Harvard Study: More Guns Do Not Mean More Crime

[stahrgazer]

It may be true that the death penalty as it's currently handled doesn't reduce crime, but if the death penalty were carried out within a few months rather than a few decades - if then - I bet it would reduce the types of crimes that have 'death' as a penalty, especially if prisons were more like prison and less like taxpayer-paid summer camp where prisoners have better rights to medical care than Obamacare is offering those who're gonna have to pay for theirs, frequently eat better, get free cable tv, often free education....

It really is pretty bad when criminals get better stuff (and almost no one complains) than someone who had been working till his job got eliminated and folks gripe gripe gripe cuz that person is "on the dole" of unemployment and occasionally (if qualifies) foodstamps.

[GabonX]

It's obvious my critics here have not read the study.

From section 4:

IV. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?

National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.88

[Phatscotty]

It's obvious that my critics here have not read the study.

From section 4:

IV. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?

National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.88

[GreecePwns]

The logical arguments for lax gun laws:
A. We need them to protect ourselves from potential crimes committed against us and our property
B. We need them to protect ourselves from potential tyrannical government; they give us the opportunity to revolt at the appropriate time
C. Government should not impose a moral code, banning something is enforcing a moral code
D. Lax gun laws lead to higher rates of X, Y and Z crime

The logical arguments (not counter-arguments) against lax gun laws:
E. Lax gun laws lead to lower rates of X, Y and Z crime
F. Lax gun laws lead to fear that everyone around you is holding guns, this fear has negative effects 1, 2 and 3.

Am I missing any? If not, here goes.

If we are to believe this study, D and E are disproven off the bat. F is flimsy. A works on the assumption that there is no other way to protect property, definitely not true. B works on the assumption that American citizens stand even a slight chance against the massive military-industrial complex.

The only one left is C.

[AAFitz]

It may be true that the death penalty as it's currently handled doesn't reduce crime, but if the death penalty were carried out within a few months rather than a few decades - if then - I bet it would reduce the types of crimes that have 'death' as a penalty, especially if prisons were more like prison and less like taxpayer-paid summer camp where prisoners have better rights to medical care than Obamacare is offering those who're gonna have to pay for theirs, frequently eat better, get free cable tv, often free education....

It really is pretty bad when criminals get better stuff (and almost no one complains) than someone who had been working till his job got eliminated and folks gripe gripe gripe cuz that person is "on the dole" of unemployment and occasionally (if qualifies) foodstamps.

So how many innocent victims of the death penalty are OK then, because even now they occasionally make mistakes.

How many innocent people can be incarcerated, and murdered, to justify your precious death penalty?

And perhaps you should volunteer, yourself or one of your own, just to show you understand the consequences fully.

[thegreekdog]

The logical arguments for lax gun laws:
A. We need them to protect ourselves from potential crimes committed against us and our property
B. We need them to protect ourselves from potential tyrannical government; they give us the opportunity to revolt at the appropriate time
C. Government should not impose a moral code, banning something is enforcing a moral code
D. Lax gun laws lead to higher rates of X, Y and Z crime

The logical arguments (not counter-arguments) against lax gun laws:
E. Lax gun laws lead to lower rates of X, Y and Z crime
F. Lax gun laws lead to fear that everyone around you is holding guns, this fear has negative effects 1, 2 and 3.

Am I missing any? If not, here goes.

If we are to believe this study, D and E are disproven off the bat. F is flimsy. A works on the assumption that there is no other way to protect property, definitely not true. B works on the assumption that American citizens stand even a slight chance against the massive military-industrial complex.

The only one left is C.

I agree with your letter-driven arguments (except for your conclusion on B).

Here's my position, redux:

- Guns should be legal and highly regulated (for A, B, and C reasons).
- In order to help prevent killing sprees in the future, more needs to be done vis-a-vis mental health.
- In order to help prevent general gun violence in the future, more needs to be done vis-a-vis crime, education, and culture in general (e.g. legalizing drugs, better schools/teachers/parents, etc.).
- The "solution" we will be given is that the federal government will pass an ultimately ineffective law, similar to the Assault Weapons Ban signed by President Clinton, that will have bipartisan support.

[GreecePwns]

The logical arguments for lax gun laws:
A. We need them to protect ourselves from potential crimes committed against us and our property
B. We need them to protect ourselves from potential tyrannical government; they give us the opportunity to revolt at the appropriate time
C. Government should not impose a moral code, banning something is enforcing a moral code
D. Lax gun laws lead to higher rates of X, Y and Z crime

The logical arguments (not counter-arguments) against lax gun laws:
E. Lax gun laws lead to lower rates of X, Y and Z crime
F. Lax gun laws lead to fear that everyone around you is holding guns, this fear has negative effects 1, 2 and 3.

Am I missing any? If not, here goes.

If we are to believe this study, D and E are disproven off the bat. F is flimsy. A works on the assumption that there is no other way to protect property, definitely not true. B works on the assumption that American citizens stand even a slight chance against the massive military-industrial complex.

The only one left is C.

I agree with your letter-driven arguments (except for your conclusion on B).

Here's my position, redux:

- Guns should be legal and highly regulated (for A, B, and C reasons).
- In order to help prevent killing sprees in the future, more needs to be done vis-a-vis mental health.
- In order to help prevent general gun violence in the future, more needs to be done vis-a-vis crime, education, and culture in general (e.g. legalizing drugs, better schools/teachers/parents, etc.).
- The "solution" we will be given is that the federal government will pass an ultimately ineffective law, similar to the Assault Weapons Ban signed by President Clinton, that will have bipartisan support.

It's not so much that American citizens don't stand a chance while owning weapons, it's that they don't stand a chance alone. They'll need some assistance from outside sources or defections from military/police.

[BigBallinStalin]

The potential of uprising from armed civilians is necessary because it incentivizes the government to remain more contained than it otherwise would be.

[saxitoxin]

GP raises a typically good point. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #26 (see, below), declared the spirit of the constitution demands the United States have no permanent army. The lack of an army guarantees the possibility that a revolt by armed citizens could succeed. The present situation of the U.S. maintaining a 3 million man military, however, obliviates that idea.

The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamaties for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defense.

As I read it, the 2nd Amendment may or may not guarantee individual firearms rights, but it definitely demands the entire U.S. defense establishment be abolished. Though a nucleus cadre, or a ramp-up force, like in Switzerland might be permissible.

[thegreekdog]

GP raises a typically good point. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #26 (see, below), declared the spirit of the constitution demands the United States have no permanent army. The lack of an army guarantees the possibility that a revolt by armed citizens could succeed. The present situation of the U.S. maintaining a 3 million man military, however, obliviates that idea.

The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

I can't imagine that Seargeant James "Aw Shucks" McGee from the outskirts of Podunk, Nebraska is going to take up arms against his parents, his high school classmates, or the local barber. I suspect that any civil war in the United States is going to be between some group that includes a portion of the military versus another group that includes a portion of the military.

[saxitoxin]

GP raises a typically good point. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #26 (see, below), declared the spirit of the constitution demands the United States have no permanent army. The lack of an army guarantees the possibility that a revolt by armed citizens could succeed. The present situation of the U.S. maintaining a 3 million man military, however, obliviates that idea.

The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

I can't imagine that Seargeant James "Aw Shucks" McGee from the outskirts of Podunk, Nebraska is going to take up arms against his parents, his high school classmates, or the local barber. I suspect that any civil war in the United States is going to be between some group that includes a portion of the military versus another group that includes a portion of the military.

You're not permitted to post real information about users here in the Club. I have alerted BMO that you are posting Woodruff's deets.

[Metsfanmax]

Great find saxi. I thoroughly enjoyed AH's use of the term "visionary."

[Phatscotty]

As a soldier, Alexander Hamilton was beast.

As a banker, he carried the Rothschild's water bucket. It's too bad Mr. Burr did not challenge him sooner.

[saxitoxin]

Rothschild's

Oh, Lordy! Here we go!

[Phatscotty]

As a banker, he carried the Rothschild's water bucket.

Oh, Lordy! Here we go!

In all seriousness, was there any way AH could get The First Bank of the United States without Rothschild blessing? I always figured that was a main reason why Jefferson hated him so much

[saxitoxin]

In all seriousness

Rothschild

(I'm just running a tickle monster on you, Scott.)

[Phatscotty]

In all seriousness

Rothschild

okay, let's try this. How about, could AH really get a charter without "cooperation" from the "Bank of England"?

[thegreekdog]

As a banker, he carried the Rothschild's water bucket.

Oh, Lordy! Here we go!

In all seriousness, was there any way AH could get The First Bank of the United States without Rothschild blessing? I always figured that was a main reason why Jefferson hated him so much

Do you get all your US history information from historical fiction television shows?

[Phatscotty]

As a banker, he carried the Rothschild's water bucket.

Oh, Lordy! Here we go!

In all seriousness, was there any way AH could get The First Bank of the United States without Rothschild blessing? I always figured that was a main reason why Jefferson hated him so much

Do you get all your US history information from historical fiction television shows?

no, but I don't frown on those that are accurate either

show

[saxitoxin]

As a banker, he carried the Rothschild's water bucket.

Oh, Lordy! Here we go!

In all seriousness, was there any way AH could get The First Bank of the United States without Rothschild blessing? I always figured that was a main reason why Jefferson hated him so much

Do you get all your US history information from historical fiction television shows?

no, but I don't frown on those that are accurate either

show

I never met John Adams, so I don't know if this is accurate or not, but the movie made him look like a giant loser who the jocks made do all their homework but would never invite to the party. Like when Washington kicks him out of the cabinet meeting. Or when he stands there blank-faced while Benjamin Franklin and King Louis laugh at him for not being able to speak French. Or when he walks in on Benjamin Franklin gettin' jiggy with the Countess and is all blushing --

[Phatscotty]

The movie is directed by Tom Hanks and based on the book, which is based on John Adams personal diaries, as well as other diary accounts. I only have about 200 pages left of the book, but so far the more I read the book and Adams own words, the more I am impressed with the movie.

[saxitoxin]

The movie is directed by Tom Hanks and based on the book, which is based on John Adams personal diaries, as well as other diary accounts. I only have about 200 pages left of the book, but so far the more I read the book and Adams own words, the more I am impressed with the movie.

I bet Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and the gang used to haze the shit outta John Adams.

[Funkyterrance]

I bet Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and the gang used to haze the shit outta John Adams.

Saxi, man, you gotta stop dragging your fantasies into these threads...

[Phatscotty]

The movie is directed by Tom Hanks and based on the book, which is based on John Adams personal diaries, as well as other diary accounts. I only have about 200 pages left of the book, but so far the more I read the book and Adams own words, the more I am impressed with the movie.

I bet Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and the gang used to haze the shit outta John Adams.

I'm sure they did, and not only because of his lisp... Adams was most definitely goyim, but that's okay. He was an honest collaborator.

[Lootifer]

It's obvious that my critics here have not read the study.

From section 4:

IV. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?

National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.88

/chuckle

The [fairly bias] article also contains this little tit-bit.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society.

See Gabon I did read it; but feel free to keep on condescending, after all, I started the condescending and two wrongs make a right.

Oh and also see my second statistical analysis, which was far more comprehensive than the original papers source material (though more likely suspect to errors since it was pulled from Wikipedia, Ill freely admit the weakness).