Help with professor!

[southeastshooter]

I have a professor who is really anti-2nd amendment. He wants me to show him data that shows when guns are banned that crime rates rise. I am looking now but am having trouble finding any. Help me so I can set him straight!

 

[risxc]

Australia and south africa are good examples , get their crime stats

 

[PT1911]

IMO, I would start by showing him the crime rates of all of those wonderfully anti-states as compared to the rest of the US... To my knowledge there arent any specific before and after studies that are actually NON bias enough to have much merit, though I could be wrong about that.

Hows about the difference in the crime rate in the UK since the institution of their strict gun laws... sure, shootings are down, but hows about knife crimes, beating crimes, and blunt object beatings... I am sure it is more civilized to be beaten to death than shot.. or stabbed than shot.

Hows about the percentage of crimes that are actually committed with legally acquired weapons.

These are all stats I have seen at one point or another though I have no idea where to locate them.

 

[ms6852]

Try Chicago also check statistics crime rates.

 

[carbuncle]

http://www.guncite.com/

 

[gunnutery]

Great Britain, Australia.

 

[General Geoff]

southeastshooter,
Respectfully, you have already lost the debate. Your professor has already framed the debate by insinuating that guns should be banned unless it can be proven that their mere presence reduces overall crime. I submit that you should not engage in his game, but instead pose to him the concept that guns do not affect crime rates at all, but merely empower the individual to protect himself, instead of relying solely on the authorities for protection. Any objections to this notion on his part will likely be due to some vague idea that guns are unsafe in the hands of the untrained, unwashed proletariat. Simply counter with the fact that freedom is not, and has never been, guaranteed safe.

 

[southeastshooter]

That's why I love this forum I knew you guys would come through for me. Also I just realized about the title and yes it is misleading I would really like to compare legally owned gun crime vs illegal gun crime in America but am having trouble locating it.

 

[Zen21Tao]

I agree with others that you shouldn't frame the argument as one in which a decrease in crime following the passage of CCW laws is necessary for the right to concealed carry to be justified.

The anti-gun argument against concealed carry is that concealed carry should not be allowed because this would cause increases in crime. In other words, the anti-gun argument requires the existence of a positive causal relationship between concealed carry of firearms and crime.

All you need to do to succeed at completely undermining this argument is present evidence that show such a causal relationship does not exist or that, if it does, it is one in which crime rates decreased in the presence of new concealed carry laws.

Example:
http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf

"Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting
period, 2005).152"

"Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass
public shootings fall dramatically after
right-to-carry concealed handgun laws
are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995157,
the average death rate from mass
shootings plummeted by up to 91% after
such laws went into effect, and injuries
dropped by over 80%.158
153"

etc.

The knee jerk reaction to such stats by anti-gun liberals is to deny that the observed reductions in crime/violence is/was due to factors other than the possession of firearms. This is fine, as it still demonstrates the absence of the expected increases in crime/violence following concealed carry laws, which would have to be observed if their positive causal relationship was correct.

 

[southeastshooter]

^^^That is exactly what I was looking for thanks again guys. I'll let you know how this plays out.

 

[mikana]

Gen Geoff,

Well stated! You have to justify limiting a right. The burden of proof should be on him.

Here is a quote from the conclusion of Gary Kleck's (an anti-gun researcher who did a major study):

Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all- pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. And just as gun control serves this purpose for liberals, equally useless "get tough" proposals, like longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, and more use of the death penalty serve the purpose for conservatives. All parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass which is at the heart of the violence problem.

(source: http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html)

and another from University of Chicago Law School Professor John Lott Jr.

Preventing, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns does not end violence, but merely makes them more vulnerable to attack. The very size and strength of our results should at least give pause to those who oppose concealed handguns. The opportunity to reduce the murder rate by simply relaxing a regulation ought to be difficult to ignore.

(Source: http://www.largo.org/Lott.html)

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

Scotland yard would be a great place for data. Since the 1997 gun ban in England their crime has skyrocketed. Now only the criminals and the bobbies have guns.

Heck, for that matter, try the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

 

[Roc_Kor]

www.gunfacts.info

All you'll need. Trust me.

 

[jeepmor]

FBI data is pretty clear as CCW became more proliferated across America.

 

[scottsvillesol]

you could point to Kennesaw Georgia where there is a law that everyone MUST own a firearm and home burglaries dropped 89% the first year.

 

[killchain]

I have a professor who is really anti-2nd amendment. He wants me to show him data that shows when guns are banned that crime rates rise. I am looking now but am having trouble finding any. Help me so I can set him straight!

Not to rain on your parade, but he is a professor that gives you a grade.

I tried that once, and I got the lowest possible grade. I would not recommend fighting with your college professor about gun statistics.

Of course, I gave a ten minute presentation on why CCW should be allowed on campus, and then afterwards showed the crowd the body armor I was wearing under my sweater. Then I asked them if we should all wear this.

But yeah, seriously... just let those silly professors spout their "intellectual talk" and get your grade.

 

[thorazine]

Way to ensure you get failing marks for this semester!

Seriously though,

Unless it involves what you are covering in class why bring up firearms and firearm rights at all?

 

[scythefwd]

See if you can get him to prove that crime increased after CCW went into effect or after a gun ban was repealed.

You can look up gun crimes reported in Florida before and after the CCW license was made available. You can check DC crime statistics to prove that gun crime doesn't always go down after a ban is enacted.

The argument you have been presented and must discredit is that guns = crime. By having to prove that crime goes down after CCW laws are passed, you are trying to prove that guns = crime is false. See if you can get him to prove causation of guns = crime instead of correlation.

 

[Alex45ACP]

The only way you can possibly believe that gun bans do not increase crime is if you don't think democide is a crime. Tell him to open a history book.

 

[southeastshooter]

This is directed to Thorazine. Actually it was a class discussion on our stance on gun control so no I didn't bring it up, it was a class topic for our homework. Thanks for the input.

 

[ArthurDent]

southeastshooter,

For factual information of the sort that you are seeking, you really can't beat Dr. John R. Lott Jr.'s book More Guns, Less Crime. You should probably buy this book for future reference. (mikana already referenced him, btw.)

However, your situation raises a dilemma for me. Just because you hold a position that is objectively correct and can back up your position with hard data does NOT mean that you will win in this situation. Your prof. has the upper hand, and he may not listen to any reason. If you get at all confrontational, he's sure to put you in your place, regardless of the facts. Always use tact and respect in any "discussions" you have.

Also, know that personal opinions on this subject are usually very emotional and "knee-jerk" on both sides of the issue, and seldom have anything to do with logic. My own experiences recently have strongly reinforced this observation. Plenty of smart folks hold extreme positions based purely on emotional reactions. Trying to present objective facts will only anger them and make them think that you are hostile and irrational. In other words, it's unlikely that you'll convert anyone with a strongly held position.

I don't know the character of your professor. You need to assess the situation and choose your actions accordingly. He may be willing to grant you a good grade based on the validity of your reasoning even if he disagrees. On the other hand, he may be a blind idealist. You'll have to judge what to do.

Good Luck!

 

[Ike R]

Arguments like the one you are haveing with your professor are one of the reasons that I dropped out of college and pursued my education through a trade school. The editeing of our history by our teachers is incredible to believe, and undeniably shapes our culture in ways that can make you weep.

More Guns Less Crime by John Lott is a Great place to start, there are also statistics posted by Texas on our state website that show that fewer crimes are commited by concealed permit holders than what liberals would have you believe. Ted Nugents books are an interesting read as well and while "Uncle Ted" is himself an emotional person, he does show alot of facts about crime.

There is no doubt that gun free zones are the easiest places to get in shot, Columbine, Amish Churches, Virginia Tech, Salt Lake City Shopping Mall, Pearl High school in Missisipi, all sites of Mass Murders with guns and every one of those places is a gun free zone .....how great did that work out for the people slaughtered there unable to defend themselves without becomeing a criminal themselves?

As ArthurDent says above, its a matter of feelings and emotions to these people, not facts.

 

[forindooruseonly]

You can quote John Lott at him till you are blue in the face and it won't do any good. Here's why - depending on what his PhD is in, History, Political Science, or whatever, he probably has been trained on how to find and discredit weaknesses in any argument. That's how academics make their living and reputation. Their primary function is to attack and discredit others' interpretation of evidence and posit their own instead. Being in grad school myself right now, I can tell you that coming up with evidence is just something he is going to scoff at and then counter.

At best, you might convince him to actually skim a copy of Lott's book. Then, he will simply point out all of the perceived flaws in the thesis and evidence presented. There is actually a good chance he has already read it, actually. Unless he is a complete dolt, even the most ideologically motivated professors at least bother to understand the opposing arguments because it is necessary to framing your own argument. I doubt he wouldn't have brought something up in class without prepping for it.

 

[Azb]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Az

 

[7.62 Nato]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Az

Although I like that saying, I believe this one to be more appropriate in this instance. "Never wrestle with a pig. It gets you dirty, and the pig enjoys it".