strict gun laws = less crime


PDA






Alan Fud
July 22, 2007, 11:52 PM
In a debate with an anti and had this thrown at me ... Chicago VS LA crime: (gun ban vs strick laws)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Chicago&s1=IL&c2=Los+angeles&s2=CA


Little Rock VS New York crime: (lax vs gun ban)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=Little+Rock&s2=AR


Little Rock VS Boston crime: (lax vs strict laws)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Boston&s1=MA&c2=Little+Rock&s2=AR


Little Rock VS Indianapolis crime: (both states have very lax gun laws)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Indianapolis&s1=IN&c2=Little+Rock&s2=AR


Indianapolis VS Detroit (both states have lax gun laws)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Indianapolis&s1=IN&c2=Detroit&s2=MI


Indianapolis VS Chicago (lax gun laws VS gun ban)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Indianapolis&s1=IN&c2=Chicago&s2=IL


Indianapolis VS New York (lax gun laws VS gun ban)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Indianapolis&s1=IN&c2=New+York&s2=NY


Indianapolis VS Boston (lax gun laws VS strick gun laws)
- http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Indianapolis&s1=IN&c2=Boston&s2=MA ... Can anyone help me with a counter-argument?

If you enjoyed reading about "strict gun laws = less crime" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mikebb
July 23, 2007, 12:10 AM
Easy argument to counter (statistics 101): correlation does not imply causation.

HeedJSU
July 23, 2007, 12:14 AM
my thoughts exactly

My stats professor did an equation where the number of prostitutes in a large city was directly proportional to the number of baptist ministers in the same city. Larger the city, more baptist ministers, more prostitutes. Smaller city, less baptist ministers, less prostitutes. Is there a relation? Not hardly. Like mikeBB said...just cause the numbers are there, doesn't mean that there is a relation.

Justin

tmajors
July 23, 2007, 12:16 AM
Look at the crime rates over time. Typically when strict anti-self defense legislation is enacted (I say self defense as that includes non-firearm bans on knives, mace, etc) crime rate dips a bit, then grows at a faster then normal rate. See Washington DC and the UK.

In cases where self defense legislation is unchanged the crime rate grows or falls at about the national average rate.

Certain areas may be higher then national average, but usually it is due to economical and population density factors and not the amount of weapons available.

Basically a single year snapshot is more telling about other factors then it is about gun control.

igpoobah
July 23, 2007, 12:20 AM
They sure are picking on Little Rock a lot...we must be an easy target...

Librarian
July 23, 2007, 12:46 AM
Compare Chicago and Boston to Phoenix and Washington D.C. and San Francisco and San Jose

Phoenix looks overall better than either Boston or Chicago. Washington DC, with arguably the strictest gun laws in the country, looks worse than Boston or Chicago. Chicago and Boston each looks worse than either SF or SJ.

And who says California laws are not strict? Brady (http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=CA) rates us A-! :barf:

10 Ring Tao
July 23, 2007, 12:55 AM
Its easy to throw out stuff like that when you're cherry picking city comparisons.

For every one of theirs, you can provide your own comparison that refutes it.

Alex45ACP
July 23, 2007, 01:00 AM
Who cares?

The 2nd Amendment is primarily about defending yourself from the government, not common criminals. Anyone who focuses on common crime is missing the bigger picture.

SaMx
July 23, 2007, 01:03 AM
tell them to pick a city other than little rock or Indianapolis. There are ton's of other cities with lower crime rates, in pro gun areas.

SaMx
July 23, 2007, 01:05 AM
awb and all sorts of stuff vs not
http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Philadelphia&s1=PA&c2=newark&s2=NJ
http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Phoenix&s1=AZ&c2=Newark&s2=NJ
hell just compare things to Washington DC
http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=little+rock&s1=AR&c2=Washington&s2=DC
http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Phoenix&s1=AZ&c2=Washington&s2=DC

basically you can pick on high crime cities in very anti states, and compare them to cities in pro gun states. You can pick on cities like Compton CA and Camden NJ.

but the end is the same, it's difficult to compare two cities because so many other factors are different. What you need to try to do is look at how a city changes over time, the gun laws as well as the socioeconomic state of the city.

SaMx
July 23, 2007, 01:21 AM
also, in the first link, legal gun ownership is way harder in chicago than it is in LA, but chicago has a higher murder rate. So they ruined they're own conclusion.

rangerruck
July 23, 2007, 01:23 AM
he's gotta be right just ask washington d.c., who has had a gunban for 30 years now, and they have no guncrime there at all , now.

IA_farmboy
July 23, 2007, 01:26 AM
A few ideas:

- Look at the unemployment, average income, and other economic factors. When times are rough people get desperate and are more likely to steal.

- Consider the location of prisons and number of inmates in a given city. Prisoners tend to not travel far from where they have been released. These people tend to fall back to old habits, ones that got them in prison to begin with.

- I've heard even the weather can have an effect on crime. People tend to spend more time outside when and where the weather is pleasant. The more people interact the higher chance of some of them doing bad things to each other. Here's a single sample point... I remember hearing on the radio that on the coldest day of the winter the Des Moines, Iowa police didn't have one phone call. Des Moines is a city of 200,000 in a metro area of 500,000, about the size of Little Rock. Arkansas is a "shall issue" state, Iowa is a "may issue" state with Polk County (where Des Moines sits) having a nearly shall issue policy on firearm licenses.

- Size and effectiveness of police force, laws (mandatory minimums for example), etc. Essentially, how does the city handle crime.

- Education level of the population. While it may not cut down on crime education might make more white collar criminals, people that perform less violent crime but walk away with just as much cash.

Alan Fud
July 23, 2007, 04:28 AM
Thanks everyone.

jeepmor
July 23, 2007, 04:47 AM
Being they don't show numbers in their graphs and I have to mull through all the data to see the relevant numbers myself, I would not grade this link with much more than a C, maybe a C+.

From the person arguing with you, he/she would be failed. You don't cherry pick in statistics, it's not sound math. I'm guessing he/she was a liberal arts college type that stumbled on this application and then found what they wanted. :rolleyes:

Shear_stress
July 23, 2007, 08:12 AM
also, in the first link, legal gun ownership is way harder in chicago than it is in LA, but chicago has a higher murder rate. So they ruined they're own conclusion.

Absolutely. In Chicago, handguns are freakin' illegal and California also makes it difficult to legally get a handgun. Plus, the first link showed both Chicago and LA have murder rates roughly twice the national average, despite extremely strict gunlaws in both places. The best these links can do for you is show how gun laws have nothing to do with crime rate.

Why would they send you a link that invalidated their own argument? Is your debate opponent another member of THR just fooling with you?

Titan6
July 23, 2007, 08:17 AM
How about Chicago to Houston which is much more similar in size? Pre-Katrina refugees Houston had a much lower crime rate than Chicago. Post Katrina it is still lower just not so much.

But compare DC to just about anywhere and you get the word picture.

Lashlarue
July 23, 2007, 09:46 AM
DCs gun ban was an abject failure with DC being the murder capital of the US ten of those years, now the lower court has ruled it unconstitutional and Scotus refuses to hear the city's appeal.

shc1
July 23, 2007, 09:53 AM
Here in the land of VA Tech carrying a gun on campus is against school policy.
Did it work?
Now the talk is making it law.
I’m sure that will work much better. Of course if they would just outlaw murder… :banghead:

PILMAN
July 23, 2007, 10:08 AM
Does LA have more strict gun laws than Chicago? Chicago requires a FOID card and there are no gun shops in the area, also you cannot own a handgun in the city or have more than a 10 round magazine yet i'm showing Chicago for the most part has more murder, rape and crime than LA. I thought LA only had restrictions on so called "Assault Weapons" and magazine capacity, are handguns banned in LA? I know criminals in Chicago favored handguns mainly because they were more portable and concealable.

Torghn
July 23, 2007, 10:36 AM
Correlation always shows causation. Heres' the proof:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

baz
July 23, 2007, 11:07 AM
If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit.

Throw these stats back in your anti's face:

Little Rock is 40.4 percent black.

Indianianapolis: 25.7

Boston: 25.3

New York: 26.6

Does anybody see a pattern here? It is a fairly well known but ugly secret that violent crime is much much higher in black communities. Any murder stats that do not compensate for this are useless.

RPCVYemen
July 23, 2007, 11:11 AM
Its easy to throw out stuff like that when you're cherry picking city comparisons.

Isn't that the fundamental problem with playing the stat slinging games - both sides cherry pick.

Mike

romma
July 23, 2007, 11:20 AM
That pirate graph made my day... :)

Lashlarue
July 23, 2007, 01:47 PM
Since we have been having so much rain and it has been cooler, I have noticed a decline in the number of pirates :)

fletcher
July 23, 2007, 03:13 PM
I would also say that of the hundreds of places that have strict gun laws, only two or three actually show a decrease in crime?

Culture has 100x more to do with crime than guns.

BergaminoCAV
July 23, 2007, 03:27 PM
did a report for college on gun control. i found credited sources and UCRs and found that areas with tighter gun control had a higher violent crime rate. Areas with loser gun control saw a decrease in violent crime. I tried to compare areas with equal population as best I coulf. I am now truely convinced that gun control does absolutly nothing to help crime.

Firethorn
July 23, 2007, 03:31 PM
I love how they have to cherry pick *TWO* 'lax gun control' cities - comparing each against three strict gun control cities.

scurtis_34471
July 23, 2007, 03:39 PM
Those graphs are misleading. When you look at the data vs the graph, the graph tends to be exaggerated.

ArmedBear
July 23, 2007, 03:40 PM
http://www.cityrating.com/crimestatistics.asp

Look up any two cities.

You can find cities with high crime and gun restrictions, low crime and gun freedom, and any other combination.

Just pick any two.

Comparing two cities doesn't mean anything, because you can choose them to "support" your argument.

Compare DC with just about anywhere, DC will come out looking worse for crime. Same for Compton.

There are many factors that impact crime statistics for cities. Sometimes it's just how the city limits are drawn.

For example, rates of forcible rape are much higher than the national average in Tacoma, WA, but much lower than average in neighboring Seattle. There's still such thing as "the other side of the tracks."

Another glaring example: Los Angeles has simply refused to incorporate some areas, typically those with very bad crime like "unincorporated Watts" or Willowbrook. These are little bits of County jurisdiction right in the middle of large incorporated cities. This has artificially lowered the crime rate of Los Angeles. So has the incorporation of small cities with high crime rates, like Compton, next to but not part of LA. Incorporated Los Angeles covers a large land area and includes many, many different communities; it just excludes certain pockets of generally minority neighborhoods, the names of which may be familiar to some of us from "gangsta rap" songs.

Zoogster
July 23, 2007, 03:45 PM
Does anybody see a pattern here? It is a fairly well known but ugly secret that violent crime is much much higher in black communities.
Culture has 100x more to do with crime than guns.

+2
More blacks have embraced the thug, hip hop, gangster lifestyle than the national average. There is problems and criminal elements with all races, but many blacks have come to embrace the hip hop culture as thier own self identity? So through self identity more often embrace a self destructive culture. You see the same downward spiral with any race or neighborhood that embraces this culture. So it is more of a culture thing than a race thing. However this culture follows racial lines.

Demographics also play a role. How many thugs can afford to live in Manhattan? Not many at all. In fact most of New York is getting very expensive. The criminal elements tend to move to Jersey or some other nearby more affordable location.

Taking both criteria if you compare San Francisco and Oakland you will see SF fares far better than Oakland. SF is more affluent, costs more, and has less blacks. Both have very similar politics and opinions regarding gun control, and both are large cities right next to eachother.

However that is not a PC topic. You won't see any politician mention it because they would quickly become synonymous with racist.

James T Thomas
July 23, 2007, 03:50 PM
This is a real learining thread for all of us pseudo statisticians. I've learned from it.

Another fact taken from history.

During the French Revolution, while the gillotine was in operation, beheading criminals convicted of public crimes, there were pickpockets roaming amoung the crowd of spectators, picking pockets and purses! And that crime was one for which the punishment was death by beheading.

The criminal mind set is one of arrogance, essentially; they do not get caught, most of the time, until a mistake is made, or by chance happening.

There is a deterrent factor that relies upon swift conviction and punishment
but, the severity of the sentence becomes a very sharp curve when correlated to deterrence.

My own state passed laws many years ago doubling the punishment for crimes committed with a handgun, crimes committed in conspiracy with another person, etc. And in PA these categories of crime are flourishing, regardless.

I would like to see the crime rate statistics over time from when the Bible was removed from public school, prayer was banned; Christian that is, and Muslim, Bhuddist and other Eastern philosophies and religions substituted in their place.
In the name of "secular" education that is.

iapetus
July 23, 2007, 04:00 PM
My old maths teacher's favourite statistic:

100% of people who breathe oxygen die.

ArmedBear
July 23, 2007, 04:02 PM
There is a deterrent factor that relies upon swift conviction and punishment
but, the severity of the sentence becomes a very sharp curve when correlated to deterrence.

"Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of."

H L Mencken

akodo
July 23, 2007, 06:23 PM
from "the Lutheran"
In the gun-saturated states of Iowa, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota and North Dakota, the murder rate was only 1.7 per 100,000 people in 1998. This is about as low as that rate gets anywhere in the world. The murder rates in these states have remained about the same each year since 1943.

Yet in Washington, D.C., and some other large cities, our murder rates are up to 75 per 100,000 per year. The reason for the vast difference between these two areas is family configuration and little else.

If we control family configuration, all correlations between race and crime and between low income and crime disappear. Seventy percent of all prison and reform school inmates come from fatherless homes. The majority of both the murderers and the victims have previous criminal records. That is why high violent-- crime rates can only be found in areas that have had a high prolonged rate of out-of-wedlock births.

Guns also have little to do with a nation's suicide rate. The gun-saturated United States had a suicide rate of 11.3 per 100,000 in 1998. Nearly gun-less Japan's suicide rate was 15.1. Canada's was 13.0. We also had the fourth lowest suicide rate out of 19 western European countries. Their rates varied from 26.1 in Finland to 7.2 in Italy.

Gun accidents killed 1,134 people in 1996. Motor vehicle accidents killed 43,649; accidental falls killed 14,786-perhaps stairs should be outlawed. Accidental drownings killed 3,488-should we ban swimming and pour concrete over the pools? Fires killed 3,741; drugs and medicines, 8,431; and the list goes on.

The last thing the gun-control people say is that control of guns reduces murder and violent crime. Wrong again. People living in England and Australia where guns are banned have violent-crime rates (rape and assault) twice as high as the gun-saturated United States. Car theft is three times higher in those countries than ours. Burglary is also 30 percent higher.

I could say more but this shows some of the social ramifications caused when people turn from God and the family structure collapses.

By: Anthony Rust

Article obtained from the link @:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...09/ai_n8957191

To go to the latest U.S. statistical abstract:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

ArmedBear
July 23, 2007, 06:26 PM
Seventy percent of all prison and reform school inmates come from fatherless homes. The majority of both the murderers and the victims have previous criminal records. That is why high violent-- crime rates can only be found in areas that have had a high prolonged rate of out-of-wedlock births.

Register and license penises, not handguns.:p

If you enjoyed reading about "strict gun laws = less crime" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!