Monday, December 14, 2009

More guns in the hands of good guys = Less crime


Pitt said...
Having been an LEO, I can tell you that Mir has obviously thought out his views and is frankly basing them greatly on reality. As a police officer we almost are never available to catch a criminal in the act or commission of a crime. What criminal is going to be stupid enough to commit a crime with the police around. Therefore if behooves the average person to have the ability to defend themselves.

Anonymous said...
"it's well shown that because the states have more guns, there's a lower crime rate"
WHAT!?
majority of criminals=everyday civilians=firearms more readily available and hence used.

There is a glaring hole in your logic. Look at all the cities in America with high crime rates (NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, DC). They all have very high rates of violent crime. These are the also interestingly enough the places with the strictest gun control. No handguns are allowed in DC, NYC, or the president's hometown, yet they have ridicolous crime rates. In the Florida, the first state to liberalize conceal carry laws, their crime rate dropped approx. 15% the first year they allowed concealed carry.

Do the math. Human beings are the only animals stupid enough to feel bad about defending their own lives.
December 14, 2009 4:44 PM


Good points Pitt.
Also notice how these terrible shootings that get so many people freaked, they always occur in “gun free” zones.
Some people would argue that it would work if the “gun free” zone was extended to the entire country… then again it would make a much better argument to extended the philosophy of the places where these incidents DON’T happen, such as gun shows, gun clubs and shooting range. You never hear about shootings in those places… and they are full of guns!

Criminals and psychopaths want victims, they don’t want a fair fights.
No one would start shooting bystanders in a place where everyone is packing.

One of the things every dictator and authoritarian government does sooner or later is try to take away the guns form the hands of the citizens. Not because of concern for their safety, but to leave them without weapons to defend themselves form tyranny.
No government, no matter how big military force they have available, can win against an armed society.

FerFAL

9 comments:

chinasyndrome said...

I wonder if all the anti gunners would feel the same way if there wife was raped in front of them and if armed could stop it.or child abdutced etc. Thanks ferfal.

Carrick said...

Those city's murder rates dropped after handguns were banned. It's not a cut and dry issue either way.

Successful economies, like the U.S.'s 15 years ago, saw urban murders concentrated in poor neighborhoods and primarily amongst players in the drug trade.

In a depressed economy, where more people are fighting over a smaller pie, the types of crime and who it affects will change (more robbery and more crime outside the drug trade.)

Guns rights advocates have a great case. They undermine it by simplifying the argument though -- especially when it comes to US urban gun violence statistics.

I live in D.C. We banned handguns here. Gun deaths didn't drop immediately, but that's because crack had made the city a war zone for rival drug crews. Eventually though, the harsh restrictions locked a lot of those characters away, and kept a lot of the next generation from risking the prison time.

sethmcdonald said...

The only people who will abide by the gun laws are the law abiding citizens. Bad guys will carry anyway, so why disarm the good guys?

Anonymous said...

Schools, post offices, sporting events, and liquor stores are all NPE for a CHL in Texas. Its ridiculous. An active shooter will specifically pick such a place because there will be no armed folks around. As we saw at Fort Hood, a place where soldiers could not carry handguns, the active shooter will disregard the law. These NPE laws are idiotic!

Anonymous said...

Well Carrick, what do you suppose would happen to you in DC when/if the SHTF scenario that FerFal has documented here happens? Don't answer that--we know the answer.

It's always nice to justify depriving people of their rights in the name of "good policy." The dissenters did this in the Heller case and it was strangely unremarkable.

There is a reason the Second Amendment was written and a reason it was #2 in the list of 10.

But if some people want to be vicitms, that's fine by me. Just don't expect to be remembered as some noble sacrifice who was killed by a professional criminal just so his city didn't have guns.

Anonymous said...

More weapons - more order? More weapons - less murder? Well, then Afghanistan, Somalia is the best country. Or, perhaps, a country like Colombia, where even the prisoners in jail armed? I recently watched on TV reportage on the Colombian prison. The prison is divided into 2 parts: one part are "paramitares", and in another - fighters from FARC. And they are armed, and guard the prison knows it perfectly.
I think all the contrary, more weapons - more violence. Think of another country - North Korea. Perhaps this is a country with very low crime rate. But live in this country, I would not have wanted. Then is better to live in Colombia:)
Well, you understand me. Need a reasonable balance. If all U.S. residents will be armed - the U.S. will be the second Afghanistan. I think the main problem is that the police can not protect citizens. And we should fight for something that the police are better fought with the criminals. And then the citizens will not need weapons.
Sincerely, Dmitry from Russia and Tajikistan

DB said...

@Dmitry:

The most careful studies I've read suggest that neither opinion is particularly accurate. More guns doesn't necessarily cause less crime, but it doesn't necessarily cause more crime.

As you note, there are very dangerous countries with prevalent gun ownership and there are also very safe ones. There are dangerous places with heavy restrictions and safe ones.

The best studies tend to note this as well, and the most reasonable conclusion I have seen to date is that gun ownership is essentially independent of crime.

Crime tends to depend much more on the health of the economy and to be related to corruption in general. This has little to do with guns. In that sense it may well be wrong to conclude that it is obvious that guns cause murder/crime.

BulgarWheat said...

The Number 2 pencil was responsible for my poor grades.

Pitt said...

Forgive my spelling in my original post.

Dmitry, my friend, you logic is twisted. America is a free society, and as such, I shouldn't have to ask your permission to do anything I want to do as long as my actions don't infringe upon your freedoms or harm another. This includes ownership of firearms, up to and including military style rifles, short barrel rifles and shotguns, silencers and full auto weaponry. The reason this is the case is that "LAW ABIDING PEOPLE" are not going to break the law and go on a killing spree just because they have a gun. and "CRIMINALS" aren't going to obey they law, no matter how dire the consequences, because they have no respect for the law.

The anti-gun people are fundamentally cowards that feel that law enforcement officers will put their lives on the line and will magically appear when they are mugged or their house is broken into. Anybody who keeps up with Ferfal's blogsite has already made up their mind to take care of themselves and their family and the biggest responsibilty that any man or woman has is to take care of his family and defend his home and hearth. I've been a cop, and I for one will not wait for the police to come and save me. The only thing cops get there in time to do is draw an outline around your body.