Needs Debunking: More Guns = More Crime

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...shotguns are tools for food gathering...

Maybe the rifle...but a shotgun? Pity the poor rabbit hit by a shotgun shell...(and pity the person who has to clean that carcass, lest he chow down on a lead pellet).

Speaking of lead....is there ANY possibility that, in the past when the dangers of lead poisoning were not known to medical science, that this might explain a few things??
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Maybe the rifle...but a shotgun? Pity the poor rabbit hit by a shotgun shell...(and pity the person who has to clean that carcass, lest he chow down on a lead pellet).

Speaking of lead....is there ANY possibility that, in the past when the dangers of lead poisoning were not known to medical science, that this might explain a few things??
Shotguns are frequently used for bird hunting. It's what Dick Chaney uses to shoot his friends and loaded with rock salt they used to be used to discourage unwanted male suitors from visiting your (ahem) innocent daughter - hurts like hell.
 

crr

New Member
There is a lot of state sponsored media claiming that we are made more safe by gun control laws. This assertion is not based on factual proof. I am hoping for some assistance from Metabunk.org in debunking the myth that stricter gun control equates to less violent crime.

I will start with this infographic from Zero Hedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-09/picturing-plunge-gun-crimes-gun-sales-surge

The infographic illustrates that a majority of Americans say they think gun crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically, even as gun sales have surged to record highs.

I know that more guns in the hands of organized criminals make us less safe. But organized criminals do not obey gun c't read all the posts yet.ontrol laws. Only law abiding citizens (i.e. the good guys) do. The result is that statistically, more guns in the hands of common citizens equals less crime.

I need help debunking the dangerous myth that more guns make us less safe.


I'm sorry I haven't read all the posts yet. So forgive me if I'm giving same input as previously posted. As we all know statistics can be misleading. Are suicides included in the crimes? Suicides go up with availability of guns.

I'm not sure if crime should be of the only issue here. Perhaps accidents should be included?

Okay forget accidents and suicides, and lets just go with violent crimes with guns against other persons. I'll acknowledge that crime has gone down, but why? because there is more guns? Because CC is now allowed in all states?

Crime rates started falling long before shown in this first graph. Some other stats that show crime rates started lowering when CC became legal. I'd say not likely because crime lowered almost all across the country when the first states started allowing CC... It lowered in states that didn't have CC at the same time.

One thing almost always ignored is that when crime started going down, it was at the same time as when the Brady Bill became law.
I highly doubt CC or Brady Bill were the reasons. Who commits crimes, and why aren't they committing them as often? When did crime increase before it decreased? I'm sorry I have no references right now, but they are out there.

Most violent crimes are committed by men at the ages of their highest testosterone. It so happens violent crime increased in this country when the baby boom men were of the age of highest testosterone. The baby boomer age group is the highest percent of the population for all age groups. Crime rate started falling when baby boomers testosterone starting decreasing.

A couple of years ago the FBI released a study that recognized this s the primary reason crime went up, and then went down..

I do believe there have been studies that site when guns are around, injuries due guns is greater than when guns aren't around. This includes injuries via crime, and without crime.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@crr, it would be helpful if you linked and excerpted the claims and studies you mention, otherwise it's just argument by assertion.

And welcome to Metabunk :)
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Maybe the rifle...but a shotgun? Pity the poor rabbit hit by a shotgun shell...(and pity the person who has to clean that carcass, lest he chow down on a lead pellet).

Many things in addition to birds (rabbit, bear, deer, elk, feral pigs) are hunted with shotguns. Slugs and large buck for the bigger animals, small shot for the little ones. Yes, you occasionally find a piece of shot, but most is taken care of during dressing and cleaning.

The shotgun was the firearm of choice for settlers throughout history.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Many things in addition to birds (rabbit, bear, deer, elk, feral pigs) are hunted with shotguns. Slugs and large buck for the bigger animals, small shot for the little ones. Yes, you occasionally find a piece of shot, but most is taken care of during dressing and cleaning.

The shotgun was the firearm of choice for settlers throughout history.

OK, informative. Makes sense, now that I think about it.
 

George Hammer

New Member
I think this is not something that we could prove. While my opinion lies on the side less guns is better, the reasons I don't think it's possible to prove are as follows.

1) assuming guns have a large influence on the crime rate is an assumption I think is false. Poverty. Drug use. Criminal activity. Corruption. Immigration. Culture. Age of population. Etc. These are factors I would expect would have large effects. I think guns would have small effects.
2) USA is an outliers for gun ownership. I think it's like 4x the oecd average. If guns had a large effect on crime you would expect the USA to be a model law abiding developed country. It's not. It's barely holding in the middle of the pack. I doubt guns really affects crime because of that.



Also what crime do you want to track? What if more guns means more homicides but less burglaries? Just a random thought... Overall crime? Is overall crime the metric you're after? Think carefully. This shouldn't be a let's prove them wring exercise but what's the best social policy exercise. IMHO at least.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
This is pretty handy...

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.

—Dave Gilson on Thu. January 31, 2013 7:01 AM PDT

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.


Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.


Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

United States Japan
Per capita spending
on video games
$44 $55
Civilian firearms
per 100 people
88 0.6
Gun homicides
in 2008
11,030 11
Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check:
Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Content from External Source
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
Content from External Source
This assumes that every gun owner would pick up their gun and point it at the government. I find that unlikely as some might pick it up in defense of the government.

Or take into account the non-gun owners who would side with the government and join the military to fight.
 

Teflon

New Member
his assumes that every gun owner would pick up their gun and point it at the government. I find that unlikely as some might pick it up in defense of the government.
Or take into account the non-gun owners who would side with the government and join the military to fight.

Also doesn't take in to account that some of those personally owned guns are very likely owned by members of law enforcement, fed agencies and military members. I'm not from the U.S. but coming from Canada where we do not have near as big of a "gun culture" as the states and almost every law enforcement officer and military member I know (quite a few on both counts) has a personally own weapon(s) used for hunting or sportsmen related activities.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The introduction of lists like that spells doom for a thread. The topic was if more guns leads to more or less crime, not gun control issues in general.

New topics in new threads please.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Sorry @Pete Tar , I had to dislike that list. 1) it's basically a gish gallop, 2) A few of those points are very debatable.
That's okay, I'm sure they are, I haven't checked the links :)

America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
Content from External Source
This assumes that every gun owner would pick up their gun and point it at the government. I find that unlikely as some might pick it up in defense of the government.
I don't think they are saying outgunned as in confrontationally, just numerically.
A play on words.
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
That's okay, I'm sure they are, I haven't checked the links :)


I don't think they are saying outgunned as in confrontationally, just numerically.
A play on words.
You can't really count how many are on each side until the civil war starts. Ultimately that is what is boils down to.

Ironically the side that doesn't want guns will have to use guns to make there be no more guns. Enough to make your head hurt! :eek:
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
So there are other points in the list that are less debatable? And they don't suffice?
I'm just hinting that gish gallops are basically pointless. Some of those points even at first glance are clearly up for debate. I'm sure some of the others are as well, I just haven't the time to attempt to validate a the truthfulness of a Gish gallop.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I'm not sure a list of points/counterpoints is the same as a gish gallop. I suppose grouping them all together in an attempt to overwhelm your opposition is, but these points claim to be responses to other points, so it's not quite the same?
Like if Mick makes a detailed debunking post that has several claims that are debunked in list format, is that a gish gallop too?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure a list of points/counterpoints is the same as a gish gallop. I suppose grouping them all together in an attempt to overwhelm your opposition is, but these points claim to be responses to other points, so it's not quite the same?
Like if Mick makes a detailed debunking post that has several claims that are debunked in list format, is that a gish gallop too?

It is if it's mid-thread.

I do multi-point rebuttals of some lists, and films, but unless you can put a name to the list (like: "Debunked: Hannity's Top Ten Pro Gun Arguments", then you are MUCH better off doing them one at a time

And even with a named list, it's best to use it more as an index, and just do summary, with a link to a better debunking.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
Is it a claim of evidence?
Rather a question to Josh Heuer if the evidence for #8 is somehow inconvincing ...
I find it quite convincing as a rebuttal of the original NRA claim (this goes also for the other points in the list).

So which ones are debatable?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Rather a question to Josh Heuer if the evidence for #8 is somehow inconvincing ...
I find it quite convincing as a rebuttal of the original NRA claim (this goes also for the other points in the list).

So which ones are debatable?

#1 for a start.

But we are not here to debate claims. We are here to check specific claims of evidence. And preferably one per thread. The list is a bunch of vague claims, and then some cherry picked evidence that seems, prima facie, to rebut some interpretation of the claim via correlations.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
I have realized that I'm indeed biased (and somewhat emotional) when it comes to discussing gun craziness in the U.S..

Watching from Europe, it just seems so obvious that there is a fundamental problem with this and with the power of the NRA. To me, it's the face of anti-civilization and anti-enlightenment.

I'd better stick to other issues like chemtrails ...
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Worth a new thread for the list? I just stuck it here because it seemed relevant to the 'guns/crime' discussion, I wasn't particularly invested in it. I take it at face value, though the website it comes from is pretty anti-gun.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Worth a new thread for the list? I just stuck it here because it seemed relevant to the 'guns/crime' discussion, I wasn't particularly invested in it. I take it at face value, though the website it comes from is pretty anti-gun.

It's not really in line with the posting guidelines. Too vague. Does not identify the original claims of evidence.
 

Jason

Senior Member
http://guncontrol.ca/overview-gun-control-us-canada-global/
Like with overall firearm deaths, the consequences of permissive access to firearms can also be seen in homicide and crime statistics. The US homicide rate (per 100,000) committed without guns is only slightly higher (1.4 times) than the Canadian rate. However the rate of homicide with guns in the U.S. is 6 times higher than that seen in Canada and the rate of homicide with handguns in the U.S. (2.41 per 100,000) is 7 times higher than the Canadian rate (0.33 per 100,000). The pattern with robbery is similar. In the United States, there were more than 408,000 robberies in 2009, 36 percent of them with firearms, with a rate of 55 per 100,000. In Canada, in contrast, there were 32,200 robberies, 14 percent of them with firearms, for a rate of 13 per 100,000. Yet the rates of robberies without firearms are roughly the same in the two countries. (Click on this link for table and graphs)
Content from External Source
The rate of robberies without firearms are about the same between Canada and the US in a 2009 study, but when you add guns to the mix, you can see more guns equals more crime. I know its just statistics, and its hard to prove if the person owning the gun would've committed the crime even if he/she didn't own the gun. But you do see a distinction between the US and Canada where the US has more guns and as a result has a higher rate of robberies with guns, and homicide with guns.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I take it at face value, though the website it comes from is pretty anti-gun.
I'm not good at math (and im very pro much stricter regulations) but I see stuff like this and think 'is that it?' sounds too much like scare mongering even to me.
unless I'm reading the math wrong. like the sentence
A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Content from External Source
so does that mean for every 100 assault victims that don't carry guns and are shot and killed . there are 104 assault victims that do carry guns are shot and killed. ???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not good at math (and im very pro much stricter regulations) but I see stuff like this and think 'is that it?' sounds too much like scare mongering even to me.
unless I'm reading the math wrong. like the sentence
A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Content from External Source
so does that mean for every 100 assault victims that don't carry guns and are shot and killed . there are 104 assault victims that do carry guns are shot and killed. ???

Depends how many people carry guns for every 100 that don't.

You also have to account for confounding factors in things like this. Gang members are more likely to carry guns, and get shot, so that type of thing skews the statistics.

That's why it's pointless discussing it on page 4 of an already crowded thread. If there's some specific actual claim out there that can be concisely debunked, then it should go in a new thread, so the debunking can be useful.
 

ThatGuyRick

New Member
There is a lot of state sponsored media claiming that we are made more safe by gun control laws. This assertion is not based on factual proof. I am hoping for some assistance from Metabunk.org in debunking the myth that stricter gun control equates to less violent crime.

I will start with this infographic from Zero Hedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-09/picturing-plunge-gun-crimes-gun-sales-surge

The infographic illustrates that a majority of Americans say they think gun crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically, even as gun sales have surged to record highs.

I know that more guns in the hands of organized criminals make us less safe. But organized criminals do not obey gun control laws. Only law abiding citizens (i.e. the good guys) do. The result is that statistically, more guns in the hands of common citizens equals less crime.

I need help debunking the dangerous myth that more guns make us less safe.


Actually it's the other way around. It's been proven guns in the hands of legal, law abiding gun owners equals less crime where as cities like Chicago that have strict gun control laws are riddled with crime.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Actually it's the other way around. It's been proven guns in the hands of legal, law abiding gun owners equals less crime where as cities like Chicago that have strict gun control laws are riddled with crime.
Where has it been proven?
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
Actually it's the other way around. It's been proven guns in the hands of legal, law abiding gun owners equals less crime where as cities like Chicago that have strict gun control laws are riddled with crime.

Generally, when you make statements like the above on Metabunk, you should link or quote to the proof you're talking about.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Generally, when you make statements like the above on Metabunk, you should link or quote to the proof you're talking about.
Heres links... not at all the links they want, but:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...-Proves-Mayor-Daley-Right-on-Gun-Control.html

Specifically 2013:
Substantial increase in legal gun sales:
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/04/spike_in_gun_ownership_concern.html
Followed by substantial increase in crime (also mentioned in this article is a substantial increase in police taking effect after the crime increase):
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/09/flint_still_tops_in_nation_for.html
However, following the police increase, a substantial drop in crime:
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/02/flint_loses_the_title_of_fbis.html

Michigan has three regular contenders for the most violent city in the US, and if there wasn't a lower bound for population in that title we'd have a lot more, because there's smaller towns where crime rates aren't measured per 100,000 but per 1,000 or even 100. The above is a familiar pattern, Saginaw is stuck at the middle part, the city didn't increase police and the township did, but added them all to the shoplifting task force, giving us the distinction of being one of only a few parts of the country where a 9 year old stealing a pack of gum is more likely to go to jail than a serial killer.
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
it is always difficult when comparing crime statistics from different countries - to back a particular claim/position

unless you have some insight into how the data is collected - comparisons are meaningless

for example - on some "crime" lists northern European countries - like Sweden, Denmark seem to have higher crime statistics, than some of the former communists eastern block countries (now being seemingly run under "gangster capitalism)

how can this be so - it is counter intuitive, Sweden and Denmark are some of THE most stable, safe, prosperous and equal societies on earth - governed under the rule of law

and some of the ex communist states the most corrupt (although nominally governed under the rule of law)

well, when you think about it, it becomes obvious

and it boils down to how the law is prosecuted, so drive around in car in Sweden, with the incorrect tyres and you are likely to prosecuted (they take road safety seriously),

in a former communist country? - I doubt it, (to the same extent anyway)

so higher road crime in Sweden - but safer roads, go figure
 
Top