Crime rate...30 year low!
- Thread starter telewinz
- Start date
- Status
wild billz
Member
crime rate
I just read an article about the crime rate on CNN. They recognize a series of factors that contribute to it, but fail to mention the increasing number of states that allow CCW. IMHO CCW, and laws such as the recent ones past in Florida removing civil liability from people who have to shoot to defend themselves, plus fortifying the castle doctrine as contributing factors. If crime had increased, you can be certain the passing of the AWB would have been listed as a contributing factor.
I just read an article about the crime rate on CNN. They recognize a series of factors that contribute to it, but fail to mention the increasing number of states that allow CCW. IMHO CCW, and laws such as the recent ones past in Florida removing civil liability from people who have to shoot to defend themselves, plus fortifying the castle doctrine as contributing factors. If crime had increased, you can be certain the passing of the AWB would have been listed as a contributing factor.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
There shouldn't be any rapes, murders, thefts, etc. We should be living in Utopia. It's all Bush's fault> 
Lone_Gunman
Member
I don't think CCW is likely to have contributed much to a lowered crime rate.
There are so few people who actually take advantage of carrying legally that I don't think the criminals are even taking this into account.
The crime rate is lower because unemployment is low, most people are working, and the population is aging.
There are so few people who actually take advantage of carrying legally that I don't think the criminals are even taking this into account.
The crime rate is lower because unemployment is low, most people are working, and the population is aging.
Liberal sociologists Peter Wright and James Rossi did a study back in 1986 (published as "Armed and Considered Dangerous -- A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms") where they interviewed well over 1,000 felons (in prison). If I recall correctly, they found that 34% of criminals had been shot at, threatened with a gun or held for police by their intended victims. 46% said they had broken off an attack because they thought or knew their intended victims were armed.
Then we have self-proclaimed Democrat criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University circa 1993 and, of course, John Lott in 1996 (who specifically answered this question in the affirmative).
It doesn't take a lot of people being armed to raise the concern of criminals. Two percent of adults being CCW permittes in those states appears to have had an effect. A higher percentage would do more, but then we run into the law of decreasing returns.
Rick
Then we have self-proclaimed Democrat criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University circa 1993 and, of course, John Lott in 1996 (who specifically answered this question in the affirmative).
It doesn't take a lot of people being armed to raise the concern of criminals. Two percent of adults being CCW permittes in those states appears to have had an effect. A higher percentage would do more, but then we run into the law of decreasing returns.
Rick
Think again Lone, In FLorida the criminals now watch the rental car places for potential victims - they know they are tourists and very unlikely to be armed. Criminals are NOT that dumb - many do think about the danger presented by their targets.
The Real Hawkeye
member
The available data demonstrates that you are mistaken. Starting with Florida, the adoption of Shall Issue invariably results in reductions in violent crimes. The reason is not necessarily, as you suggest, because of vast numbers of people carrying concealed and successfully deterring or stopping crime. The effect that passage of such laws has is to create a situation in which bad guys don't know who is and who isn't carrying the ability to put their lights out.
This has been demonstrated to be true by sociological studies of violent offenders in prison. They report that they are deterred by knowledge that citizens are potentially carrying a lawful means of killing them should they choose the wrong victim. In many cases, they will go out of their way to either commit their crimes in areas where citizens are not permitted to carry legally, or else choose potential victims who are not residents of the States which authorize carry, i.e., they will target tourists instead of residents, assuming that tourists are not as likely to be authorized to carry the means of putting their lights out. This also, by the way, corresponds perfectly with common sense.
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman
Member
I appreciate the information, but I am not sure the reduction in crime rate and the increase in CCW is anything more than coincidental.
I think there are many other variables at play that occurred at about the same time as CCW laws that have affected the crime rate. Low unemployment rates, increased prosperity and standard of living, and an aging population also have played roles in reduction of the crime rate.
CCW may play some role, but I am not convinced it is the main role. There are very few people carrying guns legally from a percentage standpoint. The chances a criminal would pick someone who has a CCW and is carrying at the time is low. Most people with CCW don't carry guns on a daily basis anyway.
I don't have any studies to back any of this up, its just my opinion, and you are free to believe any studies you want to that support your own position.
I think there are many other variables at play that occurred at about the same time as CCW laws that have affected the crime rate. Low unemployment rates, increased prosperity and standard of living, and an aging population also have played roles in reduction of the crime rate.
CCW may play some role, but I am not convinced it is the main role. There are very few people carrying guns legally from a percentage standpoint. The chances a criminal would pick someone who has a CCW and is carrying at the time is low. Most people with CCW don't carry guns on a daily basis anyway.
I don't have any studies to back any of this up, its just my opinion, and you are free to believe any studies you want to that support your own position.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Your opinion is pretty amazing when the facts which contradict it are considered. It seems like you didn't even read the above posts. It has nothing to do with actual numbers of cases where crooks are stopped by CCW licensees. It has to do with the knowledge that anyone might be carrying. Additionally, if what you say were true, the reductions in crime rates would have been over the entire nation at about the same time, but instead they followed a state by state sequence in accordance with the passage of Shall Issue laws. This piecemeal association even predates Florida Shall Issue. It all started in Kennesaw Georgia back in (I believe) the early 1980s www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm) when the local government passed an ordinance requiring every household to have a gun in it for the purpose of crime prevention. That community (not the entire nation as a whole) experienced an immediate reduction in all sorts of violent crime, even though the law had nothing to do with concealed carry. It was the perception of a favorable attitude towards general gun possession for the purpose of crime prevention that did it. Nothing else. Didn't matter if more crooks weren't actually shot. It was the perception of the community being favorable to the usage of firearms by ordinary folks to deter crime that did it. Sociological studies have since confirmed this hypothesis.
Last edited:
Pilgrim
Member
What a marvelous idea for a vacation. Are there any travel agents booking these tours? Do you need a professional hunter as a guide? Does the agency provide Rolex replicas and gaudy jewelry so you look particularly rich and vulnerable? Are taxidermy fees included? Do they guarantee at least one trophy head?
Pilgrim
Exactly. I used to travel quite a bit in my last job. Once I flew to San Diego, and rented a car at Avis. I pulled out onto the main drag, then pulled over to consult a map. As I was doing so, I noticed a white blur out of the corner of my eye. It was two hispanic dudes in over-sized t-shirts, running towards the passenger door. One of them had a bat. I guess he planned on breaking the window.
I just sped off; never even checked for cars before merging (nice move, genius!). Luckily there weren't any cars coming. I pullled into a shopping center 2 blocks later and explained to a cop what happened. I didn't really get a good look at the guys, just that they were darkly complected wanna-be gangbangers, but he said he'd go back and look. I followed him, but the 2 were long gone. He said that his department was specifically tasked to watch that area for exactly what almost happened to me, as there had been numerous occurances recently. The criminals know car renters are likely distracted, in a strange city, and without protection.
The Real Hawkeye
member
This phenomenon with rental cars (after passage of Florida's Shall Issue law) became such a problem that rental car companies had to stop putting stickers, special tags, and such on their cars indicating that they were rentals. The problem has diminished since this step was taken.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think there are other factors than CCW involved in the rental car situation.
Tourists are more likely to have large sums of cash on them than locals. Maybe the criminals targeted them for that reason.
Tourists are also less familiar with their surroundings, and don't know where trouble spots are. They are also more distracted, and thus not as situationally aware.
The crime rate against rental car drivers went down after the cars were no longer identified as rentals. This fact indicates there are reasons for crime to go down other than CCW.
As for the situtation in Kennesaw, I have not seen crime statistics from there lately, but do know that Kennesaw was never a high crime area. I would suspect the crime rate is lower in Kennesaw now than it was a couple of years after the "requirement" to own a weapon was put into effect. This was just a publicity stunt, and gun ownership did not go up in Kennesaw as a result.
Tourists are more likely to have large sums of cash on them than locals. Maybe the criminals targeted them for that reason.
Tourists are also less familiar with their surroundings, and don't know where trouble spots are. They are also more distracted, and thus not as situationally aware.
The crime rate against rental car drivers went down after the cars were no longer identified as rentals. This fact indicates there are reasons for crime to go down other than CCW.
As for the situtation in Kennesaw, I have not seen crime statistics from there lately, but do know that Kennesaw was never a high crime area. I would suspect the crime rate is lower in Kennesaw now than it was a couple of years after the "requirement" to own a weapon was put into effect. This was just a publicity stunt, and gun ownership did not go up in Kennesaw as a result.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Lone Gunman, your retorts make no sense, which makes me wonder whether you have an ulterior motive for not understanding some relatively simple concepts.
jefnvk
Member
I'm gonna have to agree with Lone Gunman. An abundence of guns in a low crime area is no more an indicator that they are the cause, than an abundence of guns in a high crime area are the cause of the crime. Certainly, they can be a contributing factor, but I believe there are other, probably more helpful reasons that the crime is high or low.
Vermont Guy
Member
John Lott addresses this objection specifically. Although few get permits the ones who are most at risk get them at higher rates.
Lott's methods also allow other factors, such as employment rates, contributing to the crime rate to be filtered out.
I would add that I suspect that the criminals most likely to be affected by CCW aren't really up on their statistics.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Since we are not dealing with a laboratory, naturally, there are other factors involved. The question a scientist asks is which factors have become "variables" and what are the correlations associated with those variables. Shall issue is a variable with correlations attached to it, and these correlations are observable. Conclusions can be drawn with scientific validity based upon observed correlations with this variable, and have been. I would be willing to bet my house that if tomorrow you lifted every restriction on gun ownership and carry in Washington, DC that the violent crime rate there would plummet observably within months. If DC went Vermont, DC's violent crime rates would closely match those of Vermont's within a relatively short period of time. This pattern has been observed too many times to be a random coincidence, as you guys seem to suggest.
Now don't get me wrong. Even if the pattern were the reverse, and respect for gun rights resulted in sky rocketing crime rates, I would still be opposed to gun control on libertarian grounds, but there is no point in ignoring the obvious benefits to society of fewer gun restrictions.
Now don't get me wrong. Even if the pattern were the reverse, and respect for gun rights resulted in sky rocketing crime rates, I would still be opposed to gun control on libertarian grounds, but there is no point in ignoring the obvious benefits to society of fewer gun restrictions.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I am not sure what I said that is so confusing. Quite a few other people have agreed with me in this thread, so I guess some people must understand.
I am not sure why you are accusing me of having an ulterior motive. What motive would that be? Am I a spy for Hangun Control Inc.?
Don't get me wrong. I support CCW, but I think the reasons for a decreasing crime right are numerous and complex, and can't be completely explained by increased numbers of people carrying.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Than we do not disagree, Lone Gunman, as I concur that there are multiple factors involved, since the real world is not a laboratory. My point was and is that any scientific study would control for other factors when the factor whose effect they wish to test is Shall Issue laws. Those studies have concluded that Shall Issue is an important factor in violent crime reduction. They have even determined the primary reason for its success in this regard, i.e., criminal perception, upon the passage of said laws, that the likelihood of their being shot in the course of their occupation is elevated in Shall Issue locals (regardless of what you say the statistical realities are, this is the criminal perception), and they move elsewhere, or choose other less risky types of criminal occupations, i.e., other than those requiring actual contact with their intended victims.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I understand what you are saying Hawkeye, but I would also express my concern that statistics like these are easily manipulated to give the particular result someone is looking for.
The anti-gun crowd can point to "studies" done by the CDC to show that gun ownership is dangerous. We quickly discredit those studies as biased, and just don't think we should be guilty of doing the same thing.
Whether or not CCW reduces crime is irrelevant, though. The right to bear arms is a Consitutional, God given right, and does not need to be "justified" with statistics. We diminish the importance of inalienable rights when we try to justify them; by their very definition, inalienable rights do not need to be justified, as they are granted by our Creator, not man.
It gives our enemies the grounds to claim that if a right cannot be justified, then it is not inalienable, and does not exist.
Even if someone showed me a study that said CCW increases crime, I would still be in favor of it.
The anti-gun crowd can point to "studies" done by the CDC to show that gun ownership is dangerous. We quickly discredit those studies as biased, and just don't think we should be guilty of doing the same thing.
Whether or not CCW reduces crime is irrelevant, though. The right to bear arms is a Consitutional, God given right, and does not need to be "justified" with statistics. We diminish the importance of inalienable rights when we try to justify them; by their very definition, inalienable rights do not need to be justified, as they are granted by our Creator, not man.
It gives our enemies the grounds to claim that if a right cannot be justified, then it is not inalienable, and does not exist.
Even if someone showed me a study that said CCW increases crime, I would still be in favor of it.
The Real Hawkeye
member
To quote myself a few posts back:
So we agree, it seems on this too. But now, at least, we get down to the reason behind your foot dragging in accepting the results of these studies. You are concerned that this will permanently shift the issue of the right to keep and bears arms to a cost/benefit analysis. I get it. I see nothing wrong with a two pronged assault, however.
- Status
