Harvard Study: More Guns Do Not Mean More Crime

[john9blue]

What are you seeing?

The correlation between blacks and guns and crime.

if we can abort to reduce crime, why not kill people who are more likely than fetuses to commit crimes?

[Metsfanmax]

What are you seeing?

The correlation between blacks and guns and crime.

if we can abort to reduce crime, why not kill people who are more likely than fetuses to commit crimes?

Because fetuses do not share the same morally relevant characteristics that make killing an adult human wrong, so to equate their killings is meaningless.

[Phatscotty]

Mets, do you have kids? I'm guessing you don't, and I'm not gonna take it anywhere, I'm just curious

[Metsfanmax]

I do not. Still a little young for that.

[GreecePwns]

There is, in fact, no correlation between guns and crime. At all . . .

Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing?

If you're seeing that black people are disproportionately poor, and that poor people are disproportionately incentivized toward crimes, then yes.

[Phatscotty]

There is, in fact, no correlation between guns and crime. At all . . .

Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing?

If you're seeing that black people are disproportionately poor, and that poor people are disproportionately incentivized toward crimes, then yes.

Why are black people disproportionately poor?

What does the information concerning blacks and homicide rates look like pre-1975?

[GreecePwns]

Because until as recently as a generation ago, they were denied basic equal rights to the foundations of economic prosperity and were subjected to frequent and varied intimidation tactics, and they are slowly recovering from the end of these practices.

[HapSmo19]

What's the most they can earn before you'll no longer back them up for going around [dancing in the rain]?

[Phatscotty]

Because until as recently as a generation ago, they were denied basic equal rights to the foundations of economic prosperity and were subjected to frequent and varied intimidation tactics, and they are slowly recovering from the end of these practices.

so why has the homicide rate exploded during the progress? I'm not doubting what you are saying, but something isn't adding up with the implications.

[saxitoxin]

There is, in fact, no correlation between guns and crime. At all . . .

Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing?

If you're seeing that black people are disproportionately poor, and that poor people are disproportionately incentivized toward crimes, then yes.

agree with GP

anyway, unrelated ... media reporting on gun control in U.S. ---


http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... ml?ml=po_r

also ... countries with most mass shooting fatalities per 1 million people ...

http://www.rampageshooting.com/

#1 - Norway
#2 - Finland
#3 - Slovakia
#4 - Israel
#5 - Belgium
#6 - USA
#7 - Dutchland
#8 - Germany
#9 - UK
#10 - Canada
#18(T) - New Zealand (congratulations, Lootifer!)

[Funkyterrance]

Obviously more guns does not necessarily equal more crime. Crime, in general, is a product of poverty. Someone who is comfortable financially could have a pile of guns and probably not have one impulse to use them to commit a crime.
However, if you give someone who is contemplating committing a crime a gun as opposed to say, a stick, they are much more likely to try and pull something off.
I also think the argument that if everyone had a gun there would be no problems is a little flawed. How many convenience store owners have guns? I'm guessing lots but there is always the advantage of surprise that someone committing a crime will have.

[Phatscotty]

I think crime is also a product of greed. Some people I have known in the past were definitely not poor, they just wanted more.

[Funkyterrance]

I think crime is also a product of greed. Some people I have known in the past were definitely not poor, they just wanted more.

I'll buy that.
However, the variables remain more or less the same.

[Phatscotty]

I think crime is also a product of greed. Some people I have known in the past were definitely not poor, they just wanted more.

I'll buy that.
However, the variables remain more or less the same.

Well, I think greed, and poverty for that matter, go a lot deeper too, deep into the culture. Crimes have been committed that involves stealing someones basketball shoes, or their fancy hat, or just to show off, or for no reason at all. From what I have seen in my life, I don't think I've ever seen any crime that was poverty motivated. Of course, I did not hang around with poor people, but the one's I am thinking about were single parents homes and on food stamps and the whole works. But I don't call them "poor" because they still had a decent car, a television in every room, a box full of sega games, furnished upstairs and basement, taking care of 2 dogs..... Most of the crime I have seen and heard of is based on everything but poverty.

I understand down in the city, there might be someone starving who was begging all day but came up short for a double cheesburger and Mcdonalds closes in 7 minutes getting rough with someone or overly aggressive or feigned threats, but I would assume most of the crime and violence is drug/gang related and self esteem motivated (showing off). And what is poor anyways? why make excuses for those kind of people? They have just as much money as anyone else (drug dealers have more) but it's what they do with their money, blowing it all at the casino or the strip club. Easy money goes easy, because they don't understand the value or what it takes to earn it honestly. So I think the poverty line, while partially true, is overhyped and meant mostly to pull on people heart strings, which conveniently turns off the thinking cap.

It comes down to making poor choices. I don't look at it monetarily. I do, but there is more too it, a lot more.

[HapSmo19]

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A 22-year-old Houston-area man shot by robbers who wanted his new Air Jordan tennis shoes has died of his wounds.

The Houston Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/WRDIBm ) Wednesday that Joshua Wood died at Houston Northwest Hospital. Authorities say no arrests have been made.

The Harris County Sheriff's Office says Wood was shot Friday as he tried to escape armed robbers who wanted the newly released Air Jordan XI "Bred" sneakers he had purchased earlier in the day. The shoes retail for about $185.

It doesn't say if the shooter was barefoot, but, how can you fault him?

FUCKING AIR JORDANS HOMIE!

[Phatscotty]

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A 22-year-old Houston-area man shot by robbers who wanted his new Air Jordan tennis shoes has died of his wounds.

The Houston Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/WRDIBm ) Wednesday that Joshua Wood died at Houston Northwest Hospital. Authorities say no arrests have been made.

The Harris County Sheriff's Office says Wood was shot Friday as he tried to escape armed robbers who wanted the newly released Air Jordan XI "Bred" sneakers he had purchased earlier in the day. The shoes retail for about $185.

It doesn't say if the shooter was barefoot, but, how can you fault him?

FUCKING AIR JORDANS HOMIE!

poverty strikes again!

[Funkyterrance]

I understand down in the city, there might be someone starving who was begging all day but came up short for a double cheesburger and Mcdonalds closes in 7 minutes getting rough with someone or overly aggressive or feigned threats, but I would assume most of the crime and violence is drug/gang related and self esteem motivated (showing off). And what is poor anyways? why make excuses for those kind of people? They have just as much money as anyone else (drug dealers have more) but it's what they do with their money, blowing it all at the casino or the strip club. Easy money goes easy, because they don't understand the value or what it takes to earn it honestly. So I think the poverty line, while partially true, is overhyped and meant mostly to pull on people heart strings, which conveniently turns off the thinking cap.

It comes down to making poor choices. I don't look at it monetarily. I do, but there is more too it, a lot more.

This isn't at all the direction I was heading but I'll bite.
While people who are financially secure will of course dabble in crime I think it's relatively rare that these individuals will make a long term habit of it. Crime, as a way of life, is certainly correlated to poverty. I'm not making excuses, it's just what I have experienced. I'm not from the city, I'm from the country, but I think that in this day and age poor people in the city act more or less like those from the city and commit crimes because they are lacking in means to get the products of crime that they might otherwise get from lawful actions. The fact of the matter is that people of lower income simply have less options and less opportunities. It's just mathematics, less odds of success due to background/lack of privilege equals an increased chance that a poor individual will end up embracing a life of crime. The poorer you are, the narrower the bottleneck, so to speak.

[Phatscotty]

I understand down in the city, there might be someone starving who was begging all day but came up short for a double cheesburger and Mcdonalds closes in 7 minutes getting rough with someone or overly aggressive or feigned threats, but I would assume most of the crime and violence is drug/gang related and self esteem motivated (showing off). And what is poor anyways? why make excuses for those kind of people? They have just as much money as anyone else (drug dealers have more) but it's what they do with their money, blowing it all at the casino or the strip club. Easy money goes easy, because they don't understand the value or what it takes to earn it honestly. So I think the poverty line, while partially true, is overhyped and meant mostly to pull on people heart strings, which conveniently turns off the thinking cap.

It comes down to making poor choices. I don't look at it monetarily. I do, but there is more too it, a lot more.

This isn't at all the direction I was heading but I'll bite.
While people who are financially secure will of course dabble in crime I think it's relatively rare that these individuals will make a long term habit of it. Crime, as a way of life, is certainly correlated to poverty. I'm not making excuses, it's just what I have experienced. I'm not from the city, I'm from the country, but I think that in this day and age poor people in the city act more or less like those from the city and commit crimes because they are lacking in means to get the products of crime that they might otherwise get from lawful actions. The fact of the matter is that people of lower income simply have less options and less opportunities. It's just mathematics, less odds of success due to background/lack of privilege equals an increased chance that a poor individual will end up embracing a life of crime. The poorer you are, the narrower the bottleneck, so to speak.

That's fine I knew half way through I was gettin off track, but I want it to be understood where I'm coming from, because I expect to be attacked for saying these things.

I understand the crime poverty relation, I don't dispute it. I just am trying to envision an example of your display. You say the poverty aspect drives people to commit crimes to get things because they have less, but I just want to tangently ask "who says they need it?" I can understand starvation driving one to commit an act of crime, but especially at the poverty level, and reinforced by the reality that many to most of those people are in poverty because they constantly repeat bad/harmful choices, are also the ones most impacted by greed. That is, I speculate most of the crime is driven by something someone "wants" but does not neccesarily "need". I don't think you are making excuses, but again I think that angle is way overblown. I think the need aspect of crime is in the minority when compared to the want aspect of crime.

and as for the poorer you are....then the harder you need to work

[Funkyterrance]

I understand the crime poverty relation, I don't dispute it. I just am trying to envision an example of your display. You say the poverty aspect drives people to commit crimes to get things because they have less, but I just want to tangently ask "who says they need it?" I can understand starvation driving one to commit an act of crime, but especially at the poverty level, and reinforced by the reality that many to most of those people are in poverty because they constantly repeat bad/harmful choices, are also the ones most impacted by greed. That is, I speculate most of the crime is driven by something someone "wants" but does not neccesarily "need". I don't think you are making excuses, but again I think that angle is way overblown. I think the need aspect of crime is in the minority when compared to the want aspect of crime.

I agree that people don't necessarily need the things they get from crime but it may as well be so. I honesty blame the media. Everyone, I mean everyone, has a television and even the poorest of people are inundated with media showing them what more well off people have and they don't. Again I feel it's just a combination of human nature and circumstance. I wish it were a tidier thing that could be solved with good old-fashioned fortitude but the superficiality that runs rampant in our and other societies is oh so powerful and stronger than ever.

[patches70]

I agree that people don't necessarily need the things they get from crime but it may as well be so. I honesty blame the media. Everyone, I mean everyone, has a television and even the poorest of people are inundated with media showing them what more well off people have and they don't. Again I feel it's just a combination of human nature and circumstance. I wish it were a tidier thing that could be solved with good old-fashioned fortitude but the superficiality that runs rampant in our and other societies is oh so powerful and stronger than ever.

[/quote]

Never underestimate the power of Envy.....

[GreecePwns]

Because until as recently as a generation ago, they were denied basic equal rights to the foundations of economic prosperity and were subjected to frequent and varied intimidation tactics, and they are slowly recovering from the end of these practices.

so why has the homicide rate exploded during the progress? I'm not doubting what you are saying, but something isn't adding up with the implications.

Exploded is a strong term for an average increase of around 1 percent per year. Besides, this is just homocide, which is only a small part of overall non-victimless crime.

[Johnny Rockets]

if we can abort to reduce crime, why not kill people who are more likely than fetuses to commit crimes?

Studies show that the death penalty does not reduce crime. However I support it if only for its economic benefits.

I believe abortion however does impact crime. The sticky bit is that making abortions more accessible, ( or legal in some cases....) or in the best case scenario free, and convenient is a political death trap due to the diverse moral and religious opinions on the subject.

You could get around all of this by offering free vasectomies and tubal litigations.
( Reversible methods using clips are most common today compares to past cauterization methods.)

This circumvents the entire abortion issue very neatly, and birth control is an easier moral mountain to climb in the view of the religiously inclined.
You can go one step farther and offer significant cash incentives (Say 10 thousand dollars) to have the procedure done, with the recommendation that the individual put aside a portion of that to cover the possible future costs of reversal. ( Less than 1/2) Don't worry about the costs. It will cost less than a stealth bomber, and the government will save three times that in incarceration costs down the road.

So in a best case scenario version, Mr. Impoverished gets his tubes snipped, and his 10 grand. He puts 3.5 to 4 away into higher yield long term savings then uses the remaining bulk of it to improve his education or job skills training using the banked funds for collateral in need be. He becomes a skilled taxpaying member of society and we aren't spending money to incarcerate or rehabilitate or keep him in food stamps.

Worst case scenario, Mr Impoverished buys 10 thousand dollars worth of crack cocaine and either removes himself from the gene pool.....or not... but you can be assured that his ability to contribute to the raising and caring and providing ( or lack of) to the future of humanity is negated thus helping break the cycle of poverty.

I's not about the guns. It's about the level of education, ignorance, and desperation of the finger on the trigger.

Johnny Rockets

[Lootifer]

also ... countries with most mass shooting fatalities per 1 million people ...

http://www.rampageshooting.com/

#1 - Norway
#2 - Finland
#3 - Slovakia
#4 - Israel
#5 - Belgium
#6 - USA
#7 - Dutchland
#8 - Germany
#9 - UK
#10 - Canada
#18(T) - New Zealand (congratulations, Lootifer!)

[Lootifer]

What's the most they can earn before you'll no longer back them up for going around killing everybody?

Holy mother fucking shit you are insane my man.

This is why you cant have nice things 'merica

[BigBallinStalin]

What are you seeing?

Also doing a linear regression on the first table yields:

- Equation: Murder rate = -0.00018(Gun Ownership)+6.76
- Standard Error on terms: Gun Ownership SE = 0.00011, constant = 2.43
- R-squared: 0.20

Implies theres a tiny correlation in favour of more relaxed gun laws; however the error is so very high that making policy on it would be boardering on idiocy.

Incidently outliers are not great for regression so its often best to leave them out as some other huge and powerful factor is likely at play (this is in this case not gun laws in the case of Russia and Luxembourg). If we remove these and retest (while acknowledging that they are anecdotes in favour of relaxed gun laws) the regression becomes:

- Equation: Murder rate = -0.0000091(Gun Ownership)+1.58
- Standard Error on terms: Gun Ownership SE = 0.0000132, constant = 0.31
- R-squared: 0.05

Uh oh, the standard error on the Gun Ownership statistic is bigger than the coefficient... You know what that means? Also R2 of 0.05, game over, theres nothing in it; guns are meaningless unless further information is supplied.

yo dawg, what are the p-values?


Between you and me, the statement "More Guns Do Not Mean More Crime" is a bit misleading. The study shows that there's no correlation between murder rates and gun ownership rates, so like you've been telling PS and/or Gabon, more gun ownership or less gun ownership insignificantly affects the murder rate. Don't they understand that?