Town with more guns have less crime?

[christagious]

I've heard before that some of the town with the least amount of crime are those whose citizens are the most armed. I'm running for city council next year in a city with fairly high crime and gang problems. People are wanting more police, more drug crackdowns, and who knows? probably more gun restrictions. I was wondering if anybody knows of any links to articles or studies showing that cities with more armed citizens have less crime. That way I can possibly convince people to support possible less gun regulation and more gun shows/sales in the area to have an armed public to help protect our cities from criminals.

Any good information will be appreciated

[FunkBuddha]

Here ya go. It's a comparison between two cities on opposite sides of gun control.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

[SeanEdwards]

25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[Mini-Me]

25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

LOL...corporate/business welfare laws favoring gun shops. Who woulda thunk? ;) Although this approach is not exactly the best, it does prove one hell of a point.

[AisA1787]

this book should be useful to you:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
by John R. Lott Jr.

[Kade]

25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

This is the kind of spin I expect from Worldnetdaily. Laughable.

As I've mentioned my entire time here on these forums, I am from Bob "Candy' Barr's old district, Cobb County, and I lived in Kennesaw for nearly 12 years.

This is a lie. Kennesaw is purely closed in, and there is a local ordinance that requires homeowners to own firearms (never actually enforced). The truth is that the cities tangled in Kennesaw, Acworth and Marietta, are crime laden hell holes, of the red neck meets Southern Ghetto front. Kennesaw is not immune to crime, so I respectfully ask that this article be fairly understood in context.

Cobb County is a nice place overall to live... and crime is relatively low compared to other Atlanta suburbs, but it is not because of the gun ownership.

On another note, Dent "Wild Man" Myers is holed up downtown, still carrying his six shooters, Grand Dragon of the Southeast, KKK, still barring blacks from his store... It is ConservativeVille, USA, I've lived it my whole life, and I prefer the North, with all it's intellectual snubbery.

[Kade]

Also, you could use other countries as decent markers, (again I am pro gun ownership)


Japan's 2000-2008 Murder rate is 0.5 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Most stringent gun control in the world. Guns are almost non-existent.


United Kingdom's 2000-2008 Murder rate average is 1.87 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Mixed ban, most weapons banned.


America's 2000-2008 Murder rate average is 5.7 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Almost no bans on handguns. Constitutional right to own. Some automatics and rifles banned.


That is NOT a statistical anomaly.

[Danke]

Washington D.C. Ban on guns, very high crime rate.

[Kade]

Washington D.C. Ban on guns, very high crime rate.

I believe the correlation is more about economy, personally.

But Washington D.C. has the most guns in America, per square inch, then anywhere, and it is closing on Pakistan.

Also, Washington's short gun ban was overturned... nice try.

[Danke]

I believe the correlation is more about economy, personally.

But Washington D.C. has the most guns in America, per square inch, then anywhere, and it is closing on Pakistan.

Also, Washington's short gun ban was overturned... nice try.

There was a discussion here about gun control (ie. laws) not how many illegal guns are "per square inch"

But..."nice try." :rolleyes:


Sure, you can live in a less free society and be "safer." Isn't that Bush's tactic with DHS?

Most here would prefer to live in a more free society that may entail the danger of gun violence.

[Truth Warrior]

An armed society is a peaceful and courteous one ........... eventually. :)

[Dr.3D]

http://conservativethoughts.us/2008/01/03/washington-dc-gun-ban-case-update/

Washington D.C. Gun Ban Case Update

By MK on Jan 3, 2008 in Gun Control

Remember back in November 2007 the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on whether Washington D.C. residents can keep handguns in their homes. Just on a side note, Washington DC imposed a ban on handgun sales in 1987 and this led to a tripling of the murder rate by the early 1990s. Maybe that’s why six residents decided to file a suit to lift the ban. Well, here is some news on the case.

Washington Times - The District’s acting attorney general has fired the lead lawyer scheduled to argue before the Supreme Court in favor of the city’s gun ban, just days before attorneys are scheduled to submit a brief in the case to the high court. Mr. Morrison said he expects to have his office cleared out by Monday. “I’m concerned for the city because I want the city to win this case …,” Mr. Morrison said yesterday. “It’s troubling.”

I’m also concerned for the city, but I don’t want them to win this case, so I’m happy to see the gun-grabbers hobbled in any way. After all, since the gun control laws haven’t helped to reduce the homicide count [176+ in 2007 vs 169 in 2006], they obviously think that more gun control laws are in order. It’s the usual leftist way, never give up on failed methods and it’s troubling that they persist with is to the detriment of their citizens, or should I say subjects.

[Mini-Me]

I believe the correlation is more about economy, personally.

But Washington D.C. has the most guns in America, per square inch, then anywhere, and it is closing on Pakistan.

Also, Washington's short gun ban was overturned... nice try.

You hit the nail on the head with your correlation to the economy.
Banning or restricting guns does tend to increase crime (for obvious logical reasons), but the root cause of most crime is socioeconomic. Simply put, poor and crime-ridden neighborhoods just have too many people in the "damn near nothing left to lose" category, and the war on drugs simultaneously makes crime quite profitable (and obviously, black markets can get violent).

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

I believe the correlation is more about economy, personally.

But Washington D.C. has the most guns in America, per square inch, then anywhere, and it is closing on Pakistan.

Also, Washington's short gun ban was overturned... nice try.

interesting "statistic" i'd like to read more on this... Does DC really have the most guns? even if they did, wouldn't it not mesh with your claim since these guns are probably owned by government people?

[AutoDas]

I think it's impractical to just look at the murder rate of gun control states. Guns prevent violent crime from happening and Britain has more of that than the US, which I personally believe has a much more violent culture so how can this be? Japan does not have a violent culture and they have technological stranglehold on the market so with their success why need weapons.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

I think that passing legislation for this is pretty ridiculous. If i complain about legislation that limits gun rights i don't think i should encourage legislation that encourages it either.

IMHO freedom means being responsible and making your own decisions.


As for people that think that towns like this will bring about the ole west shoot outs:
If a bunch of people in a town are all given guns and start shooting each other... i'll just move.... with my guns

[AisA1787]

I think it's impractical to just look at the murder rate of gun control states. Guns prevent violent crime from happening and Britain has more of that than the US, which I personally believe has a much more violent culture so how can this be?

Exactly.

Also, a little statistic for you all: 13% of burglaries in the U.S. occur while the residents are at home, compared to ~60% in the U.K. and Australia. Can you guess why? I'll give you a hint: it's not because people in the U.S. spend 87% of their time away from home.

[ThePieSwindler]

I believe the correlation is more about economy, personally.

But Washington D.C. has the most guns in America, per square inch, then anywhere, and it is closing on Pakistan.

Also, Washington's short gun ban was overturned... nice try.

Ok, but then you showed murder rates and gun facts and said that they were not statistical anomolies.. so what is it? Correlated to gun ownership when the data seems to fit, but corellated to something else when it doesnt? I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just wondering why your thinking seems to have diverged here.

Alot of it has to do with culture and socioeconomic conditions, and you are entirely right in that regard. Japan is a ridiculously homogenous culture, and thus is naturally less violent as a result. America is one of the most diverse cultures in the world.

But anyways, the right to bear arms is meant more a protection against tyrannical government than anything else. While gun ownership might not have either an inverse or a direct correlation (more guns less crime vs more guns more crime, respectively), its largely irrelevant when actually discussing the right to bear arms.

[Kade]

Ok, but then you showed murder rates and gun facts and said that they were not statistical anomolies.. so what is it? Correlated to gun ownership when the data seems to fit, but corellated to something else when it doesnt? I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just wondering why your thinking seems to have diverged here.

I think the culture that that permeates a necessity to own a gun, is a culture that necessitates and votes for their own economic demise.

In this country, a gun is almost a necessity...

To me it really is a wedge issue of nonsense. Nobody should be advocating for the removal of an armed citizenry, it's much too late in this country, and looking at our growing police state here, well, it might be a whole other issue soon...

[Truth Warrior]

I attended a speech once, given by a retired reformed ex-burglar. He said the easiest pickings were in towns and cities with the BEST cops. The residents tend to let their guards down there.

Other deterrents and protections are alarms, dogs, and assumptions of probable/possible firearms.

[ThePieSwindler]

I think the culture that that permeates a necessity to own a gun, is a culture that necessitates and votes for their own economic demise.

In this country, a gun is almost a necessity...

To me it really is a wedge issue of nonsense. Nobody should be advocating for the removal of an armed citizenry, it's much too late in this country, and looking at our growing police state here, well, it might be a whole other issue soon...

I'm not sure i agree with that first statement. I think the rest of my post is essentially in agreement otherwise; you've identified whats actually important.

Interestingly, i think a place like Britain needs an armed citizenry even more than we do these days, with it essentially becoming the king (or Queen, hehe) of police states.

[Kade]

I'm not sure i agree with that first statement. I think the rest of my post is essentially in agreement otherwise; you've identified whats actually important.

Interestingly, i think a place like Britain needs an armed citizenry even more than we do these days, with it essentially becoming the king (or Queen, hehe) of police states.

Britons have a way of protest to them, that is highly effective... they enjoy their freedoms, and it doesn't take too much to upset them... I really don't think the growing police state will last in that country...

They banned drinking on public transportation ( I wish I'd known it wasn't before)
and look what happened...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/02/transport.ukcrime

[Ozwest]

It's a catch-22.

Gun ownership keeps a government in check.

But...

Assholes with guns is never a good result.

[phixion]

It's a catch-22.

Gun ownership keeps a government in check.

But...

Assholes with guns is never a good result.

Do guns really keep the government in check?

They may have kept Ye Olde Style government in check back in the day, but I highly doubt an armed revolution (without the help of the military) would occur EVER in America today. It's just not happening. The idea is preposterous.

Pete

[Ozwest]

Do guns really keep the government in check?

They may have kept Ye Olde Style government in check back in the day, but I highly doubt an armed revolution (without the help of the military) would occur EVER in America today. It's just not happening. The idea is preposterous.

Pete

Hope you never have to find out.

Breathe easier when Bush and Cheney go.

Until then...

Keep your powder dry.

[Truth Warrior]

An estimated 200,000,000 privately owned firearms by Americans, may just be saving our cookies from the NWO, even as we post, so far at least.

[Truth Warrior]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

[phixion]

Britons have a way of protest to them, that is highly effective... they enjoy their freedoms, and it doesn't take too much to upset them... I really don't think the growing police state will last in that country...

They banned drinking on public transportation ( I wish I'd known it wasn't before)
and look what happened...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/02/transport.ukcrime

We try our best (http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm) but there's no stopping the police state unfortunately.

The party on the tube resulted in nothing but a good night out for most who attended. It won't stop anything. Never does. I am not even sure it was a protest. 

We're stuffed, like the rest of the world that will inevitable fall in line with one world government.

Pete

[phixion]

An estimated 200,000,000 privately owned firearms by Americans, may just be saving our cookies from the NWO, even as we post, so far at least.

Most people including those on these forums would give up their weapons when there's a handful of armed <whatever gov agents> demanding you give them up - or basically be shot and killed, along with your family.

When there's tanks and armored vehicles rolling down the streets ready to spray anyone who opposes them, firearms can't do much.

Don't forget the military has plenty of weapons - including unconventional ones - such as polluting your water supply in times of emergency or 'revolution', spraying the skies with biological agents. I would not put it past the American government in a time of 'revolution' to use nuclear bombs to neutrilize citezens, etc etc.

I don't think private firearms in the hands of a very small minority who care enough to use them could withstand what the US military has to dish out these days.

America I do believe is unapologetically f*****.

Pete

[Ozwest]

Do guns really keep the government in check?

They may have kept Ye Olde Style government in check back in the day, but I highly doubt an armed revolution (without the help of the military) would occur EVER in America today. It's just not happening. The idea is preposterous.

Pete
It would be less concerning if the infrastructure for martial law was not currently set in place.

Liberties are gone, and the laws are institutionalized.

It's only a hop - skip - and a jump away...

[porcupine]

If your run for city counsel doesn't work out, consider joining the Free State Project and running for office here. You'll have hundreds of people to back you up and we've already gotten around 25 people elected.

[Truth Warrior]

Most people including those on these forums would give up their weapons when there's a handful of armed <whatever gov agents> demanding you give them up - or basically be shot and killed, along with your family.

When there's tanks and armored vehicles rolling down the streets ready to spray anyone who opposes them, firearms can't do much.

Don't forget the military has plenty of weapons - including unconventional ones - such as polluting your water supply in times of emergency or 'revolution', spraying the skies with biological agents. I would not put it past the American government in a time of 'revolution' to use nuclear bombs to neutrilize citezens, etc etc.

I don't think private firearms in the hands of a very small minority who care enough to use them could withstand what the US military has to dish out these days.

America I do believe is unapologetically f*****.

Pete
Guerrilla mode, think Iraq resistance, think Viet Cong. think 1776 Minute Men. :)

[ThePieSwindler]

Most people including those on these forums would give up their weapons when there's a handful of armed <whatever gov agents> demanding you give them up - or basically be shot and killed, along with your family.

When there's tanks and armored vehicles rolling down the streets ready to spray anyone who opposes them, firearms can't do much.

Don't forget the military has plenty of weapons - including unconventional ones - such as polluting your water supply in times of emergency or 'revolution', spraying the skies with biological agents. I would not put it past the American government in a time of 'revolution' to use nuclear bombs to neutrilize citezens, etc etc.

I don't think private firearms in the hands of a very small minority who care enough to use them could withstand what the US military has to dish out these days.

America I do believe is unapologetically f*****.

Pete

Perhaps, but this is still a what-if scenario that can't be falsified. If you take firearms away, however, the chance of anything being effetive goes to zero. Since theres no real causation effect, and mixed/faulty correlation, for guns and crime, i say there is little reason to disarm the populace. The benefits of a gun owning society are certainly not short term, and taking guns away and changing society in to a 'defenseless' society might not be a big deal in the short or medium term, but it might come in handy one day in the long run. Who knows. But theres certainly no advantage to banning guns, so why do it? Political expediency, of course.

Even more fundamentally than protecting from government, banning guns is simply saying that someone cannot defend themselves in ways the government does not approve of. If you think thats moral, well, shit.

[Truth Warrior]

"IF the government cannot trust the people with guns, can the people trust the government?"

"Governments prefer unarmed peasants."

"Politicians love disarmed peasants."

[NaT805]

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

"We must either assert our rights or submit and became tame and abject slaves"
- George Washington

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

[Truth Warrior]

The Holocaust began only AFTER the Nazis confiscated the German public's guns. ;)

[Ozwest]

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

"We must either assert our rights or submit and became tame and abject slaves"
- George Washington

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Wow!

I didn't know Mahatma Gandhi said that. That's interesting.

Thanks -

[christagious]

I attended a speech once, given by a retired reformed ex-burglar. He said the easiest pickings were in towns and cities with the BEST cops. The residents tend to let their guards down there.

Other deterrents and protections are alarms, dogs, and assumptions of probable/possible firearms.

do you remember the name of this guy?

[newyearsrevolution08]

The Holocaust began only AFTER the Nazis confiscated the German public's guns. ;)

I can 100% believe that it was the government and not the actual people indeed. Its sad who got labeled with that terrible history. It will be the same deal with our current government going around killing people for our domination as well AND we will be the ones labeled at that point.

[newyearsrevolution08]

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

"We must either assert our rights or submit and became tame and abject slaves"
- George Washington

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

I love checking out the quotes from smart people, great stuff.

[Truth Warrior]

do you remember the name of this guy?
Nope, sorry. It was a few decades ago, as I recall.

[Truth Warrior]

I can 100% believe that it was the government and not the actual people indeed. Its sad who got labeled with that terrible history. It will be the same deal with our current government going around killing people for our domination as well AND we will be the ones labeled at that point. Speak for yourself, it's not MY government, no more so than it's not MY Mafia. :D

[PatriotnMore]

A request has been made by a LEO from another forum I participate on, who is pro 2nd amendment, and pro shall issue CCW, for resource links.

Here is his request. " As you know, I am a LEO for a SoCal agency. Since I am one of the resident gun nuts, I have gun control discussions on a regular basis. One of the arguments against CCW for all is that cities which grant CCW's regularly, or places like Arizona with open carry laws, have higher percentages of officer involved shootings than strict no-carry cities.
I would appreciate any links to stats on this."

If you have any links SPECIFICALLY to this issue, I would appreciate if you could post them here, so I can pass them along.

[Truth Warrior]

Unarmed peasants may provide little resistance to all armed thugs, both government and other.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

this was in the headlines today... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=141327

[NaT805]

"Right-to-Carry Influence?

Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.

Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9140

[NaT805]

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp