Todd,
What you say has merit, but here is their survey data of the criminals based on states based on the avilability of firearms.
In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals' fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.
Fear acts as a driver to a good percentage of criminals as to whether or not they carry a gun, at least based on this research.
As far as applying any logic to a complete whacko or sociopath, Fresh Prince is correct. There is no guessing what they will do. If guns aren't available, they'll resort to home made Sarin gas, or machette's, or any other sort of weapon available, as examples have shown in the past.
I'd rather have legislation based on society as a whole, and based on facts and statistics, rather than managing to the lowest common denominator. The problem then "lies" in who's statistics you use.
My comments from the lack of Chum thread last week also apply here. Unfortunately, I scared all the WDFW PP'ers away when I called them out on their data integrity, cause they know it's all sh!t.
You can always find data to support your opinion. I think what you have to do given these consistent data conditions is look at what most of the data says to make the best decisions possible, not just certain parts of it which support a certain aspect of the situation or conclusion you wish to draw from to suit your needs.
What Dogfish says has been proven to be correct. The probability of the presence of a gun deters bad people from making a decision they might not otherwise if they thought no one was armed in a convenience store, house, or bank.
Chicago crime rose after the handgun ban. So says a study by a William & Mary College economist:
Chicago passed its ban on handguns in 1982, one of the most restrictive in the U.S. It is that law that is being challenged in the Supreme Court.
A study last year by economist Carl Moody of William & Mary College found that after the ban was imposed, city crime rates rose significantly, almost immediately. The city is more dangerous now than it was before the ban, the study concluded, relative to the 24 largest American cities.
Officials here point to a 10 percent reduction in the murder rate in the past two years as proof that the handgun ban is beginning to work. Figures show that 81 percent of the murders in the city were gun-related; nearly 60 percent were gang-related.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.htmlHere's another strange coincidence--the year after the DC ban was lifted, crime fell. Dramatically in fact.... homicides reached their lowest level since 1964.
Now I know that correlation does not equal causation. And even many scholars who support gun rights are not yet ready to say that more guns = less crime.
But reverse correlation is strong evidence against causation; in other words, the history of D.C and Chicago brings into serious question the "more guns = more crime" belief of many who oppose gun rights. And if guns are neutral or better as the evidence tends to indicate, there's no utilitarian reason to ban them--only emotional reasons.
Previous Topic
Index
