Submachine gun seized and nine arrested in anti-gang raids

[bcking 3,157]

You originally were talking about gun-related crime in general. Those graphs are both just looking at mass public shootings, not all gun-related crime.

 

Which did you want to discuss?

20 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Nice theory but the facts say otherwise. The facts say gun related crime is much lower in areas where people can legally defend themselves. Most criminals go for the easy prey in the victim disarmament zones. It's not too hard to figure out that a criminal is going to break into a house with no guns over one where there is a chance they will be shot.

You are talking generally about gun related crime here. So where are the facts for that data?

[bcking 3,157]

The article that generated those graphs state explicitly many times that their focus was just one mass shootings "where the purpose was to kill as many as possible and gain media attention". So they even excluded some mass public shootings that didn't fit that.

 

If we want to discuss specifically mass public shootings that's fine, but again very different than overall gun violence statistics which is what we were originally talking about. It's a little pointless though because I agreed with you from the beginning that "gun free zones" aren't effective. We just disagree about WHY they aren't effective and the data from that website doesn't really address that.

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

  crimeresearch.org is a pro gun shill site. We've discussed that ad nauseam at this point. Every time someone mentions the propensity for increased crime in gun free zones, every article you come across, it always leads back to that one idiotic site. Nobody else has similar conclusions.

 

   The majority of mass shootings are murder/suicides. They generally don't occur in gun free zones. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Steeleballz

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  crimeresearch.org is a pro gun shill site. We've discussed that ad nauseam at this point. Every time someone mentions the propensity for increased crime in gun free zones, every article you come across, it always leads back to that one idiotic site. 

I know very little about the website, but I do find it funny that the article repeatedly references a source (Landes and Lott) as separate from their own research, and yet John Lott is with the CPRC (the website writing the article).

 

So they essentially reference themselves several times.

[Sonea 138]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

I know very little about the website, but I do find it funny that the article repeatedly references a source (Landes and Lott) as separate from their own research, and yet John Lott is with the CPRC (the website writing the article).

 

So they essentially reference themselves several times.

You can actually compare the US to the UK prior to both countries having gun control (early 1900s). Interestingly both have similar murder rates to today.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

You can actually compare the US to the UK prior to both countries having gun control (early 1900s). Interestingly both have similar murder rates to today.

Early 1900s? It's a bit hard to compare over that many decades. A lot of confounding.

 

Also again sources people. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Can't find my original source for guns but think I searched for "how many guns in the UK".

 

Looking on my phone, can't find the same article now, but came across this one:  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/4-million-guns-uk-streets-7598164

 

Can you define "easy access" in the US?  As related to legal purchasing, I mean.  I know it's hard to define as regards criminals, but anecdotally it seems pretty easy on the black market.

 

I'm all for anything that makes sense and lowers gun crime rates.  Unfortunately,  no one seems to know what that is, short of "banning guns because it works other places".  Which is debatable.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Can't find my original source for guns but think I searched for "how many guns in the UK".

 

Looking on my phone, can't find the same article now, but came across this one:  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/4-million-guns-uk-streets-7598164

 

Can you define "easy access" in the US?  As related to legal purchasing, I mean.  I know it's hard to define as regards criminals, but anecdotally it seems pretty easy on the black market.

 

I'm all for anything that makes sense and lowers gun crime rates.  Unfortunately,  no one seems to know what that is, short of "banning guns because it works other places".  Which is debatable.

Your numbers may have been right but then you ended up comparing a violence rate per 100,000 to the total number of guns, not per 100,000. We have a larger population so that has to be taken into account. Hence why the reality is more like 100 per 1,000 vs. 6.2 per 100 (or 1,000? I forget). Still a big difference but not quite as big as the numbers you suggested.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, bcking said:

Your numbers may have been right but then you ended up comparing a violence rate per 100,000 to the total number of guns, not per 100,000. We have a larger population so that has to be taken into account. Hence why the reality is more like 100 per 1,000 vs. 6.2 per 100 (or 1,000? I forget). Still a big difference but not quite as big as the numbers you suggested.

http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

I simply said that we have a 3X factor on the crime rate per capita, with more than 600X the guns.  Even if you change the raw numbers into per capita, it won’t change anything.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

I simply said that we have a 3X factor on the crime rate per capita, with more than 600X the guns.  Even if you change the raw numbers into per capita, it won’t change anything.

It changes how you compare the number. You shouldn't compare an absolute number with a per capita number. That artificially inflates the difference between the two. At first glance it looks like the difference is between 3 times and 600 times when in reality it is 3 times and 16 times (6.2/102). 

 

Still a difference, but not to the same degree.

 

Also to be clear we are talking about a 3x factor on the firearm-related crime rate per capita specifically. The overall crime rate per capita may help your agenda more (criminals will still commit crimes without guns).

[Sonea 138]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Early 1900s? It's a bit hard to compare over that many decades. A lot of confounding.

 

Also again sources people. 

Its apples to apples.

 

US 1900s to UK 1900s prior to major gun control. There is a known error in counting US murder rates in early 1900s so the 1906 through 1909 rates are more accurate. Note that the US averaged about 4 per 100k where as the UK is just under one. Thats pretty close to today despite radically different approaches to gun control.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1900s

Edited April 12, 2018 by Sonea

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

I know very little about the website, but I do find it funny that the article repeatedly references a source (Landes and Lott) as separate from their own research, and yet John Lott is with the CPRC (the website writing the article).

 

So they essentially reference themselves several times.

 

John Lott is a frequently flier in these here parts.  I keep his info in my clipboard:

 

https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/

The GOP’s favorite gun ‘academic’ is a fraud

The journalistic quest for neutrality has led to a sacrifice of intellectual integrity.

EVAN DEFILIPPIS,DEVIN HUGHESAUG 12, 2016, 4:45 PM

 

John Lott is, if not the most influential, certainly the most prolific “academic” in the gun debate. He has authored weekly columns in local newspapers on the horrors of gun free zones, published widely-distributed books on the ostensible benefits of right-to-carry laws, and his newest book The War on Guns has received rave reviews by prominent conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Newt Gingrich.

Before Lott’s flurry of activity, it was difficult to find anybody arguing that widespread gun ownership made societies safer — even the NRA was reticent to make such a bold claim, defending gun ownership with reference to the constitution, not criminology.