Do Guns Reduce Crime?

An interesting article containing some thought-provoking statistics (which may possibly be controversial). For instance, the following: "In his momentous books, Point Blank — Guns and Violence in America (1991) and Targeting Guns (1997), Kleck reported that in the U.S. guns are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to deter crimes than by criminals to commit crimes. Kleck found that defensive uses of firearms by citizens total two to 2.5 million times per year and that between 25 to 75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun)."


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/11-22-99/vo15no24_deterrent.htm

M,


I read the article. I suspect Kleck's conclusions are twisted to begin with, but the writer of the article makes fairly egregious logical errors, don't you think? I find that the point you mention would be fairly hard to substantiate. For one, how would anyone know that using a gun for defensive purposes had "saved" his life?


John

There is quite a bit out there that suggests guns are excellent at deterring or preventing crime. However, the statistical measures really don't get at the issue. The point is that self defense is an absolute, natural right, and that guns are excellent tools for it. We have a constitutional right to have them, as well as our basic human right to possess the technology that can preserve our life. I don't see liberals asking for a cost benefit analysis on the First Amendment, so I hesitate to discuss it regarding the Second. Both the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are mine regardless of collateral negative effects. That is not to say that no steps can ever be taken to lessen collateral costs of the exercise of our rights. (Few gun control laws have any effect on rational concerns regarding guns.) However, we need not justify our human rights to those who would steal them based on costs or "public safety" or whatever the nanny mantra du jour happens to be.

I mentioned that point in particular because I had trouble picturing how it might truly be substantiated, and because it seemed perhaps the most surprising point raised in the article. Whether that point it is even partially true I have no idea.


If the writer were attempting to prove his views by this article, I would say it was significantly flawed. If he is merely attempting to provide some support for his views, I guess he managed to do that to a certain extent, although he might have been more thorough in many respects.


I do think it raises some interesting questions and is probably worthy of further investigation/research.

John,


Wouldn't you agree that in any given neighborhood, some of the residents have handguns for home self defense. And if some do, then the risk associated with a home invasion robbery and similar crimes goes way up for the bad guys.


This would lead to the conclusion that even if you don't own a gun, your home is a lot safer because some home owners chose to do so.


Regards,


Rick

Might it not also be the case that, since criminals know that a homeowner is likely to have a gun, they'd better have a gun when they come to burgle you?


This would lead to the conclusion that even if you don't own a gun, your home is a lot more dangerous because some homeowners choose to do so.

"nanny mantra du jour"


I put this tidbit phrase in my notebook for future use. Thanks HDPM.


BTY, I joined a sportsmans club that has a nice gun range - pistol(indoor and out), skeet, rife, and archery. Unusal for me, as I am not a joiner by nature. Have a two-day handgun class in a few weeks. Still looking for that second pistol, but in the class we get to shoot a number of different handguns so that should help me to choose. If I have two handguns, that means I can lend one to Andy Fox. I don't think he has one yet. I also heard Andy may be a Yankees Fan. I will have to speak to him about his disconcerting attitudes.


-Zeno

No, because burglars are playing the odds that you won't have a gun, and even if you do you won't be sleeping next to it.


If every household had a gun I'll bet there would be far fewer burglaries. Burglars want things they can sell for money, not to get shot in the chest or leg. Criminals are generally cowards, and somewhat mindful of expediency, and therefore prefer to seek the weakest targets.


Are you actually serious about the example and conclusion in your post above?

Rick,


Yes, given that premise, I'd be forced to agree. However, I'm not sure most criminals, despite what others might claim, really show any careful understanding of risk and reward. Remember the scene in All the Presidents Men in which Deep Throat tells Woodward to disabuse himself of the notion that he's dealing with smart men? Do you think Nixon's cronies showed much understanding of risk and reward?


I think I've told you about this one, but I'll remind you. Mary was taking a Criminal Justice class; the discussion that day centered around the efficacy of the death penalty, especially to prevent violent crime. Most students believed that the death penalty worked as a deterrent. One student, after listening to the discussion for a long time, raised his hand and said, "It wouldn't have stopped me." Since I had this student in a compostion course, Mary already knew that he had served his prison term for murder.


John

When I was 19 I dated a Navy Seal that was 6'5" 230 pounds and nicer than a pussy cat in a field of catnip...except when he thought I was looking at another man. Unfortunately since every other person I would come into contact with happened to qualify as being male, he would go off.


He smacked me around some, first time I had been belted by a man other than that one guy I paid to ..umm..I digress....

Anyway, being the smart girl that I am, I figured real quickly that he was gonna get the best of me in any physical contest we happened to engage in. So, I borrowed my dad's .22 and showed it to him next time he felt that another man had piqued my interest enough to warrant me a bruising.

And the moral of this story is, I stopped a crime. It was criminal the way he was gonna smack me around again and the gun stopped him dead in his tracks. (NO not literally..sheesh..I ain't writing this from Marion Federal Prison, yanno.)

A funny story, and I rather doubt that the death penalty is much of a deterrent.


However, the fear of INSTANT pain or death, as in getting shot going into someone's home, I would think probably is--especially if the would-be burglar thinks there is a rather high chance of that occurring.

If you do a 2 day class and shoot your Beretta a lot, I would guess you will tire of the trigger if you are not a daily shooter. I would lay odds you settle on a Glock for your second pistol if you put in a lot of range time and get to shoot the Glock. That is if you shoot a normal one and not one ruined by the heavy "New York" trigger.

"Are you actually serious about the example and conclusion in your post above?"


Yes.


Why would a burglar think differently from a homeowner? I'd be more likely to carry a gun committing a crime if I knew my intended victim was more likely to have a gun.


I do agree that there would be fewer burglaries if there was a gun in every house. But at what cost?


I'm not sure if I agree that criminals are basically cowards. Seems to me it takes some degree of bravery to, for example, burgle regularly. Scumbags? Yes, definitely. Cowards? I'm not so sure.

Consider me spoken to. /images/wink.gif

Putting a criminal on a thought can be tricky. It's kind of like playing against someone who has no idea about how to play poker. You will see some bizarre stuff.

Consider that if the burglar knows the homeowner will be unarmed, all he needs is a gun to virtually insure that he will not be molested during the robbery by the occupants of the house if they happen to be home. All he will have to worry about is his escape. Therefore his risk-reward ratio goes up considerably.

I agree. But not everything is bizarre. Isn't one of the reasons people acquire weapons because other people have them?

Now here's a subtle twist...yes and no.


Assuming defensive purposes, people (and nations) acquire weapons not only because others have them now, but because they know others WILL have them. In other words if you were to have built a peaceful, prosperous society or tribe even ages ago, yet neglected defense, you would have been open to attack and subjugation. If there were say ten tribes, it would likely have been human nature for a tribe or two to say, hey, guys, look what we can do if we arm ourselves and attack those guys over there. We can get all their good stuff and their women and even maybe have some slaves to carry water and build canals and tend the crops for us. And of course this is just what happened.


So what I'm saying is, it's not only just for immediate defense, it's also because of the danger that others will see your weakness or defenselessness and will try to exploit it--even to the point of acquiring weapons for just that purpose.


This works many ways. Exploitation is a great temptation. So, if nobody had weapons? As above, some would develop them and take advantage, while some others would be considerate enough not to. But there is no way to force everybody to be "nice." The threat of counterattack or vigorous defense is a necessary deterrent. And if you legislate it so nobody has defense, then those in government will be left with the only power...and some of them will be overcome by the temptation to use/abuse it. So there just is no answer until the species evolves to higher spiritual/emotional standards...but even that is not so simple. Much behavior that appears immoral is actually driven in part by some degree of necessity. So unless and until we reach some sort of utopian existence perhaps hundreds of years from now (when perhaps technology will combine with greater psychological maturity, and needs will be far more easily met), defense will remain a part of life, and neglecting it will remain perilous.

Tough to square this claim with the rate of gun-related homicides (not to mention suicide & accidental death rates) in this country compared to the much lower homicide rates in other Western democracies which have much greater gun control. Sure, the prevalence of guns is not the only factor in these differing rates, but it certainly is a big one, if not the biggest. Enough to pretty quickly dispel the myth this author is pushing.


Yeah, there may be a few more armed countries than ours with lower homicide rates, but by and large the stats bear out - more guns = more homicide/suicide/accidental death. It may be a price we're willing to pay (I'm somewhat ambivalent about gun control myself), but Kleck's argument is basically a foolish one.

'compared to the much lower homicide rates in other Western democracies which have much greater gun control. '


the facts dont bear this out but if a bunch of idiots keep saying it to each other they think they have a good argument.


why dont you look up the facts on what happened/ is happening in britian now that theyve taken away all the guns.


brad

Sigh.


http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm#00002255.htm


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html


http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#murd


Need a few dozen more? Looks like you're the one with fact problems. Perhaps you're talking about general crime when you cite Britian (rates there for some crimes are higher than they are here, I think), but in homicide, we've got 'em licked by a mile.

first link is for 1990-1995.


second link latest date is 1998.


third link is 97-99.


currently its 2002.


from what ive read crime in britian has risen like 1200% in last 2 years.


also from some link i threw on here the police chief or whatever of london was in the paper saying london has now surpassed new york in homicides (or per capita homicides) or something.


sorry to be vague but ive posted a lot of very recent stuff and for you to rebut me by using 3 - 8 year old data is just ludicrous.


but if youre just wrong and you want to know do a google search for recent stuff.


also a lot of the articles were bbc, times of london, (cant think of other one).


brad


p.s. just to reitierate, its not that i think youre wrong, its just that crime in britian has totally exploded recently. also they just recently took everyones guns.

"I agree. But not everything is bizarre. Isn't one of the reasons people acquire weapons because other people have them?"


One of the reasons. My reason is because I don't like pain. I take aspirin when I get a headache though I'd much prefer to just not get it in the first place. I have firearms because I'd prefer to head off the pain of being beaten, stabbed, bludgeoned, shot, kicked, etc.


The Baron

Ignore suicides, criminals killed during the comission of a crime, suicides and gang related killings. They're not relevant regardless of the method used to generate the homicide.


Now include all of the forms of criminal violence. Don't limit yourself to homicide. Let's throw in rape, assault and the whole range of crminal ways people can hurt other people. Now let's include such categories as "home invasion" robbery and the ever popular in the UK, the "break and run".


You can't limit violent crime to just a single tool. A bullet won't kill someone any more than a knife or a 4-way tire iron.


Next, untill you can document a direct corellation between all of the factors that lead to violent crime such as economy, social history, racial tension, mental health, political instability, etc; you can't compare the countries in question.


Surely you're not going to try to suggest that a random 150,000 British citizens are somehow statistically equivalent to 150,000 randomly chosen US citizens.


The Baron