Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet Plano, TX, in the middle of gun country Texas has a homicide rate of 1.4. That's less than France, Belgium and Finland and dozen other European countries.
Just some facts that don't support your conclusions;
Sweden has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (31.6 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is 0.7
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (45.7 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is 0.6
Lithuania has one of the LOWEST gun ownership rates in the world (0.7 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is one of the highest at 6.7
Norway has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (31.3 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world at 0.56
Comparing France (a country with population 67 million) to Plano - one of the wealthiest suburbs of Dallas with 300k population? Lol, who would have thought that Plano would be doing slightly better?
Yes, Plano, is extremely safe, but unfortunately the number you quote is going to very different for 2017. Ask me how I know or where I live
And you come up with ONE country, that happens to be in a permanent state of war for all practical purposes. Nice.
A country in a perpetual state of war keeps their kids from being shot in school by allowing responsible citizens to be armed, but your complaint is that there is too much violence in the area for it to be valid evidence for the efficacy of armed responders in schools.
I knew your strategy from the beginning, so I'm not surprised that you moved the goalpost. I am not, however, going to chase that goalpost. You asked, I answered. The fact that my answer doesn't agree with your misconceptions is your problem, not mine.
Read the paper quoted. They make the case that states with more permissive gun laws have done worse than they would have with out them.
You would actually have to find some evidence that more guns and more usage would make things better. That target has proven very elusive.
Again I remain a supporter of permissive concealed carry and such. That is too give the good people a fair shake. But I would not be surprised if that does not come at the cost of more violent crime. However I would think the good guys will do better than they would if unarmed. Note however this may well be at a cost paid by the lower socioeconomic strata.
So it's a projection derived from a model. Which is awesome but proves nothing. Look I can create a model that projects lower incomes leads to higher prosperity with high R Values and confidence levels, but it doesn't make it true. Indeed real world data proves it to be currently false.
That's the issue, and why you keep making silly statements about more restrictive gun laws lead to lower violent crime rates with no evidence. If you don't understand the math and science of course you'll lap it up like a cat at a bowl of milk, if you already believe that guns are the issue. They are not.
Look regardless of country and culture all humans share common instinctive impulses, we all desire similar things to each other, we respond similarly to certain stimuli. So in the 4 square of restrictive or permissive gun laws, and high or low violence rates, only restrictive gun laws would lead to low violent crime rates, and permissive gun laws would lead to high violent crime rates, that's false. Indeed even looking at gun homicides you often cannot tell when laws became more restrictive or permissive. UK gun crimes rates have remained more or less at parity from 1997 compared to earlier, going back to 1966 (where laws were more permissive) gun crime rates were actually lower. Do the research yourself don't take my word for it.
If that model were accurate, in all cases states where gun control laws were relaxed would have increased rates if violence, and states where they remained the same or tightened they would have seen a decreased rate of violence. That is patently false too (look at the FBI UCR deltas year on year).
So before slapping down some one else's research and stating it as fact you need to evaluate if the claims are reasonable based on actual real world data. The claims are not, they're not even close. Gun laws stringency plays little to no role in the rates of violent crimes, that's clearly observable from real data. What may be affected is the severity of violent crimes, but not the rates.
The answer to your question is that the severity of punishment is not a deterrent to crime. The likelihood of getting caught IS a deterrent to crime.
I don't get it. If severe consequences are not a deterrent, then why would the likelihood of getting caught be a deterrent? From what I know, people are afraid of getting caught because they know the severity of the punishment and don't want to face it.
It involves building an artificial version of the state if it had not adopted by using states that were similar but did not adopt as a model. The difficulty of course was that virtually all states got better on crime over the last 20 years. So claims that tight rules or loose rules are better are not supported by better crime rates. The technique used is supposed to differentiate.
Perhaps I will go back and read it simply because I believe it's likely I can pick apart their methodology or terminology (note: I've read white papers primarily medical related for nearly a decade where you'd hope they are well constructed and even still the vast majority are worthless)... I'll now leave my appeal to authority at the door.
You didn't answer my question. As the ambassador of that information it's incumbent upon you if you hope people to accept the data to do your best to condense the rest. To do otherwise is no better than how politicians act. The image I linked that I think you understand but were not so verbose about is problematic to your argument at the highest level. It makes your argument in obverse which if you've any experience in the world is not automatically proof for the opposite. Per paper: states that never passed a RTC law experienced a larger reduction in violent crime rate for the better... they also had a substantially higher rate at the earlier time point. And the net was? Effectively the same as the RTC states. Personally the fact it was even presented that way is damning of the author(s).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
