FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
phillydog1958;4188399; said:
If you arm everyone, you're going to have total chaos. It would experience the calamity of the wild, wild west -- Street law. We'd be dealing with good citizens, with vigilante mindsets, with itchy trigger fingers and criminals with itchy trigger fingers. Who's to say that the crime rates would not rise? I think that you would see a rise in accidental shootings. Like I said earlier, the debate goes on and on. Maybe there is no earthly answer.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about arming everyone. I just think that people should be able to legally purchase firearms to protect themselves if they feel so inclined. I don't personally own a firearm because I live in a safe neighborhood with very little crime. If I lived somewhere I felt less safe, I would certainly want to own a firearm to protect myself and my family.

phillydog1958;4188440; said:
^^^^ I agree. The need to get a hit or fix of their drug of choice is much more powerful than the possibility of getting shot due to attempting to rob a potentially armed victim. Drug addicts don't think, they act.
Click to expand...

Again, while your point is true to a degree, not all crimes are committed by drug addicts looking to pay for their next hit. You keep taking extreme examples and acting like they are the truth across the whole spectrum of the subject.

Ideally, our country (be it the government or private sector) would be able to provide enough for its populace that their would be little need for crime. Unfortunately that's not the case. And as long as there are those who will commit crimes, for WHATEVER reason, then i think everyone else should have the RIGHT to a means to protect themselves. And being able to dial 911 is little comfort if you have someone pointing a gun at you on the street or in your home.

Just because it is legal to own a gun doesn't mean you'll be forced to own one. Its simply a case of deserving the RIGHT to have the means to protect yourself. If it deters crime or not, that isn't the point.
 
phillydog1958;4188440; said:
^^^^ I agree. The need to get a hit or fix of their drug of choice is much more powerful than the possibility of getting shot due to attempting to rob a potentially armed victim. Drug addicts don't think, they act.
Click to expand...

and when they break into my house with a knife, threaten me and take a bullet to the face they wont be doin squat any more. therefore doin less other crimes. 2 birds with one stone. i protected my wife, my son and my self and i took another criminal off the streets.

connor, thanks for ur point of view. I respect it! While i dont agree with all of it, i respect it.

bderick, u said about the arsons. Many arsons are actually done to cover up other crimes. so if other crimes drop then so will arsons. so if guns helped(not the main reason, but it DOES help) curve the other crimes logic would tell u it helps with arson.
 
what i don't get is why so-called "liberals" want to take away the rights of individuals (e.g. the choice to have arms). our view of "liberal" is so skewed
 
pwmin;4188782; said:
what i don't get is why so-called "liberals" want to take away the rights of individuals (e.g. the choice to have arms). our view of "liberal" is so skewed
Click to expand...

I don't think its that "liberals" want to take away our rights. They just believe that the government is responsible for its citizens safety. If the government is responsible for protecting us, then why should we need to have firearms?


It doesn't matter who you look at, "liberals" "conservatives" "democrats" "republicans", they ALL have an agenda and beliefs, many of which are contrary to the beliefs of the party they belong to. Any labels given to them are misleading. And believing what ANY of them say is foolhardy.
 
Conner;4188247; said:
While I could agree to a point (in that crime rate is based on population), the problem with that explanation is that it doesn't take into account the relatively quick (i.e. less than 10 years) decline of the crime rate. It takes decades for the population to increase enough where the senior citizen population would actually affect something like the crime rate.

More likely factors in the increase or reduction of the crime rate are the minimum wage (poverty level), economic crises, wars, etc.
While I think that a reduction in gun ownership restrictions (i.e. more guns available to the law-abiding public) would have some benefit for lowering the crime rate, I don't think it would necessarily lower crime across the board. And it is difficult to show a direct correlation between those two things, because there are so many variables affecting crime rate.
Click to expand...

How does the minimum wage and economic crisis REDUCE the (violent) crime rate?

phillydog1958;4188294; said:
If all guns made were legal, to include semi and fully-automatic weapons, and the NRA started advertising that more people are owning guns, what makes you think that this would be a deterrent for the criminal mind? Most criminals would just stock up and use more powerful weapons to commit crimes. Many already do it. Studies already show that capital punishment does not deter criminals from committing violent crimes, such as murder. Please keep in mind that the average criminal always assumes that he/she will not be caught. Also, your using an example that's based on the NRA advertising a falsehood. Is that fair and do you think that gun control groups are not going to check the NRA claims and dispute them? I doubt that the NRA is that stupid. They might spin the facts but I can't see them making a claim based on a big lie. Do you think it's OK to lie, just to make a point that supports your agenda?
Click to expand...

It's not OK in my opinion, but politicians do it constantly!

Conner;4188314; said:
There is a class of criminals that NOTHING is going to stop them from committing crimes, period. They're going to do it no matter what. For these people nothing but capital punishment is worthwhile, because they will always be in and out of prison costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.

I think the majority of lesser criminals WOULD think twice before breaking into a home or mugging someone if they knew that that neighborhood or that city had gun laws that supported and promoted law-abiding citizens owning and carrying (with permits) guns.

And as for the NRA making claims that aren't true, all I said was that it was a theoretical situation. As in think outside the box. I wouldn't condone outright lying. But saying something in a way that people can infer something that isn't true, isn't the same as lying. ****, politicians do it every day. How would it be any different?

And IF giving the general population (and therefore most criminals) the idea that more people are owning and carrying guns could reduce crime (any crime, not just violent murders) then would that not be something to consider?
Click to expand...

1) Death from a bullet in the head absolutely stops ALL criminal activity! :D

2) The "ends" do not justify the "means".


Conner;4188321; said:
Oh, and I don't think fully automatic weapons should be legal. There is no reason for the general populace to own them in my opinion. They should be military weapons only. But the problem is they are already commonly available, so banning them now is like closing the barn door after the horses are already gone, don't you think?

Handguns and shotguns are the staples of home and personal defence, and single-shot and semi-automatic rifles are mainly hunting weapons. So none of those deserve banning in my opinion. Again, the criminals will get the weapons no matter what the law says, so why ban law-abiding citizens from the best means to protect themselves?
Click to expand...

1) Fully automatic weapons are already commonly available? Really? Where?

2) EXACTLY!

phillydog1958;4188399; said:
If you arm everyone, you're going to have total chaos. It would experience the calamity of the wild, wild west -- Street law. We'd be dealing with good citizens, with vigilante mindsets, with itchy trigger fingers and criminals with itchy trigger fingers. Who's to say that the crime rates would not rise? I think that you would see a rise in accidental shootings. Like I said earlier, the debate goes on and on. Maybe there is no earthly answer.
Click to expand...

Based on what? Your opinion? What was the violent crime rate of the "wild, wild, west"? Stats?

If "everyone" was armed wouldn't "everyone" be on par with "everyone" else? Wouldn't the violent crime rate actually drop?
 
Knowdafish;4189135; said:
1) Fully automatic weapons are already commonly available? Really? Where?
Click to expand...
They are available in my state[though not in my city]just as they are in many states in this country.They are not as easy to legally purchase as semi atomatics but if you are willing to jump through a few hoops and pay what they cost then they can be bought.I've never heard of a fully automatic weapon being used in a homicide in modern times,it seems that most gun crimes are committed with cheaper handguns,especially around here.
 
Out here in Arizona...concealed weapons permit not needed anymore...let's see what happens to our crime rate. When a car hit me in an accident, the officer asked me if I had my gun ( i had a cwp at the time...not anymore), did not ask the other driver...TOTAL BS. I think not having one lets the criminal think twice if i'm packing or not. "Do you feel lucky, Punk?"
 
Is the increase in gun sales advertised? Are criminals checking the news everyday for an update on gun sales? I have no doubts that a gun can change the situation, but how do criminals know more people have them? And like what has already been said...is it new owners or existing people stocking up because of the current political situation? This also varies with location as a small town in the midwest or south would be expected to be armed and the gun culture is much larger opposed to urban/suburban areas i would think.
 
According to the FBI's report in a ten year span from 1999 to 2008 the population grew by 31.4 million people. Would have a hard time believing this id due to just babies and immigration. BTW the murder rate over that period of time, fluctuates between 5.4 and 5.7. Not really a relatively quick decline, is it? The rate of rape crimes have dropped over the last few years, this follows an increase in the couple of years prior.

Over all in that ten year span violent crimes have dropped 13% where as property crimes have dropped 14%. So you may be able to argue that guns have an effect on violent crimes, but what is the reason for an even larger drop in crimes where gun ownership has no bearing?

FBI's definition of Property crime.

Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for someone to post info regarding new gun owners. I'm sure with the larger increase in population there are new gun owners. But to support a "more guns = less crime" would you really need an increase in the number of people owning guns and not just gun sales?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom