, the 2nd ammedment was written a long time ago and it does not apply now adays. U also have to take in account when it was written the U.S. was at war with england and citzens needed to protect themselfs. Guns were also a lot harder to concel and fire quickly as there are today. I'm sure if u could buy automatic weapons back then they would have outlawed them for the common person to have on. It's not a matter of facts or anything it's common sense. People in general are stupid and mean and stupid and mean people should not be allowed to have a deadly weapon :S