By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Guns Dont Make You Safer?

ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:

I dunno. I'd have to guess that people who own guns generally live in more dangerous areas of Philadelphia.

You know.  Just a theory.

Guns in your home make you safer, especially if you have an early warning of an instrusion.  On the streets however, if someone pulls a gun on you, having a gun in around your waist or in your glove compartment wont do you much good.  Clearly the criminal has the upper hand in these situations.  When someone comes up to your car windown and demands the car, reaching for your gun while a gun is pointed at you is not a good decision.

And yet... studies other then this one (which do exist) don't bear that out.

There have been two conflicting studies on the matter... however the one that says guns don't prevent violence are ones that require you be shot or hit before they consider it "warding off an attack."

Its the first study of its kind (epidemiology), not the first study on guns and safety.  That is bad journalism on the authors part, however, as there isnt much use to mention this other than as an attention getter, and I can see how it could be very misleading.  Thats assuming that the author is correct in the first place.

I would like to see numbers from other studies if you have them.  Please do a better job than the Jesus/Obama thread :)

Do you have access to scientific journal articles? 



Around the Network

An odd question, how often do criminals choose to rob gun stores that are owned/staffed by war veterans?

Part of the protection the gun store has is the expectation that he has a weapon under the counter that will likely tear someone in two, and the other part of the protection is that it is likely that people who shop at the store are much more likely to be armed and take offence to you trying to rob the place. When the odds that your crime will be stumbled across by an armed individual goes up the likelihood of committing that crime goes way down, which is why gun-crime tends to go down in places that institute laws allowing concealed weapons to be carried.

 

 

Much like healthcare debates, gun crime is a problem where people never really argue about how to actually address the root causes which is why there is rarely any improvement. Most career criminals have records that date back to their early teens, and usually involve several arrests for more minor crimes prior to becoming adults. A debate over how you reduce the recidivism rate of young offenders in half or quarter is long over-due in the United States, and every small victory on that today will result in big benefits down the road.



The debate doesn't only concern the amount of crime though, it also concerns the outcome of that crime.

I'd rather have ten robberies where nobody dies than one where somebody does.



Rath - what if the 1 that dies is the robber?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
Rath - what if the 1 that dies is the robber?

How is that better than no deaths haha. 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
So let me get this right... if guns don't make you safer, you're saying that we can take all the guns away from cops, and they can do there job equally effective with no additional risk to there safety?

Is that so? Policemen don't need guns to do their job effectively. Now let's do a case study, USA arms their police with guns and allow open ownership of guns and Britain does not. 

USA has the 24th highest murder rate in the world with 0.042802 murders per 1000, where as Britain has the 46th highest murder rate with 0.0140633 per 1000. That is a large disparity, the country who do not arm their police with guns and do not allow guns to be owned as easily have a four times lower murder rate. What does that tell you about gun crime?

Source



mrstickball said:
Rath - what if the 1 that dies is the robber?

So killing someone for robbing is justified? How lovely...



highwaystar101 said:
mrstickball said:
Rath - what if the 1 that dies is the robber?

So killing someone for robbing is justified? How lovely...


  Of course it is justified. You defend yourself against criminal after all.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Zlejedi said:
highwaystar101 said:
mrstickball said:
Rath - what if the 1 that dies is the robber?

So killing someone for robbing is justified? How lovely...


  Of course it is justified. You defend yourself against criminal after all.

So how does me murdering someone, an even greater crime than robbery, somehow make me in the right? Is it justified that I should be allowed to murder someone? 

I live in Britain, we don't have guns here, if I want to stop a robber then I call the police or tackle them myself. We do fine, in fact we have a lower murder rate.



highwaystar101 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
So let me get this right... if guns don't make you safer, you're saying that we can take all the guns away from cops, and they can do there job equally effective with no additional risk to there safety?

Is that so? Policemen don't need guns to do their job effectively. Now let's do a case study, USA arms their police with guns and allow open ownership of guns and Britain does not. 

USA has the 24th highest murder rate in the world with 0.042802 murders per 1000, where as Britain has the 46th highest murder rate with 0.0140633 per 1000. That is a large disparity, the country who do not arm their police with guns and do not allow guns to be owned as easily have a four times lower murder rate. What does that tell you about gun crime?

Source

Absolutely nothing since it's like comparing Apples and BBQ sauce.  Considering how many differences there are betwen the UK and US... one would have to be stupid to think you could even compare stats between countries involving such things.

Besides... it doesn't even show which variable is the dependent variable.

The US could have more guns... because we have more murders.  Though it's likely either has much effect.