Alphecca

Correlation is not causation. That having been said, I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms.

Benji- if crime had gone up in shall issue states, I think it's safe to say very few mainstream journalists would trouble themselves to find alternate explanations.

Defensive use of guns in the United States is estimated 2.5 million incidents annually. Public health and law enforcement estimates of those events sampled show, at a minimum, that legal posession of firearms saved forty thousand lives.

Crime tracks with the economy. The US economy has generally improved since 1993. It may be guns, it may be the econ, or it may be both.

One of the major causes of violent crime in the USA is wholesale disruption of drug gangs. Those remaing fight for control of distribution.

Is there any evidence that the government has switched to apolicy of targeting individuals rather than whole gangs?

It's both. There isn't just a single factor as to why crime has gone down. Guns have, however, helped reduce crime in the US.

Correlation may not be causation, but correlation is correlation. Which means that, so long as the correlation is statistically significant (which is by no means certain, but we have enough samples now to suggest that it may be), either shall issue laws lead to lower violent crime rates, low crime rates lead to shall issue laws, or there exists some third factor (conservative individualism?) which leads to both lower crime rates and shall issue laws.

Trends in states which ban firearms (in which the significant rise in crime occurred after the ban, not before) tends to rule out the second option. So, either shall issue laws lead to lower crime, or us gun totin' rednecks are just less prone to violence. Your choice. :)

Interestingly, tatistics do seem to find that gun ownership in a society, in and of itself, does tend to reduce crime when all other correlating factors are adjusted for -- but owning a gun is still more dangerous than not owning one.

So apparently the rational maximization of utility is to live in a society that allows gun ownership, but don't own one yourself. Amusing.

Oops, my post was for Bob, you snuck in just before me Simon!

You might find this paper of interest though, about drug prohibition and violence rates among countries.

Part of the "owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun" statistic comes from the fact that criminals also tend to be gun owners and live dangerous lives.

Great fun is possible with such games. The MSM claims that the Hurricane Rita evacuaees were better treated by government (or by the MSM, or by anyone you care to name) than Hurricane Katrina refugees because most of the former are white Texans while most of the latter were black Louisians.

You could say that the difference was due to the relative capabilities of the Texas and Louisiana state governments.

Or that they're just better armed in Texas.

The recent best-seller "Freakonomics", by economist Steven Levitt, posits that the steady fall in crime over the last decade is not due to a good economy, gun ownership or control, nor even to more police on the streets. Rather, he says it is a direct result of Roe v. Wade. Needless to say, this has made Levitt an object of scorn and hatred on both sides of the debate, which might mean he's on to something.

Not really... the Katrina evacuees were treated on a silver platter once they reached Texas, and the Riga evacuees tended to stay in Texas.

The fact is, we just treat folks better here.

I'd have to say its because our govt isnt increadibly corrupt. Because our police actually show up for their duty, and dont loot Walmarts. Because we actually evacuated from the cities. And I would say, because we all learned some lessions from Katrina.

Where do you stand then on drug prohibition? For/Against? Lowers/Raises violent crime?

Eric
Looking briefly at the article, I recall a book I read about 30 years ago that maintained that the use of drugs caused neither violence nor depravity. It claimed that these issues arose from the artificially high cost of obtaining drugs; especially those that are physically adictive. Being a Libertarian at the time, this all made sense.

Eric
Going further .. read this to understand the effect of drugs on people (it may be a bit dated)"The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs" by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine, 1972

(This may not be available to non-members of CU)

Heh, funny that you mention that. I own that book. :)

I'm not too sure to whom Patrick's question is for, but I'm opposed to drug prohibition, and think that the War on Drugs increases violent crime.

Guys, it doesn't matter whether individual possession of firearms increases or decreases crime or public spending on health care and prisons or anything else for that matter. I.e., I don't care if individual possession of firearms increase or decreases crime, and neither should you.

We have to stop arguing that our rights are based on a positive cost-benefit bottom line. They are not. Our right to defend ourselves against criminals exists regardless of its impact on society as a whole, and even if that impact is negative. It is as absolute as the right to speak freely, even when that speech may not benefit society as a whole. Never forget: you don't have a gun because it's good for society; you have a gun because it is your right to choose to have one.

Stop arguing that our "right" is derived from a cost-benefit analysis and point out that our rights are inherent and inalienable, regardless of their impact on society. THAT is the argument we have to stress.

The governments in Scotland, England and Wales didn't "disarm their law-abiding serfs." Citizens never had guns in the first place. You say these countries "lead the civilized world in violent crime" -- Wow! What's your evidence?

For cryin' out loud Meg! Go read "Quack Quack." Then follow the first link and read it in it's entirety. And yes, the subjects of Her Majesty and His Majesty before her did once own guns.

No more, because of the parliamentary system.

They are not citizens of their country, but subjects of Her Majesty's Government. They are Ruled. We are Governed. There is a very real difference.

John:

Well said and I couldn't agree more.

Ya, John, I can definitely understand that. But for those who we're trying to convert to our side, and they don't share that viewpoint, it helps to have some facts too.

And Bob, it sounds like you're not a Libertarian anymore. What happened?

"The governments in Scotland, England and Wales didn't "disarm their law-abiding serfs." Citizens never had guns in the first place."

Interesting that you left out Australia because they actually did that here. My father had a rifle and they introduced new laws banning them, he had to hand it in. I remember several times during my life so far the government has increased the tightness of gun control laws. It's actually quite stupid. Airsoft and BB guns are treated as fire arms, as are paintball guns for most intents and puroses, but nailguns aren't. So, I can just walk into a hardware store and buy what is quite a lethal weapon if abused, but as a responsible adult it's very difficult for me to own a BB gun or similar. (I'd like to do some rifle target shooting but there are so many hoops to jump through.. and I even live near a rifle range).

I suspect if you dig, you'll find similar events in those other countries, but since I don't live there I don't know for sure. What I can tell you is that from what I've read, a lot of English country folk did/do own shotguns for hunting and such.

For those interested in some reading about England and guns, check out the book Guns and Violence:The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Eric

I guess I've moved a bit away from being a pure Libertarian. For civilization to work so that I (and others) can enjoy its benefits, requires that we occasionally subordinate our own wants, and even needs, for a broader 'good.' Marriage is one example; good manners another. I just finished a series of books on the military aspects of the American Revolution and many who made phenomenal sacrifices often did so involuntarily. Liberty has a price. We can't all do whatever we'd like.

For Meg (and anyone else interested):

This link has some interesting information about the disarming of the British public: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm.

One other thought that always occurs to me when people talk about England and the right to bear arms: Go read a few of the original Sherlock Holmes stories. Notice how often reference is made to Holmes or Watson or some other "good guy" carrying a handgun, and how casually this fact is treated. The most obvious examples are in The Hound of the Baskervilles, but there are many examples spread all through the stories.

Of course Holmes is fiction, but sometimes fiction can reveal interesting things about the cultural environment in which it was written. Conan Doyle could write of an armed populace and citizens trained in the use of guns, and his readers would accept it as normal. Today, the idea of a private British citizen like Holmes, or even an ex-military man like Watson, carrying a concealed weapon would be completely unbelievable.

Bob:
What you are describing is "small-l" libertarianism. The philosophy which states "we can all do as we like" is not libertarianism, it's libertinism. There is a difference. The claim that none should have guns because some will misuse them is as spurious as the claim that because some will die in bathtub accidents, bathtubs should be banned. Laws should not be concered with what one *might* do, but with what one has already done.

One of the corollary reasons for our dip in crime rates is also the higher degree of incarceration -- ie. more scumbags are sitting in jail than before -- and that's a Good Thing.

Just remember: civilian gun ownership is NOT just about defense against ordinary crime (as John pointed out so eloquently above).

It's also our defense against ALL kinds of depradation.

I'll preface this post by saying that I am generally in favor of legalized gun possession. That said, a few points:

First, John, I totally agree that our rights are our rights, regardless of cost-benefit analysis; however, rights (including gun ownership) are subject to regulation based on cost-benefit analysis. For example, the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" exception to the First Amendment exists because the costs of that particular speech has been judged to outweigh the benefit of allowing it to be exercised unfettered. If you expect to be able to continue to exercise gun rights, you'd better be prepared to argue on a cost-benefit basis.

A hypothetical: would you say the right to bear arms allows you to own, say, a shoulder rocket launcher? It certainly is an "arm," but I'd say the costs of somebody using it irresponsibly outweighs the benefit of my second-amendment right to it.

Scott, just to nit-pick, Freakonomics claims that something like 40% of the reduction in crime is due to the effect of Roe v. Wade, not the whole thing. But he found zero effect from gun ownership laws.

Finally, anybody who claims a major effect on crime from gun ownership laws will have to explain why the largest and most sustained drop in crime in the country took place in New York City, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

New York has strict gun control laws. It has had strict gun control laws. These laws are therefore a control variable. I don't think anyone has suggested that gun rights are the only way to reduce crime- just that they do reduce crime. I'd give credit for NY's success to the 'Broken Windows' policy, among others.

Brian, what you said about rights and cost/benefit analysis is contradicting itself. If you say that we have the right to gun ownership regardless of C/B, but then say it can be regulated based upon C/B, then what's to stop government from regulating our rights away based upon C/B?

You can yell fire in a theater. If the theater is on fire, I can yell it then. If I'm an actor and my line involves yelling fire, then I can yell it. If I build my own private theater for my own private use, as in it's not open to the general public, then I'd imagine I can yell fire to my hearts content inside it.

The courts did not rule that people could be completely prohibited from yelling the word 'fire.' It only applies to an extremely narrow and specific situation. Applying this to guns, legislators could ban someone from wildly shooting their gun into the air, which needlessly puts innocent people at risk. But an outright prohibition of the possession of guns would not be justified.

As for rocket launchers, no, I don't think people have a right to them, because it's going to be pretty hard to use them in a manner that doesn't endanger other people. For example, let's say I'm waiting at a crowded bus stop with a RL and out of the blue, someone starts charging at me with a spear in hand (bizzare, yes, but just bear with me). If I fire my RL at them and hit them, they'll be blown to smithereens. Chances are I'll injure or kill myself in the process, but this is irrelevant to my argument (but counter-productive to the idea of using force to defend myself). What matters is that when I fire that RL in that crowded bus stop, I'll probably end up injuring or killing innocent bystanders. Rocket launchers usually cannot be used in a civilian situation where it does not endanger other innocent people's lives or property (I might blow up a building).

Handguns, rifles, shotguns, and even machine guns are quite capable of being used in a manner by civilians that does not threaten innocent bystanders. Weapons like rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenades, tanks, fighter craft, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs, and so on normally cannot. Hence why I don't think that heavy regulation or even outright prohibition of them does not violate our rights.

I did some Googling about New York City and crime rates, and I found that they had a large drop in crime, but I didn't find anything about it being the largest in American history. Perhaps you have a link I could check out? I found this:Since 1991, New York City has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime and is now the safest large city in America. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now thriving with new businesses and housing, and many residents feel safe to walk the streets late at night. Violent crime in the city has dropped by 75% in the last twelve years and the murder rate in 2004 was at its lowest level in over forty years: there were 572 murders that year compared to 2,245 in 1990. Some feel that the implementation of COMPSTAT crime analysis by the New York Police Department in 1994 is responsible for the positive changes.and:CompStat has also been under fire by many NYPD officers who claim that numbers will ALWAYS continue to go down, due to downgraded or reclassified crimes (Example: Robbery is classified as lost property).Either way, none of us here are saying that the only way to reduce crime is lax gun control. Not at all. There are many factors that affect crime levels, gun control being one of them. What we're saying that if you want to reduce crime, one of the ways is to allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns. This has been validated by empirical evidence in the United States, with right-to-carry states experiencing a faster drop in crime, and in countries like Australia or the UK, where guns are heavily restricted or banned for citizens, crime has increased.

Even if the two have no impact on each other, it shows that allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns doesn't increase crime, and that taking the guns out of citizens hasn't been effective in reducing crime.