Wow... CCL discussion


PDA






bratch
July 9, 2006, 11:19 PM
On a sports related board I visit I found this wonderful snippet.

My point is, if the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your home, wouldn't it make sense to not have a gun?

The United States is actually safer today than it was in the '70s, and it's not due to concealed-carry laws.

Most likely, it has more to do with abortion laws that kept millions of unwanted children out of homes that couldn't properly care for them.

JMHO.

Know what the otherside thinks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wow... CCL discussion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dzimmerm
July 9, 2006, 11:47 PM
It is going to take some diligent effort not to get this thread closed almost immediately. It has some inflammatory topics compressed into a small space.

In so far as the gun related sentence. It can probably be dissected and seen to be two completely sepearate thoughts put together to try and make a point.

The first thought is summorized as having something means the likely hood of it being used is much higher than if you don't have it.

The second thought is a conclusion based on fear of what certain objects can be used for while making it sound reasonable by invoking the phrase common sense.

My response to the two thoughts would be as follows.

Thought one: That is an obvious conclusion which does not take into effect the cost, benefit, analysys of being prepared for home invasion by a animal or human threat.

Thought two: No inanimate object made for human use and designed by human engineers is meant to be harmfull to the user when used appropriately. Common sense would decree that if one had it in their power to prepare for as many problems as possible before they occured, then one who does not prepare is not using common sense.

dzimmerm

OldSchooler
July 9, 2006, 11:50 PM
My point is, if the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your home, wouldn't it make sense to not have a gun?
No, the people in my home are trained to use them.

The United States is actually safer today than it was in the '70s, and it's not due to concealed-carry laws.
No, its because we have more cops than ever before. I have never recalled seeing so many - thanks, Mr Bin Laden

Most likely, it has more to do with abortion laws that kept millions of unwanted children out of homes that couldn't properly care for them.
Unborn children can't be used to fill out a statistics roster, as they dont exist.
Typical vacuous LibLogic. This is the core of it:

"If you dont like something or can't understand it (in this case guns) then surely it needs to be done away with."

It always smacks of elitist arrogance, this way of thinking. The feeling is that they know better than me and so they need to take control over things for my own benefit, as if all of us were children in need of their guidance.

bratch
July 10, 2006, 12:11 AM
It is going to take some diligent effort not to get this thread closed almost immediately. It has some inflammatory topics compressed into a small space.

I thought of this myself and debating posting it but felt that it could be an informative thread.

That post was the first time I'd heard that arguement.

JohnKSa
July 10, 2006, 12:21 AM
My point is, if the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your home, wouldn't it make sense to not have a gun?The fact that guns are rarely used to KILL criminals means very little compared to the fact that they are frequently used to DETER criminals.

Statistics say that most firearms used to deter crimes are never even fired. Given that handgun wounds are about 80% survivable, even the very few criminals that ARE shot have a pretty good chance of recovering.Most likely, it has more to do with abortion laws that kept millions of unwanted children out of homes that couldn't properly care for them.Even if one were to accept the unsupported premise that reduced birth rates have contributed to reduced crime, it's quite a stretch to give abortion laws the credit. Don't have the stats, but I suspect that abortion is probably the LEAST frequently used method of birth control by a HUGE margin given the expense and risk.

Chrontius
July 10, 2006, 12:35 AM
there was a noticable dip in crime rates 15-20 years after abortion was legalized.

I won't try to justify it, but ... it's there.

What I _will_ point out is that after a particularly bad year in the 60s, Orlando offered free CCW training to females. The rape rate, which was setting records, plummetted to zero-ish. (single digit, I believe) The refusal to acknowledge a fact - I'm looking at THR and sportsfans here - doesn't make it not true.

arthurcw
July 10, 2006, 12:38 AM
Wow. What an load of inane <Censored>. Need a lot of Tactial Wheelbarrows to carry that much fertilizer around.

Zundfolge
July 10, 2006, 12:44 AM
My point is, if the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your home, wouldn't it make sense to not have a gun?
The truth is that the statistics DON'T show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your home.

That is a lie first told by an anti-gun advocate disguised as Social Scientist named Arthur Kellerman (do a search for "Kellerman Study" and you'll see how soundly its been discredited...for one thing the only "self defensive use" that counts is if you kill the intruder).


The FACTS are that (according to the FBI) there are somewhere between 800,000 and 900,000 crimes committed each year with firearms, at the same time (based on research done by Florida Criminologist and former anti Gary Cleck) there are 1.5 to 2 MILLION self defensive uses of firearms each year.

Simple math. Guns are used for good (self defense) MORE than they are used for bad (crime).


All the ammo you need to set these folk right can be found here http://www.gunfacts.info/


He's also wrong about the dip in crime having nothing to do with CCW laws ... go read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime for the rebuttal to that nonsense.

As for his bit about abortion, he may have a point. Many potential criminals, Democrats and anti gun activists may have been aborted since Roe V. Wade, but that's not really a topic for The High Road.

Valkman
July 10, 2006, 12:59 AM
there was a noticable dip in crime rates 15-20 years after abortion was legalized.

I won't try to justify it, but ... it's there.


It also doesn't mean anything. It's like saying crime rose 5 years after a comet went by - one has nothing to do with the other. It's a purely liberal argument justifying abortion, and it doesn't work. CCW laws do work, and have been shown to work.

10 Ring Tao
July 10, 2006, 01:15 AM
Umm, guys, I think your squeals of "LIBLOGIC!!! BLASPHEMY!!" are premature. Just because you disagree with the idea behind something (abortion in this case) doesn't make it's affects on society untrue. That is, so long as the numbers are there to support it.

In this case, those numbers do exist.

The abortion reference is from the book 'Freakonomics'. It and it's authors won a bunch of awards, and is one of my favorite books of all time. Freakonomics is kind of like the mythbusters of the sociology and economic realm. They skip the BS and shine light on some very interesting topics, one of which being the true reason for the precipitous drop in crime in the late 20th century.

In analyzing the Great Crime Drop, as reasons they discuss guns, the economy, police and other factors. They provide evidence to dismiss each, and their conclusion is that, in fact, the reason crime dropped so much is that there were simply fewer people born from the demographic that tends to raise and produce criminals, in the time period that those criminals would have reached the age most likely to be committing crimes. That time period was, consequently, in the years immediately following Roe v. Wade.

Its the very basic idea that fewer criminals = less crime. Whether that drop in number of criminals is because they're locked up or were never born, the result is the same.

Logan5
July 10, 2006, 01:20 AM
The law generally says that you can't shoot home invaders/burglars on your lawn, so when they're shot, of course the homeowner is using them on someone inside the home. The statistics don't necessarily consider whether you're shooting someone "inside your home" who is supposed to be there.

Vairochana
July 10, 2006, 03:38 AM
Logan5 beat me to it

arthurcw
July 10, 2006, 10:14 AM
The problem with the statement about abortion is that is simply a correlative statement and a red herring. Same as saying, "If those babys would have grown up and paid into Social Security, then SocSec would not be in trouble.

It does not take into account (like most correlative studies) any of the other events in the time frame that may have really or also contributed to the situation.

Correlative studies are useless at proving facts and are really only of any use in telling researchers where to look because there MAY BE a relation. Unfortunately in today’s world of pseudo science there is rarely any real work done beyond the correlative studies. Bad Researchers or Deceptive Practices... you be the judge.

BTW: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113314261192407815-HLjarwtM95Erz45QPP0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Working Man
July 10, 2006, 10:27 AM
there was a noticable dip in crime rates 15-20 years after abortion was legalized.

I won't try to justify it, but ... it's there.

What crimes are they referring to? Since abortion was removed as a crime
the "crime rates" would automatically drop by the number of now legalized
abortions and related offences, as they are no longer considered a crime.

As has been stated before "There are Liars, Damn Liars, and Statisticians".

Snake Eyes
July 10, 2006, 10:34 AM
The abortion reference is from the book 'Freakonomics'. It and it's authors won a bunch of awards, and is one of my favorite books of all time. Freakonomics is kind of like the mythbusters of the sociology and economic realm. They skip the BS and shine light on some very interesting topics

Freakonomics is well written, intersesting and the authors makes compelling arguments.

Unfortunately, reputable scientists have shown those arguments to be completely specious.

10 Ring Tao
July 10, 2006, 10:35 AM
It does not take into account (like most correlative studies) any of the other events in the time frame that may have really or also contributed to the situation.

Have you read the book? They do address several other popular options for the cause of the crime drop.

arthurcw
July 10, 2006, 10:55 AM
Have I read the book? Nope. And probably will not.

I have read reviews of the book (such as the one posted) and it looks like another interesting read that claims to be the "Be All" of truth backing itself up with “statistical evidence”. I have far too many books on the MUST READ list to force another "I am the harbinger all things true" book into the stack.

I’m sure it’s interesting but that one statement shows me that the author is 180 degrees out of phase with my world view.

mdao
July 10, 2006, 10:56 AM
The Freakonomics "abortion cut crime" argument was eviscerated shortly after the book came out. You can look up the details yourself, but the short version is that Levitt really botched his numerical analysis.

Jedi_7.62
July 10, 2006, 11:02 AM
It always blows my mind to see individuals take a stance against things like like gun ownership and hunting but find it perfectly acceptable to murder unborn children. What is higher the number of people accidentally killed by guns or unborn babies intentionally killed by the surgeon. The very idea that it requires good financial standings to raise children and them not be criminals burns my a$$. It is rediculous.

This makes my blood boil. The author here needs to stop giving himself colonoscopies and remove his head long enough to see what color the sky is in the real world.

LEGAL does not equal MORAL!!!!

mp510
July 10, 2006, 11:07 AM
Even with the "acceptance of" and greater prevleance of abortion today, there is no hard evidence that there is actually a reduction in crime because of it.

There is way more obese folks today than in 1970- and crime is down. So let's break out the fat-food and further obese society- it's for the children's well being.

Clearly, the abortion argument makes about as much sense as the obesity theory I just made-up. Both rely on statistics that are purely unrelated, or are virtually unrelated. The prevelance of guns for protection and the downsize of crime are related. I recall en experiment performed by another THR member: 3 potential victims with 1 carrying a hidden toy gun. 1 BG. BG didn't want to attack because he didn't know who might "shoot" him.

the naked prophet
July 10, 2006, 11:21 AM
Most likely, it has more to do with abortion laws that kept millions of unwanted children out of homes that couldn't properly care for them.

Interestingly enough, most abortions do not occur with single teenage mothers. Most abortions are for married or long-term relationship career women who are financially fairly well-off, and of course liberals in that position are more likely to have an abortion than conservatives. If you take that guy's statement as truth, that means that liberals, even with plenty of money, can't properly care for children.

Mind you, I'm not saying that is a logical argument, but it would be fun to point it out to that guy and see what his face looks like.

As to the other points, everyone else seems to have it covered. I don't see this thread lasting much longer, either.

NineseveN
July 10, 2006, 11:46 AM
LEGAL does not equal MORAL!!!!

..and MORAL does not equal YOU.

If this thread doesn't go back on topic and get away from the abortion arguments, there's no point in posting in it as it will be locked down in short order.

Zundfolge
July 10, 2006, 12:03 PM
If this thread doesn't go back on topic and get away from the abortion arguments, there's no point in posting in it as it will be locked down in short order.

I agree ... its not the main point of this thread anyway. The point of this thread is to give bratch some ammo in his debate with a possible anti.

One of Many
July 10, 2006, 12:42 PM
I thought crime rates were normalized, and referred to on a per-capita basis; that is the RATE is XYZ # per Hundred Thousand of population, or something like that. If that is the case, the RATE is independent of the total population, so it doesn't matter whether more or fewer people have been born in a given period of time.

Changing the definition of what constitutes a crime would certainly have an effect; like comparing apples to oranges. Some action that was a crime twenty years ago, and included in the statistics of that time frame, may be legalized (or unenforced) at the current time, and not included in the statistics being compared. The reverse case may also occur, if actions have been criminalized recently, that were lawful at the time of the older statistics.

It is possible to use statistics improperly, and fool people into believing almost anything. It does not require an intent to decieve, on the part of the person(s) using the statistics; it is possible that their knowledge of the statisitcal process is inadequate, and they have unwittingly reached an erroneous conclusion. That does not mean that all deceptive statistical analysis is unwitting; some people will deliberately abuse the statisitcal process to achieve their political/economic objectives.

Zundfolge
July 10, 2006, 01:34 PM
I thought crime rates were normalized, and referred to on a per-capita basis; that is the RATE is XYZ # per Hundred Thousand of population, or something like that. If that is the case, the RATE is independent of the total population, so it doesn't matter whether more or fewer people have been born in a given period of time.
True, but that's not the point of the "abortion reduced crime" argument.

The argument is that certain types of people (ie poor minority young men) were not born and thus not around to commit the crimes they would otherwise have committed. Problem with this argument is that it ignores the facts about the demographics of abortion ... the majority of abortions are performed on college educated, white, middle to upper middle class women in their 20s, not poor minority women.


Anyway, I can't believe I allowed myself to be sucked back into this discussion after my last post :neener:

NineseveN
July 10, 2006, 02:01 PM
Anyway, I can't believe I allowed myself to be sucked back into this discussion after my last post

Bad Zundy! BAD! :D

ArmedBear
July 10, 2006, 02:20 PM
there was a noticable dip in crime rates 15-20 years after abortion was legalized.

It is demonstrable that crime rates correlate with the population of young men in a given society.

20 years after Roe v Wade, the last of the Baby Boom generation turned 30. The following generation was much smaller.

That means that the number men under 30 in the US from 1988-1993 (15-20 years after Roe v Wade) was declining, and AFAIK the proportion of our society made up of young men under 30 was, by the mid-90's, the lowest it had ever been. The combined effects of longer life expectancy, the "baby bust" or Generation X, and smaller family sizes made this happen.

Abortion may have had a real impact on these numbers, or not. But assigning some simple causal relationship between Roe v Wade and crime rates is far-fetched. Sexual mores also changed during the 1960s and '70s, such that the number of unwanted pregnancies among late Baby Boomers in the 1970s may well have been much, much higher than they were in previous generations.

orionengnr
July 10, 2006, 03:41 PM
"corellation does not prove causation"

makes sense to me.

DragonFire
July 10, 2006, 04:11 PM
There also seems to be a trend that if the police don't feel that there's a chance of catching the criminal, or the cost in trying to catch them isn't worth the damage, they don't even take a report.

No report, no crime to end up in the statistics, result is a lower crime rate.

mp510
July 10, 2006, 05:11 PM
ArmedBear, do remember that while the traditonal criminal was a young male, there is a growing trend of females commityting crimes as well. Females account for the fastest growing population of prison inmates in this country.

bratch
July 10, 2006, 07:13 PM
The point of this thread is to give bratch some ammo in his debate with a possible anti.

I'm actually staying out of the debate. I may post some of the CDC child fatality stats as another part of the discussion was the "Its for the children".

Basically it was the first time I'd ever seen the arguement presented that way and was a little surprised by it.

JohnKSa
July 10, 2006, 10:18 PM
As I said earlier, even if one accepts the premise that lower birth rates caused the crime dip, I would think it would be pretty hard to isolate abortion as the primary cause of lower birth rates.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wow... CCL discussion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!