Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 19 to 22 of 22

Thread: Why bad teachers have jobs

  1. #19
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Why bad teachers have jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by arm-spin View Post
    I'd love yto see some studies that show more gun ownership = less violent crime. Like I've said, I have lived in one of the most violent and gun-filled places on Earth (south Africa) and one of the more peaceful and gun-regulated (Canada). However, I realize 2 countries are hardly a representative sample. Anyone got any studies about gun ownership decreasing (or increasing) crime?

    The US is one of the heaviliest armed countries already. I think there are too many variable invovled to correlate gun ownship and crime rates.:

    Fromhttp://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html
    % Households
    Country Year Population With Guns
    --------------------- ------- ----------------- ------------------
    United States 1993 257,783,004 39 %
    Norway 1993 4,324,815 32
    Canada 1992 28,120,065 29.1
    Switzerland 1994 7,021,000 27.2
    Finland 1994 5,088,333 23.2
    France 1994 57,915,450 22.6
    New Zealand 1993 3,458,850 22.3
    Australia 1994 17,838,401 19.4
    Belgium 1990 9,967,387 16.6
    Italy 1992 56,764,854 16
    Sweden 1993 8,718,571 15.1
    Spain 1993 39,086,079 13.1
    Germany 1994 81,338,093 8.9
    N. Ireland 1994 1,641,711 8.4
    Scotland 1994 5,132,400 4.7
    England/Wales 1992 51,429,000 4.7
    Netherlands 1994 15,382,830 1.9

  2. #20

    Default Re: Why bad teachers have jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by arm-spin View Post
    I'd love yto see some studies that show more gun ownership = less violent crime. Like I've said, I have lived in one of the most violent and gun-filled places on Earth (south Africa) and one of the more peaceful and gun-regulated (Canada). However, I realize 2 countries are hardly a representative sample. Anyone got any studies about gun ownership decreasing (or increasing) crime?
    Within the US, it's exactly how you describe it above -- higher rates of gun ownership/fewer gun control laws is negatively correlated with violent crime. Chicago and Washington DC are two of the best examples. Very tight gun laws and very high levels of crime.

    I'm not suggesting causality, but the correlation does exist.

  3. #21

    Default Re: Why bad teachers have jobs

    It really doesn't seem to be gun possession that makes a difference. The real difference is if people are allowed to carry concealed. The following information is taken from a variety of studies that have been done on the relationship of gun ownership and crime. Take it for what it's worth (emphasis mine):

    John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

    (Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

    From the conclusion of John Lott's latest paper titled, "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings,and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement:"

    The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings. Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per attack is also reduced, thus for the first time providing evidence that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. The results are robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable, different specifications of the handgun law variable, and the inclusion of additional law variables (e.g., mandatory waiting periods and enhanced penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime). Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant impact on multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that appears to have a significant impact. 1999

    I don't have the source for the following information any more:



    More guns more crime? More guns less crime? Without the entire picture, one could play all sorts of statistical games with the above data. Depending on the starting year and time frame, we could find "evidence" to support either position. However taking the long view it appears that the gun supply does not have a significant impact on total homicides or suicides. (Since 1945 the handgun per capita rate has risen by over 350% and over 260% for all firearms.)

    Kleck in Targeting Guns commenting on the gun stock relationship:

    "About half of the time gun stock increases have been accompanied by violence decreases, and about half the time accompanied by violence increases, just what one would expect if gun levels had no net impact on violence rates. The rate of gun suicide is correlated with trends in the size of the gun or handgun stock, but the rate of total suicide is not, supporting a substitution argument--when guns are scarce, suicide attempters substitute other methods, with no effect on the total number who die. Trends in the size of the cumulated gun or handgun stock have no consistent correlation with crime rates." Gary Kleck

    As for what reduces crime, here is an interesting hypothosis:

    The Chicago Tribune reported a surprising finding:
    "Two widely respected scholars studying the causes of the declining U.S. crime rate, one of the intriguing social puzzles of the decade, have reached a provacative conclusion: Legalizing abortion in early 1970s eliminated many of the potential criminals of the 1990s..."
    "Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and John Donohue III, a Stanford University Law professor, conclude that legalized abortion may explain as much as half of the overall crime reduction the nation experienced from 1991 to 1997..."

    "[T]he authors conclude that the women who chose abortion were those at greatest risk for bearing children who would have been most likely to commit crimes as young adults. These women are teen-agers, minorites and the poor--all groups of women who have abortions at higher rates than the overall population of women of childbearing age..."

    [I]t is not simply who has the abortion that leads to the lower crime rate...but the ability of the woman to choose better timing for childrearing that lowers criminality." (Los Angeles Daily News, August 8, 1999, pp. 1, 18)

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  4. #22

    Default Re: Why bad teachers have jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrestling_Prodigy View Post
    I'm sorry but that was one of the most ignorant things I've heard. If anything at all, we need more cops. Just the idea of cops is what makes so many people think twice before doing a crime. Then think what their presence can do. Less cops? I don't think so.

    Actually if you look at the stats of areas where gun ownership by responsible adults is highest you will find a decrease in crime. While areas that have lots of cops, still have lots of crime. I understand your unwillingness to believe that, but just do your research and you will find it to be true.
    There has never been a case in my life where police could have made a difference. By the time they would have arrived on the scene it was over and done with one way or another. I am a strong believer in self defense because I know that police forces are only good up to a certain point and then it falls on the individual to defend themselves.
    Trust me, we have more than enough police in this country, and not enough people willing to defend themselves.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •