
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - diogenescynic
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
======
at-fates-hands
Gun data is just too easy to manipulate tbh.

What if a city has average homicide rates, yet has no CNC laws. Would the rate
be higher or lower if CNC laws were applicable?

What if a city has a high murder rate (Chicago) but still allows for CNC,
would it be lower if CNC wasn't allowed?

What if a city has really restrictive CNC laws (New York City) but still has
high homicide and rape rates, would it be lower if CNC was allowed?

Sorting through the data isn't really possible and coming to conclusions based
on data from the 80's and 90's is suspect at best. The overt anti-NRA angle in
this article was a little too much for me as well.

I don't own guns, and have lived in several CNC cities and have lived with
several people who had CNC permits and who carried frequently. I'm not pro
gun, but I fully support those people who do own them. This article basically
states that many of the established ideas that gun owners have are really
myths and the only way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of guns.

My only retort to that argument is this:

It's completely ILLEGAL to even own guns in Mexico, so how's that been going
for them????

------
qaq
It's really hard to conduct a meaning-full study and in general the issue is
given way more attention compared to its actual impact on everyday lives.

~~~
RubberSoul
What do you mean by "more attention compared to its actual impact on everyday
lives"?

Firearms are currently tied with motor vehicles as the second leading
mechanism of injury-related death [0]. Number 1 is poisoning, which has
recently surged thanks to opioids.

[0]:
[https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D132/D21F190](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D132/D21F190)

~~~
qaq
Subtract suicides

~~~
yodon
Not if you want a meaningful result. There are strong correlations between
having a gun in the house and increased suicide rates. Yes, I get it, it's a
correlation. The point is it's a gross oversimplification to just say
"subtract suicides."

~~~
qaq
Meaningful is very abstract term. The problem is people wanting to commit
suicide not the tool they are using. There is a way stronger correlation of
people being unemployed and committing suicide for example.

~~~
egwynn
Not to get into the weeds too much here, but a completed suicide has _a lot_
to do with the speed/effectiveness of the tool in question. Almost nothing is
as fast/effective for this as a gun. Plus, suicide is frequently attempted
impulsively, during a time of emotional crisis, so adding logistical barriers
is a very effective reduction technique.

~~~
qaq
"Almost nothing is as fast/effective for this as a gun" drugs ? especially
considering it requires far less will power to take a few pills vs to pull a
trigger?

~~~
egwynn
According to
[http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2...](http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2195005)

 _Suicide attempts using a firearm result in death 86% of the time; ingestion
of drugs or poisons with the intent to commit suicide is successful less than
2% of the time._

------
MicroBerto
This makes sense. I really only need _one_ of my guns to stop a home invasion.

------
featherverse
First, that article is apparently a re-post, is it an old story? If so what
motivation was there to re-post it if not political timing?

Second, nobody with a rational mind, nobody with critical thinking skills,
would ever or has ever asked that question. Carrying guns is not about
reducing crime.

The right to carry firearms is about empowering an individual to be less
helpless in their own life in the case of a crime committed against them.

It is a constant fraud of the anti-gun crowd to suggest that respecting the
right to self defense and the right to carry arms is somehow indoctrination
into a public defense agency. And it speaks volumes about the way they really
think about freedom or an individual's liberty.

It is a proven fact that carrying a gun visibily will reduce the risk of a
person being assaulted in various ways by strangers on the street. If you want
to fund a proper study we can doubly prove this. The visible presence of a
firearm changes the way people behave. People who would behave in anti-social
and criminal ways will think twice if they see their victim has a gun on their
hip. I promise.

That's not saying there aren't occasional freak exceptions. Some people's
lives are so rotten they are aching to throw them away and take a few of us
out with them. You can't do anything to stop them. That's what being free is,
people are free to turn into monsters. What you can do is remain empowered to
put them down if they become so rabid.

Sorry for the lengthy comment. Protecting everyone's right to arm themselves
is more important than any other aspect of this subject.

------
AstralStorm
To male the claim in the title you have to show lack of correlation between an
increase and decrease in gun ownership to crime numbers. And be mindful that
the stats might be trailing by years or even generations.

Odds ratios are good except they are missing the OR for prevention of a
criminal attempt. The stats they cite ate indeed self-contradictory.

Additionally this might just be highlighting a problem with training policies
or more importantly culture. Please compare with stats for, say, Czech
Republic.

The ORs should be normalized against general homicide rates, but they weren't.

------
ringaroundthetx
I like the argument that people are going to "keep the government in check" by
owning guns. That one cracks me up the most, have you seen the size of the
government's guns?

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Have you seen how the size of the government's guns were so useful in
occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

~~~
ringaroundthetx
the key differences I see are that:

a) this didn't require a constitutional right to accomplish, free flowing guns
everywhere by any regional or international supporter interested

b) it was also ineffective at expelling a foreign invader (NATO, US, Al Qaeda,
ISIS)

c) it was also ineffective at expelling the sovereign institution

------
s73ver_
Very few of those who would be carrying everywhere would have the kind of
training needed to be effective at stopping crime, even if they were to be
around it.

~~~
qaq
It would be hard to come up with numbers to back or disprove your statement.

~~~
RubberSoul
There is some research showing self-defensive gun use is not associated with a
lower risk of victim injury during a crime [0]. If training levels were
generally high, I'd expect people who use guns in self-defense to be more
successful in preventing injury.

[0]:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188)

