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?

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,257 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: 9,663 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: 21,802 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: 19,087 Senior Member
    Balls...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,425 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
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 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: 19,087 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"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 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: 19,087 Senior Member
    Good point, Horse!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,895 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?
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,943 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: 9,663 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: 21,802 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: 1,568 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.
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 47 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: 10,723 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
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,723 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: 47 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: 21,802 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: 21,802 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: 10,723 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: 47 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.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,759 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.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.