Guns Do Not Stop Crime

Next month's edition of the Scientific American has an article titled "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows". You can read the article at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

There are too many logical flaws to go over all of them, but my favorite is ...

Two paragraphs after stating "data don't matter to a lot of people. It was similar in other places I visited. What matters more is APPARENT logic: guns stop criminals, so they keep people safer." The author states "Researchers POSIT that even if keeping a gun at home does thwart the odd break-in, it MAY also change the gun owner's behavior in ways that put that person and his or her family more at risk."

So there you have it. Your logic is APPARENT; but a guess that something MAY change behavior is presented as well-founded.

Also, there is the old chestnut that "a gun in the home was ASSOCIATED with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance." The key word is "associated".

By titling the article the way they did, that sentence conveys the notion that a gun for protection in YOUR home will make you less safe -- but association is not causal.

For example, the number of people who drown is associated with the sale of ice cream. Is it ice cream that causes people to drown? Is it the likelihood of drowning that causes people to buy ice cream? Or is it something else, like temperature, that cause some people to buy ice cream and others to swim?

A person with a propensity to violence is more likely to have a gun in the house than a Mennonite. In a home with a propensity to violence one would expect higher gun ownership than average.

Also, the author states "Overall in Alabama, an estimated 12 percent of residents have PERMISSION to carry concealed firearms, possibly the highest such rate in the country." Possibly the highest such rate in the country, only if you don't count the states, like Vermont and Arkansas, with Constitutional Carry. Remember she doesn't claim that Alabama's do carry, only that they have permission. That sentence shows that Melinda doesn't know her topic.

And one last favorite! (I told you there are too many examples) The author notes "Kleck counters that the NCVS might underestimate self-defense because people who do not trust government surveyors will be afraid to admit that they used their gun. Yet people who participate in the NCVS are told at the start that they are protected under federal law and that their responses will remain anonymous." How many of you would trust a government survey that promises anonymity?

Comments

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 17,975 Senior Member
    Skolnick wrote: »
    How many of you would trust a government survey that promises anonymity?

    That one's right up there on the same level of credibility as "Of course I'll respect you in the morning!"- - - - - -Either way, somebody's about to get screwed!
    :roll:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,068 Senior Member
    This old, tired saw pops up every time that gun rights are on the rise. It is another proof of "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

    Stats can be bent and misrepresented to show pretty much any point of view.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    No sense in the police being armed then.
    Not to mention Armed Forces maybe becoming Nonarmed Forces for safety reasons.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 20,826 Senior Member
    early wrote: »
    No sense in the police being armed then.
    Not to mention Armed Forces maybe becoming Nonarmed Forces for safety reasons.

    Yes and just think, if the cops aren't armed then there's no need for groups like BLM. Man this sounds so good that it might be too good to be true...
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 15,651 Senior Member
    Balls...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it, you may shoot it. If you shoot it, you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you. --Jeff Cooper
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 3,999 Senior Member
    Guns do not stop crime. That's a true thing.

    Guns stop criminals. That's a true thing.

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 25,378 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    This old, tired saw pops up every time that gun rights are on the rise. It is another proof of "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

    Stats can be bent and misrepresented to show pretty much any point of view.
    Yep. I love the usual ominous conclusion of these type studies. It usually gets distilled to "People who have firearms at home are more likely to have a firearms related incident than those who do not."

    THAT'S RIGHT!!! Just like people with pools are much more likely to drown in them that folks that don't HAVE ONE in their house!!!

    And a bunch of morons will just nod their head in agreement. Stupidity in now the norm in America.

    :bang:
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,489 Senior Member
    I always thought it was just common knowledge, but I've known forever that ice cream causes drownings.
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    spoons, forks and knives make people fat.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 15,651 Senior Member
    john9001 wrote: »
    spoons, forks and knives make people fat.

    And typewriters, pens, pencils, and word processors all cause spelling and grammar mistakes! :up:
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it, you may shoot it. If you shoot it, you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you. --Jeff Cooper
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,489 Senior Member
    This Scientific American article is an interesting sidebar to the firearms debate, but I really don't care whether more guns or fewer guns means less, more or the same amount of crime. These statistics do nothing but cloud the issue with an irrelevancy completely detached from the Constitutional imperative that our individual right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Period.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 15,651 Senior Member
    Good point, Horse!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it, you may shoot it. If you shoot it, you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you. --Jeff Cooper
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 22,760 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    This Scientific American article is an interesting sidebar to the firearms debate, but I really don't care whether more guns or fewer guns means less, more or the same amount of crime. These statistics do nothing but cloud the issue with an irrelevancy completely detached from the Constitutional imperative that our individual right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Period.

    My gosh
    where is the real horselips?
    I have a need for speed
  • SIGgalSIGgal Senior Member Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    As I am certain they did not use FBI reports and statistics for evidence in this publication.
    "Marriage is a hunting permit that allows you only one dear at a time"
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,617 Senior Member
    Well, if we were to be truly technical about it, we could posit that what guns actually stop is RECIDIVISM. I'm OK with that.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,068 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Well, if we were to be truly technical about it, we could posit that what guns actually stop is RECIDIVISM. I'm OK with that.

    A gun can stop a specific crime from happening.... but crime as a generic category - maybe
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 20,826 Senior Member
    Just reading the original post I would say this article is typical anti gun BS. It uses a lot of flexible statistics and a lot of anti gun subtibility to make a vague point the unlearned will fall for.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,292 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Just reading the original post I would say this article is typical anti gun BS. It uses a lot of flexible statistics and a lot of anti gun subtibility to make a vague point the unlearned will fall for.
    Yes. Same BS, different day.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 25,378 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    A gun can stop a specific crime from happening.... but crime as a generic category - maybe
    Next guy I see jaywalking while I'm packing... :guns:
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 46 Member
    Skolnick wrote: »
    Next month's edition of the Scientific American has an article titled "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows". You can read the article at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

    A rebuttal by John Lott and a re-rebuttal is now at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-mean-more-violent-crime-or-less-a-researcher-aims-at-scientific-american1/
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Mr. Lott needs to write a rebuttal to her rebuttal.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 25,378 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    Mr. Lott needs to write a rebuttal to her rebuttal.
    Kudos to SA for including a link to Mr. lott's website. :cool2:
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Kudos to SA for including a link to Mr. lott's website. :cool2:

    I would like to see Lott and the author debate in an open forum.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 46 Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    Mr. Lott needs to write a rebuttal to her rebuttal.
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    I would like to see Lott and the author debate in an open forum.

    How do you debate someone who says "Murder victims are murder victims, regardless of weapon or means" in an article about guns and crime?
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 20,826 Senior Member
    Skolnick wrote: »
    Next month's edition of the Scientific American has an article titled "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows". You can read the article at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

    There are too many logical flaws to go over all of them, but my favorite is ...

    Two paragraphs after stating "data don't matter to a lot of people. It was similar in other places I visited. What matters more is APPARENT logic: guns stop criminals, so they keep people safer." The author states "Researchers POSIT that even if keeping a gun at home does thwart the odd break-in, it MAY also change the gun owner's behavior in ways that put that person and his or her family more at risk."

    So there you have it. Your logic is APPARENT; but a guess that something MAY change behavior is presented as well-founded.

    Also, there is the old chestnut that "a gun in the home was ASSOCIATED with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance." The key word is "associated".

    By titling the article the way they did, that sentence conveys the notion that a gun for protection in YOUR home will make you less safe -- but association is not causal.

    For example, the number of people who drown is associated with the sale of ice cream. Is it ice cream that causes people to drown? Is it the likelihood of drowning that causes people to buy ice cream? Or is it something else, like temperature, that cause some people to buy ice cream and others to swim?

    A person with a propensity to violence is more likely to have a gun in the house than a Mennonite. In a home with a propensity to violence one would expect higher gun ownership than average.

    Also, the author states "Overall in Alabama, an estimated 12 percent of residents have PERMISSION to carry concealed firearms, possibly the highest such rate in the country." Possibly the highest such rate in the country, only if you don't count the states, like Vermont and Arkansas, with Constitutional Carry. Remember she doesn't claim that Alabama's do carry, only that they have permission. That sentence shows that Melinda doesn't know her topic.

    And one last favorite! (I told you there are too many examples) The author notes "Kleck counters that the NCVS might underestimate self-defense because people who do not trust government surveyors will be afraid to admit that they used their gun. Yet people who participate in the NCVS are told at the start that they are protected under federal law and that their responses will remain anonymous." How many of you would trust a government survey that promises anonymity?

    Who me, well heck, shucky darn!!! man, if the GUBERMINT said it, it must be true!!! Right?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 20,826 Senior Member
    This thread has been around for a few months and I think it's getting better with age. But to some it up, I'm gonna take a blind stab and say something that might be equated with the obvious, Guns may not stop crime, but they stop the criminal and after awhile the crimes gotta slow down. Now how brilliant is that?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Skolnick wrote: »
    How do you debate someone who says "Murder victims are murder victims, regardless of weapon or means" in an article about guns and crime?

    He needs to debate her live and in person with a moderator, she would look foolish quickly if Mr. Lott is the researcher I think he is.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 46 Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    He needs to debate her live and in person with a moderator, she would look foolish quickly if Mr. Lott is the researcher I think he is.

    You need an impartial moderator, not one who is a respected member of the media -- and not one supplied by the Scientific American.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 25,378 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    He needs to debate her live and in person with a moderator, she would look foolish quickly if Mr. Lott is the researcher I think he is.
    These folks don't do that. They reach their conclusions by stating a premise they emotionally want to "prove" and then cherry picking the data available just enough to sound like they are right.

    Once they run out of their very limited and totally edited completely out of context "data" points they are done. My sister in law used to do that to me when she was younger and we had environmental and animal rights discussions. Once she ran out of her Sierra Club and PETA brochure bullet points she had nothing and would immediately resort to personal attacks and insults. It was so cute to watch :tooth:
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 21,894 Senior Member
    Guns don't stop crime. Neither does all the law enforcement officers on the job stop crime. What guns do is stop a specific criminal from doing a specific crime. And if the criminal in the act reaches ambient temperature, then they will do no more crimes. Even if they live, it's likely that the crime they attempted was stopped. That's never a bad outcome. Crime will only be stopped when enough criminals are shot to doll rags to put extreme fear of death into the rest of them. Criminals having a deathly fear of their victims would be a good thing.
    Non Sibi Sed Patriage (Not for self, but country)



Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file