patrick.net

foxmannumber1 says

there is a genetic component to intelligence

While this statement might be true, your extension of that statement to IQ scores is pretty tricky. The way IQ is measured is not much of a science. Ever taken an IQ test? Unless you have a source for your statement, I suggest you be careful about connecting ideas and consider all of the thought which might have led to your conclusion.

bdrasin says

If you only consider cases where a perp actually gets shot (and therefore it is verifiable), its a tiny handful.

What is also verifiable is what I stated here:

Leopold B Scotch says

What's impossible to gauge is the deterrent fact that an armed populace presents to potential criminals. There are plenty of examples of crime going down dramatically when there is a highly public vigilante taking matters into his own hands. Bernie Goetz's handling of four would be muggers who thought he "looked like easy bait" caused mugging to nearly vanish in the (NY) city during the time between his "self defense" and his turning himself in about two weeks later.

That was clearly verifiable, and the inference is that criminals are deterred by the threat of being shot at by potential victims with hidden packed heat. The exact numbers can never be known, but the drop was massive in NYC.

Not saying you think this way, but those who argue the "unverifiability of deterrence" as a reason for making guns illegal should therefore apply the same logic to the police. How do you know the police deter crime? What are the statistics? In fact, you could argue that crime goes up where there are more cops if you're poor at statistics. (cops are assigned in greater concentrations to high crime areas.)

Leopold B Scotch says

Just saying I've heard the argument before from people who are very pro big government progressive solution types

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I think that most of those progressive types are full of it. I believe their claims of "wanting to make the world a better place" are just cover to acquire more wealth/power for themselves. Every dictator believes his rule is benevolent. I'm willing to bet both the Kock Brothers and George Soros think they're going God's work.

There are some who believe that only 1. cops 2. military should own guns.
They are either 1. brainwashed to fear guns 2. like being sheep 3. afraid to learn what guns do.
Whether or not guns prevent violent crime in thousands of cases in the USA every year is an interesting but irrelevant fact.
Oppressive goverments universally fear an armed populace.
If you have ever shot a good gun at a range it's so much fun and you will naturally find it enjoyable.
My favorite handguns are CZ, and the CZ75 my favorite because it's so accurate. It's a pleasure to hit where you want to with a gun. Cop guns suck because they are plastic and the recoil causes the gun to jump around. Mililtary handguns are usually not plastic.
Perhaps you have a family and are not concerned to have strangers someday come bother you in your house. You will be frantically dailing 911 and hope that the donut shop is just a block or two from your home.
Remember, when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

Leopold B Scotch says

Leopold B Scotch says

What's impossible to gauge is the deterrent fact that an armed populace presents to potential criminals. There are plenty of examples of crime going down dramatically when there is a highly public vigilante taking matters into his own hands. Bernie Goetz's handling of four would be muggers who thought he "looked like easy bait" caused mugging to nearly vanish in the (NY) city during the time between his "self defense" and his turning himself in about two weeks later.

Got some stats to back that up? My quick search indicates murders in NYC were already dropping in 1984 (had been for a couple of years):

The big drop in crime starting in the 1990s was probably due to roe v wade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Anyway, the original question was how many crimes are directly prevented by legal guns ownership, so I don't think this is a great example. Goetz did not have a license if I recall correctly.

Leopold,

Take a look at this thread.

/?p=1214445

Thoughts?

bdrasin says

Got some stats to back that up? My quick search indicates murders in NYC were already dropping in 1984 (had been for a couple of years):

Nothing popped up for me either. I'm old enough to recall pretty vividly that the temporary drop (we're talking 10 days bernie was on the lam) was a cited issue in the great debate of the problem of crime in NYC and other major cities back then.

The big drop in crime starting in the 1990s was probably due to roe v wade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Good one!

Actually, crime rates continue to rise in NYC through the rest of the decade. Again, Goetz was a 10-day phenom.

Goetz did not have a license if I recall correctly.

Goetz was declined a license after getting beaten up during a mugging and watching the perps clear the police station before he was even allowed to leave. He took it into his own hands.

Anyway, the original question was how many crimes are directly prevented by legal guns ownership, so I don't think this is a great example.

I think the deeper question in this thread is "private ownership of guns preventing crime" and should the recent events in Aurora translate into legislative action to increase gun restrictions. Someone mentioned NYC. D.C. and Chi-town as examples of an easy disarmed population.

I think putting myself in the shoes of a criminal says a lot about what I'm willing to rob if I were a robber. Soft targets without defense would be a first go-to. If I had to rob a place with a gun or two, I'd much prefer those armed to be wearing a nicely identifiable uniform and shiny badge so I know exactly who to take out before taking care of business. The last thing I'd want to deal with is the unknown of who in a large group is actually armed.

I mean, really... this is common sense.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rkNpi85c6Ko

check it out, awesome pistol

Leopold B Scotch says

I think the deeper question in this thread is "private ownership of guns preventing crime" and should the recent events in Aurora translate into legislative action to increase gun restrictions. Someone mentioned NYC. D.C. and Chi-town as examples of an easy disarmed population.

Examples of disarmed populations? Don't you think countries are better examples than individual cities, where you can just go to the next town? So how about:
Australia
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Italy
...etc...

All have much stricter gun laws than USians would ever tolerate, and all have much lower rates of violent crime. Sure, there are cultural differences but do you think this can all just be hand-waved?

I've never heard a counter-argument to this that didn't boil down to:

the collective republican id said

No! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!

bdrasin says

Examples of disarmed populations? Don't you think countries are better examples than individual cities, where you can just go to the next town? So how about:
Australia
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Italy
...etc...

These are all racially homogeneous super majority white societies.

bdrasin says

All have much stricter gun laws than USians would ever tolerate, and all have much lower rates of violent crime.

Just wait until the Euro collapses.

foxmannumber1 says

Nooooooooooooooo! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!

There it is again...

wthrfrk80 says

bdrasin says

All have much stricter gun laws than USians would ever tolerate, and all have much lower rates of violent crime.

Just wait until the Euro collapses.

Oh it'll be bad, but I don't expect their violent crime rates to go up to anywhere near ours. And it would be worse if they had our gun laws.

bdrasin says

There it is again...

No it's not. I made no reference to any gun law or stats concerning gun violence. Merely pointing out racial demographics.

American in Japan says

How many crimes are actually prevented by people havng/bringing their gun(s) ?

(in the US that is).

all of the ones that would have happened and did not happen.

simple folks.
Guns are not good, guns are not bad. Guns are a tool.
A gun in the hands of a pad person is a bad thing. (so is a bat, a bomb, or your neck)
A gun in the hands of a good person is not a danger to anyone BUT a bad person. Period. Charlie Heston said something like this once, and he was right, and it's still right.

StillLooking says

This is exactly why guns should be banned. If the police can't even get lethal force right, then obviously ordinary people can't either.

Huh?!? You're conflating acts of self defense, where would be victim knows full well who is threatening him/her, whereas the police breakdown a door, shoot first and figure out they've broken down the wrong door later. Mixing apples and oranges is fruit salad, not a valid argument.

Your implication here is that average citizens would have better judgement and be less prone to mistakes than trained police. Well that is just plain malarky.

simple folks.
Guns are not good, guns are not bad. Guns are a tool.
A gun in the hands of a pad person is a bad thing. (so is a bat, a bomb, or your neck)
A gun in the hands of a good person is not a danger to anyone BUT a bad person. Period. Charlie Heston said something like this once, and he was right, and it's still right.

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone. And even if we grant the very dubious claim that guns make one safer(all the evidence shows that owning a gun seriously raises the likeliehood that one will get their fool head blown off by a gun), how is it fair to those that choose not to own guns to allow the bad guys to have guns?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

StillLooking says

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone

there may be stupider comments on here than this, but I doubt it.

StillLooking says

how is it fair to those that choose not to own guns to allow the bad guys to have guns?

I stand corrected. That's even stupider.

Weapons use should be an elective in H.S., just like cooking, welding, and drivers training. There should be hunting clubs and target shooting clubs, in every H.S. in this nation. The answer is more education about proper weapons use.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

StillLooking says

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone.

How do you plan on doing that? How will you keep criminals from getting guns? Just curious.

StillLooking says

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone.

How do you plan on doing that? How will you keep criminals from getting guns? Just curious.

The mass production of guns requires heavy industry. A law banning guns can thus easily be enforced unlike drugs which does not require heavy industry for manufacture.

Thus the only new guns after a ban will be hand made and limited quantity. Thus the price of guns will quickly become so expensive that two bit punks will no longer be able to acquire them.

Still,

I'm getting Deja Vu...

StillLooking says

The mass production of guns requires heavy industry. A law banning guns can thus easily be enforced unlike drugs which does not require heavy industry for manufacture.

Unlike drugs, guns are not put into your bloodstream. Guns also do not disappear once used.

To do what you propose, you would have to repeal the 2nd amendment. This simply won't happen, but let's pretend it did. All gun factories would cease making guns for private citizens and for the government only. All of these agencies would have to develop more complete disposal systems for used guns and a more indepth tracking system for in use guns. A logistical nightmare.

We have ~200 million privately owned guns in the US, which I would guess is a conservative estimate. They would all have to be turned in and destroyed. It would be another logistical nightmare that would take decades.

If every private citizen willingly gave up their firearms the government would fail the logistical problems.

Your liberal eutopia of no guns and racial harmony will never exist.

Still Looking - I don't want to bring a bat to a gun fight. In an unlit house at night, just the SOUND of a shotgun shell getting chambered is enough to make people flee. Know what I mean?

Let's remove all of our troops who occupy more than a thousand military bases in other countries around the world, and then see if their strict gun control policies continue to prevent violent crime. It's difficult to find a nation with strict gun control laws who aren't currently under our heavily-armed protection. Our strongest presence is felt in Germany, Japan, Italy, and Austria

In fact, I can't think of one country with laws as strict as you describe that doesn't escape massive internal funding for defense and law enforcement due to US military intervention.

deepcgi says

In fact, I can't think of one country that doesn't escape internal funding for defense and law enforcement due to US military intervention.

Defense, yes. Law enforcement, no.

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

SARCASM.

If it is found that the rifle or 100 round clip malfunctioned, the shooter should sue the manufacturer. He has the right to buy a product that operates properly. He should be pissed. He might have been able to wound & kill more women and children?
How many gun lovers had family members wounded or killed in Aurora?
Collateral damage happens. Do not tread on 2nd amendment rights.

If someone wants you dead you're dead, whether your armed or not.
What's the saying?: You will not hear the bullet.
How many are 10 feet tall & BULLET PROOF?

StillLooking says

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

no no no, YOU can LIMIT how YOU defend YOURSELF. A bat, your hands, a fly swatter, bad breath, whatever. But, your only hope of survival is an armed gov agent if the bad guy(s) come after you or your family or your pet or your neighbor or your treasure. That's your CHOICE. I CHOOSE to not limit my ability to defend myself, my family, my pets, my neighbors, or my treasure. What ever happened to the ProChoice liberal voices?

deepcgi says

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.

wthrfrk80 says

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.

Touché!
(notice my using French?)

Now we're closing in on the truth! Ah the double-edged sword of America's military presence around the world. Imperialism on the one hand and free military security on the other. The impact of this US foreign policy on the entire world CANNOT be overstated. The US and Britain certainly earned the right to occupy these countries. Any other conquering nations in history would have had them taken over and all speaking the conqueror's native language in no time. However, the money the US spends on their behalf is astronomical. Every one of those nations is saving billions in defense - that would have come from some other internal source. Frankly, quite a number of them would no longer exist at all. If it turns out that the Keynesians (read Democrats AND Republicans) are wrong and fiat money cannot be sustained forever by quantitative easing, then the day is soon coming when the US will pull its troops from half of these bases by pure necessity. God help the citizens of those countries who have no defense.

wthrfrk80 says

deepcgi says

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.

OK, we get the idea. You don't like Europe and think they are a bunch of condescending ingrates. Answer me this: do you think they would have higher or lower rates of violent crime if their gun laws were more like ours? Just curious...you probably know what I think.

bdrasin says

Answer me this: do you think they would have higher or lower rates of violent crime if their gun laws were more like ours?

Heck if I know. They are a less violent culture overall.

I thought gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland. Yet they are highly civilized people with low rate of violent crime. Perhaps it is something to do with expensive watches.

Peter P says

I thought gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland. Yet they are highly civilized people with low rate of violent crime. Perhaps it is something to do with expensive watches.

Kinda sorta. Gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland (as part of militia duty) but heavily regulated. For example, there is no right to carry in public concealed or otherwise; generally you can't even transport a gun unless it is unloaded.

I've heard that "liberal" Vermont is pretty generous toward gun ownership, oddly enough.

wthrfrk80 says

Heck if I know. They are a less violent culture overall.

I agree with that. And to be honest I'm not sure the issues can be separated...one of the ASPECTS of our violent culture is our gun fetish. Anyone in most European countries who insisted it was their human right to carry a loaded gun in public would be looked at as a creepy weirdo.

You're not safer because a gun is around. I'd give it higher odds you are in more danger.

You are only safer if the person who is in control of the firearm is very competent and has good intent and judgment (whether that is you or otherwise).

How many people in the US who are gun owners do you think fall into that category? How many people who are gun owners exhibit bad judgement from time to time and are not very competent with their firearm? I'd say most. Why? Because most people aren't training with their firearms religiously, and most don't train in CQC scenarios where they are being shot at. They shoot at the range or they blow stuff up in the woods. These are not the people you want sitting in the theater next to you and armed.

Put three armed citizens in a crowded theater with that gunman and I'll show you some people who meant well but shot or killed people by mistake.

The high rate of gun ownership in the US combined with rock bottom standards to own a firearm come at a steep price : high rates of suicide, accidental shootings, and murder by firearm.

To pretend arming everyone would make us safer is stupid. Have you seen the way we drive here in California? Remember, all those motorists are at-leaset licensed, have to renew that license, and demonstrate competency with operating an automobile. To get a firearm in California: fill out a multiple choice test and show me you can operate the slide/bolt while pointing the muzzle in a safe direction. Ridiculous.

You have the right to bear arms, sure, and at the time that was written the top of line armament was a flintlock/percussion long rifle. Yes, I believe everyone in American can own that firearm. I'm an "originalist".

Automatic grande launcher? No. Automatic rifle? No. You want bigger and badder toys that go boom and bang you need to take extensive firearm courses and be licensed.

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves by any means. I also believe that if they are choosing a modern means of defense, that can do a serious amount of damage to other people, they should be well trained and versed in its use. In the US, there are zero, no, none, zip, regulations which ensure that today. That is asinine! I'm not saying you can't own it, I just want you to be an f'ing rock star with your AR15.

Simple truth : we are allowing very dangerous things to be in the hands of the incompetent.