Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

LL was harping on surveys awhile back and here is not just one but several and the resluts are to say the least interesting. They all show that guns do deter criminals from doing their thing.

FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS [80]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey:
Field
Bordua
Cambridge Reports
DMIa
DMIb
Hart
Ohio

Area: California
Illinois
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Ohio

Year of Interview 1976
1977
1978
1978
1978
1981
1982

Population Covered Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Registered voters
Registered voters
Registered voters
"Residents"

Gun Type Covered Handguns
All guns
Handguns
All guns
All guns
Handguns
Handguns

Recall Period: Ever/1, 2 yrs.
Ever
Ever
Ever
Ever
5 yrs.
Ever

Excluded Uses Against Animals No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No

Excluded Military, Police Uses? Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Defensive question asked of: All Rs
All Rs
Protection hgun owners
All Rs
All Rs
All Rs
Rs in hgun households

Defensive question refers to: Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Household
Household
Household
Respondent

% Who Used 1.4/3/8.6[a]
5.0
18
15
7
4
6.5

% Who Fired Gun 2.9
n.a.
12
6
n.a.
n.a.
2.6

Implied number of def. gun uses[b] 3,052,717
1,414,544
n.a.
2,141,512
1,098,409
1,797,461
771,043

[80]. FIELD INSTITUTE, TABULATIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF A STUDY OF HANDGUN OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS AMONG A CROSS SECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA ADULT PUBLIC (1976); BORDUA ET AL., supra note 43; CAMBRIDGE REPORTS, supra note 36; DMI (DECISION/MAKING/INFORMATION), ATTITUDES OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE TOWARD GUN CONTROL (1979); Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., supra note 54; Ohio, supra note 36; Quinley, supra note 36; Mauser, supra note 19; the Gallup polls of 1991 and 1993, L.A. Times poll, and Tarrance poll were taken from a search of the DIALOG Public Opinion online computer database

AND another set that mirror the same as the first chart.

FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey:
Time/CNN
Mauser
Gallup
Gallup
L.A. Times
Tarrance

Area: U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Year of Interview 1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1994

Population Covered "Firearm owners"
Residents
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults

Gun Type Covered All guns
All guns
All guns
All guns
All guns
All guns

Recall Period: Ever
5 yrs.
Ever
Ever
Ever
5 yrs.

Excluded Uses Against Animals No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes

Excluded Military, Police Uses? Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Defensive question asked of: Gun owners
All Rs
Rs in hgun hshlds
Gun owners
All
All

Defensive question refers to: Respondent
Hshld.
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent/
Household

% Who Used n.a.
3.79
8
11
8[c]
1/2[d]

% Who Fired Gun 9-16e
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

Implied number of def. gun uses[b] n.a.
1,487,342
777,153
1,621,377
3,609,682
764,036

Notes:
[a]. 1.4% in past year, 3% in past two years, 8.6% ever.
[b]. Estimated annual number of defensive uses of guns of all types against humans, excluding uses connected with military or police duties, after any necessary adjustments were made, for U.S., 1993. Adjustments are explained in detail in Kleck (1994).
[c]. Covered only uses outside the home.
[d]. 1% of respondents, 2% of households.
[e]. 9% fired gun for self-protection, 7% used gun "to scare someone."
An unknown share of the latter could be defensive uses not overlapping with the former.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

[evil muppet]

Blinky wrote: lilwolf wrote: Blinky wrote: A woman is more likely to be raped in the United States than in Britain. This is despite the number of women who carry firearms.
What can explain this anomoly?


I would bet that a woman with a handgun is not going to be raped as easy as she would with out a handgun.....

Woman who have a means of self defense are less likely to be assaulted in any manner. It is only logic that with RTC in 44 states and growing that the rape victims are fewer. Those that are armed are a deterent to criminals. The fact that the bad guys do not know who is packing and who is not is a good thing, because they do not have an easy target list any longer in many places of the US.

You are talking as if this is a hypothetical situation but it is actually the current state of affairs. Right now far, far more women in the United States are armed than in Britain yet they are more likely to be raped.
So again I ask: How is this possible, lilwolf?

Perhaps it is the women who are not armed that is being raped. The ones who are most likely to be raped are teenage girls who are drunk.

Having a handgun however increases the likelihood of avoiding death, injury or assault if confronted by a situation.

[Blinky]

lilwolf wrote: Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


Wrong answer lilwolf. I won't let you off the hook that easily. Maybe its not sinking in. I'll break it down to its simplest form.

American women have guns.
British women do not have guns.
American women are raped more than British women.
Guns, therefore, are not a deterrant to rape.
If they were, American women would be less likely to be raped.
Not more likely.

[The Comrade]

Blinky wrote: lilwolf wrote: Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


Wrong answer lilwolf. I won't let you off the hook that easily. Maybe its not sinking in. I'll break it down to its simplest form.

American women have guns.
British women do not have guns.
American women are raped more than British women.
Guns, therefore, are not a deterrant to rape.
If they were, American women would be less likely to be raped.
Not more likely.

you don't take into consideration if the american women do actually have their guns on them at all times.

[Blinky]

The Comrade wrote: Blinky wrote: lilwolf wrote: Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


Wrong answer lilwolf. I won't let you off the hook that easily. Maybe its not sinking in. I'll break it down to its simplest form.

American women have guns.
British women do not have guns.
American women are raped more than British women.
Guns, therefore, are not a deterrant to rape.
If they were, American women would be less likely to be raped.
Not more likely.

you don't take into consideration if the american women do actually have their guns on them at all times.

If these armed women don't have their weapons at hand at times when they are raped, what good is the defensive weapon?
Besides, you are ignoring the main point. That is that many, many more American women have guns, than British women. Yet they are more likely to be raped.
Is there a "culture of rape" in America? Are British women less attractive? If the answer to both these questions was yes, surely the gun ownership would cancel some of those factors out and at least make it even. But the answer to each of these questions is no.

[The Comrade]

Blinky wrote: The Comrade wrote: Blinky wrote: lilwolf wrote: Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


Wrong answer lilwolf. I won't let you off the hook that easily. Maybe its not sinking in. I'll break it down to its simplest form.

American women have guns.
British women do not have guns.
American women are raped more than British women.
Guns, therefore, are not a deterrant to rape.
If they were, American women would be less likely to be raped.
Not more likely.

you don't take into consideration if the american women do actually have their guns on them at all times.

If these armed women don't have their weapons at hand at times when they are raped, what good is the defensive weapon?
Besides, you are ignoring the main point. That is that many, many more American women have guns, than British women. Yet they are more likely to be raped.
Is there a "culture of rape" in America? Are British women less attractive? If the answer to both these questions was yes, surely the gun ownership would cancel some of those factors out and at least make it even. But the answer to each of these questions is no.

america also has a much larger population then england.

[evil muppet]

Blinky wrote:
If these armed women don't have their weapons at hand at times when they are raped, what good is the defensive weapon?
Besides, you are ignoring the main point. That is that many, many more American women have guns, than British women. Yet they are more likely to be raped.
Is there a "culture of rape" in America? Are British women less attractive? If the answer to both these questions was yes, surely the gun ownership would cancel some of those factors out and at least make it even. But the answer to each of these questions is no.

Different definitions of rape. Different legal standards. Different reporting standards. Age difference. There is a higher proportion of women in the likely age range to be raped in the US than in Britain. Could be reported with less frequency in Britain. Perhaps Britain is better at identifying rapists early and locking them away. Perhaps the British men are more likely to rape other men instead of women. Them sick bastards.

Who the hell knows. Cross country comparisons are very problematic and are poor measures.

[lilwolf]

Blinky wrote: lilwolf wrote: Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


Wrong answer lilwolf. I won't let you off the hook that easily. Maybe its not sinking in. I'll break it down to its simplest form.

American women have guns.
British women do not have guns.
American women are raped more than British women.
Guns, therefore, are not a deterrant to rape.
If they were, American women would be less likely to be raped.
Not more likely.

Okay, women that have guns are not the ones getting raped here blinky. If it were them you would say that. However, defenseless women are and therein is the difference. The bad guys go after women that are more than likely unarmed. Maybe to you but you have not shown any data that says that armed women are a deterent.
So, you cannot say that guns do not deter criminals either. I can say that common sense would show that an armed woman is not a good target.
Also, you cannot prove that women that are armed are greater targets than unarmed. It has been proven by govt. numbers that in areas where guns are allowed the crime rates go down.


For example in Florida here are some interesting numbers on rape and they do have the RTC.

Real-world experiences validate the sociologists' findings. In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.[6] During a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods and shop owners publicly armed themselves; felonies dropped significantly.[7] In March 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring householders to keep a gun at home; house burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year.[8] Similar publicized training programs for gun-toting merchants sharply reduced robberies in stores in Highland Park, Michigan, and in New Orleans; a grocers organization's gun clinics produced the same result in Detroit.[9]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html


Also note here Blinky that rape has dropped in the entire state of Florida from 56.9 in 1980 and through the years it has dropped to 38.0 in 2004.
These are also years that thr RTC have been in effect. So having guns does indeed slow rape down. Guns are a deterent to criminals. Those numbers are from the Bureau of justice and are current.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:
bang bang Lucky luke....again I am going to say I did not write the poster. It is in reference to guns detering crime. The poster happens to have words in it that in your blindness you are not seeing what it is all about.
So here I challenge you to prove that guns do not deter crime of any sort that is a violent crime or has the potential of being a violent crime. If you can do that then put up or shut up..... :twisted:

You wrote this Lilwolf that in your opinion there is ample evidence to back up the fact that there is more than enough physical evidence to warrant the facts differently. What do you mean Lilwolf, are guns enough crime deterrents for British police officers and the British public at large to get armed or is the contrary true?

If guns could deter crimes enough that gun control was not needed how do you explain the American murder rate, what about the other heinous crime, rape Lilwolf?
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


LL wrote:

Certainly not, the contrary is of course true. Only people who think that they are likely to be assaulted would carry a weapon making your theory just wrong.


Prove it LL, that people who are armed are more likely to be assaulted.
And people who are carrying are not planning on being assaulted, and the idiocy of the part that says...thinking they are more likely to be assaulted would carry a weapon.
Prove yourself LL. If you were a rapo and you wanted a victim no matter who she is, and you knew she had a gun are you going to go after her?
No ...you are going after the victim that you KNOW has no weapon or a means of self defense.

Now you prove it to us where it says that there are a large amount of women who are assaulted that are carrying guns

Lilwolf what is the point of carrying a weapon if you don't think that you are going to get assaulted? Only people who think that way do carry a weapon, any weapon.

How do you explain that women are more assaulted in America than in Britain Lilwolf, with all those guns Lilwolf why?

Rapists don't use guns anyway, very few do, next to none. Murderers, now you are talking they use guns like never before in America today.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Here is some more for you LL, that shows that having guns deters crime and stops criminals...


7954542
Gun defenses since January 1, 2005.
Date and Time Now: Saturday, October 07, 2006 12:09:56 PM


Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."
In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."
Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

We went through that already and I proved you and Kleck wrong easily, remember?
You are happy to repeat the same propaganda even when you have been proved wrong Lilwolf, this is a problem you should address.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

The Comrade wrote:


actually americas crime rate is going down.

and if every woman had a gun tucked away in their purse, do you think the rape rate would be as high?

Actually America's murder rate is up, so is America's violent crime rate The Comrade, up in 2005 compared to 2004.

The overall crime rate has very little to do with guns or gun control, less than 1% of all crimes are with firearms, didn't you know?

Rapists strike when the victim is the least expecting it, in fact they befriend their victims first making the gun in the purse totally useless.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

The Comrade wrote:

america also has a much larger population then england.

Per capita.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

evil muppet wrote:

Perhaps it is the women who are not armed that is being raped. The ones who are most likely to be raped are teenage girls who are drunk.

Having a handgun however increases the likelihood of avoiding death, injury or assault if confronted by a situation.

Handguns are the problem in America, not the solution.

As for teenage girls getting raped because they got drunk, please this forum is not about to find excuses for rapists Evil Muppet and anyway our girls will drink your girls under the table at any time, that unfortunately we know.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: LL was harping on surveys awhile back and here is not just one but several and the resluts are to say the least interesting. They all show that guns do deter criminals from doing their thing.

FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS [80]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey:
Field
Bordua
Cambridge Reports
DMIa
DMIb
Hart
Ohio

Area: California
Illinois
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Ohio

Year of Interview 1976
1977
1978
1978
1978
1981
1982

Population Covered Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Registered voters
Registered voters
Registered voters
"Residents"

Gun Type Covered Handguns
All guns
Handguns
All guns
All guns
Handguns
Handguns

Recall Period: Ever/1, 2 yrs.
Ever
Ever
Ever
Ever
5 yrs.
Ever

Excluded Uses Against Animals No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No

Excluded Military, Police Uses? Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Defensive question asked of: All Rs
All Rs
Protection hgun owners
All Rs
All Rs
All Rs
Rs in hgun households

Defensive question refers to: Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Household
Household
Household
Respondent

% Who Used 1.4/3/8.6[a]
5.0
18
15
7
4
6.5

% Who Fired Gun 2.9
n.a.
12
6
n.a.
n.a.
2.6

Implied number of def. gun uses[b] 3,052,717
1,414,544
n.a.
2,141,512
1,098,409
1,797,461
771,043

[80]. FIELD INSTITUTE, TABULATIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF A STUDY OF HANDGUN OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS AMONG A CROSS SECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA ADULT PUBLIC (1976); BORDUA ET AL., supra note 43; CAMBRIDGE REPORTS, supra note 36; DMI (DECISION/MAKING/INFORMATION), ATTITUDES OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE TOWARD GUN CONTROL (1979); Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., supra note 54; Ohio, supra note 36; Quinley, supra note 36; Mauser, supra note 19; the Gallup polls of 1991 and 1993, L.A. Times poll, and Tarrance poll were taken from a search of the DIALOG Public Opinion online computer database

AND another set that mirror the same as the first chart.

FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey:
Time/CNN
Mauser
Gallup
Gallup
L.A. Times
Tarrance

Area: U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Year of Interview 1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1994

Population Covered "Firearm owners"
Residents
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults
Noninst. Adults

Gun Type Covered All guns
All guns
All guns
All guns
All guns
All guns

Recall Period: Ever
5 yrs.
Ever
Ever
Ever
5 yrs.

Excluded Uses Against Animals No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes

Excluded Military, Police Uses? Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Defensive question asked of: Gun owners
All Rs
Rs in hgun hshlds
Gun owners
All
All

Defensive question refers to: Respondent
Hshld.
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent/
Household

% Who Used n.a.
3.79
8
11
8[c]
1/2[d]

% Who Fired Gun 9-16e
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

Implied number of def. gun uses[b] n.a.
1,487,342
777,153
1,621,377
3,609,682
764,036

Notes:
[a]. 1.4% in past year, 3% in past two years, 8.6% ever.
[b]. Estimated annual number of defensive uses of guns of all types against humans, excluding uses connected with military or police duties, after any necessary adjustments were made, for U.S., 1993. Adjustments are explained in detail in Kleck (1994).
[c]. Covered only uses outside the home.
[d]. 1% of respondents, 2% of households.
[e]. 9% fired gun for self-protection, 7% used gun "to scare someone."
An unknown share of the latter could be defensive uses not overlapping with the former.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Anti gun control propaganda Lilwolf, think for yourself.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

LL, I really do not care what you think , but there is lots of evidence that where guns are present the criminal leaves walking or leaves being carried. When people have no guns they are victims unarmed. When a gun is present the victim is better able to deter the intended crime.

That is a fact and that is real. If you do not like my opinion fine.

But you prove LL that guns do not deter crime. People do what people do. But statistically in previous posts (in this thread ) i have listed what others wrote and that is proof. You do not like it, live with it.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: LL, I really do not care what you think , but there is lots of evidence that where guns are present the criminal leaves walking or leaves being carried. When people have no guns they are victims unarmed. When a gun is present the victim is better able to deter the intended crime.

That is a fact and that is real. If you do not like my opinion fine.

But you prove LL that guns do not deter crime. People do what people do. But statistically in previous posts (in this thread ) i have listed what others wrote and that is proof. You do not like it, live with it.

Look this is a forum to debate gun control Lilwolf, not a place to put out propaganda all day long.

I have proved to you that guns are not a crime deterrent enough to make crimes lower in America than in other countries, in fact without proper gun control laws America is very much struggling with some of the most heinous crimes making your theory a load of nonsense.

Your opinion is not a fact and is proved false when faced with the reality of crimes in America.

Spreading propaganda and repeating it does not make it true Lilwolf.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: LL, I really do not care what you think , but there is lots of evidence that where guns are present the criminal leaves walking or leaves being carried. When people have no guns they are victims unarmed. When a gun is present the victim is better able to deter the intended crime.

That is a fact and that is real. If you do not like my opinion fine.

But you prove LL that guns do not deter crime. People do what people do. But statistically in previous posts (in this thread ) i have listed what others wrote and that is proof. You do not like it, live with it.

Look this is a forum to debate gun control Lilwolf, not a place to put out propaganda all day long.

I have proved to you that guns are not a crime deterrent enough to make crimes lower in America than in other countries, in fact without proper gun control laws America is very much struggling with some of the most heinous crimes making your theory a load of nonsense.

Your opinion is not a fact and is proved false when faced with the reality of crimes in America.

Spreading propaganda and repeating it does not make it true Lilwolf.

:-D
:-D


You have proved nothing LL, except your propaganda that has done nothnig to show that us surrendering our guns deters crime....
Prove that giving up guns in places like DC has worked so well. Sure it has LL

Now the presence of guns is a strong deterent LL. It works and you have to now prove that wrong. Show me real proof that having guns does not work to keep crime as it is or lower in some areas.
If you can prove that 100% I might listen to you and your rant, but if you can't you take a flying f***ING leap.

[lilwolf]

Here is an article LL that says what you refuse to accept.

The economics of crime: Analysis suggests concealed handguns deter criminals, BU prof says
By Ingrid Husisian
December 2001


When the number of people carrying concealed handguns increases, crime decreases.

That’s the socially controversial finding of Binghamton University economist Florenz Plassmann and his collaborator, who used the principles of supply and demand to analyze crime rates.

Plassmann’s premise was detailed in an article in the October 2001 issue of Journal of Law and Economics. The article, “Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crime? Only a Count Analysis Can Say,” was written by Plassmann and T. Nicolaus Tideman, who was Plassmann’s dissertation adviser at Virginia Tech.

Plassmann’s assertion isn’t the first of its ilk, but it is something of a surprise to him, he admits. In a 1997 book More Guns, Less Crime, economist John Lott similarly analyzed the relationship between the right to carry concealed handguns and the crime rate. Lott was the first to use economic principles to suggest that concealed weapons have a clear deterrent effect. If more people carry concealed handguns, crime decreases, his study showed.

Plassmann, an assistant professor of economics, says he was certain that a re-examination of Lott’s work would find Lott’s methodology questionable and his conclusions mistaken, he said.

“I believed guns would increase crime,” he said. “I had just finished a dissertation analyzing data similar to Lott’s. His data are ‘count data’ (non-negative integers), which means that you cannot have a negative number of murders, or 2.5 robberies. If you analyze such data with standard methods, you are likely to get erroneous estimates. Because Lott had ignored this, I thought that I had a valid reason not to trust his results.”

When Plassmann contacted Lott about his concerns, Lott turned his data over to Plassmann and encouraged him to re-examine the methodology and attempt to replicate the results.

“I did my own analysis,” Plassmann said. “To my surprise, it suggests that the right to carry concealed handguns does deter crime. Lott’s analysis has been criticized because his findings are not very stable, but our results are much more robust.

“To emphasize that a statistical analysis is valid only if the statistical model fits the data, we included a little play on words in the title of our article: Because crimes are ‘countable,’ you must examine them with a ‘count’ analysis, and not with standard methods,” he added.

Plassmann and Lott are now working together on related research. They are writing a paper that examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The concept of viewing crime through an economic lens actually stems from the work of Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Plassmann said.

“We can see crime as the outcome of supply and demand,” he noted. “If all potential victims are unarmed, crime is easy and, therefore, inexpensive. However, if potential victims are armed, crime becomes more difficult and expensive.”

From the “demand” perspective, when the cost of preventing crime becomes more expensive then the “demand” to commit it, the more likely society is to let another crime happen, Plassmann said.

As a researcher, Plassmann doesn’t advocate for or argue against carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.

“I think all this analysis can do is suggest that the theory ‘More guns will cause more crime’ is probably not correct in this simple form,” he said
A Publication of the Division of Research at Binghamton University
State University of New York
Contacts: Susan E. Barker, 777-2640 or sbarker@binghamton.edu
Ashok Subramanian, 777-6135, or ashoks@binghamton.edu

http://research.binghamton.edu/discovere/December2001/Top_story5.htm

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:

You have proved nothing LL, except your propaganda that has done nothnig to show that us surrendering our guns deters crime....
Prove that giving up guns in places like DC has worked so well. Sure it has LL

Now the presence of guns is a strong deterent LL. It works and you have to now prove that wrong. Show me real proof that having guns does not work to keep crime as it is or lower in some areas.
If you can prove that 100% I might listen to you and your rant, but if you can't you take a flying f***ING leap.

I never attempted to prove that surrendering guns would deter crime Lilwolf because it would be a load of nonsense as I have already explained to you. What I have proved to you is that the two most heinous crimes of all have a much higher rate in America than in the rest of the western democratic world making your theory that guns deter crimes a total falsehood.

I have already proved to you that strict gun control laws in places like DC have worked very well. Washington, DC has known an unprecedented sharp decline of its murder rate, a decline never seen before for an American city. I have proved too that Richmond, Virginia is not so lucky with a murder rate that has beaten Washington, DC murder rate two years in a row and still increasing.

You might try to compare cities of similar size from neighbouring states like I did with Washington DC and Richmond VA with different gun control laws and different gun ownership rate per capita and you will find that your theory of guns deterring crimes does not exist in reality.

:-D
:-D