The Daily Wire: More guns, more crime? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 19 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

More guns, more crime?

#1 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 19 May 2012 - 04:58 PM

Here's just one example, to start with, Texas, the Wild West and all that.

Quote

VIEWPOINT: THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW: TEN YEARS LATER By Hon. Jerry Patterson

When the Texas Concealed Handgun Law took effect in 1996, pundits and naysayers predicted anarchy. Any minute, there would surely be mass violence as armed Texas citizens began roving the streets settling arguments with gunfire. Certainly, several proclaimed, within a year there would be blood in the streets as Texas returned to the days of the Wild West.

Ten years later the facts paint a different picture. Texas under the Concealed Handgun Law isn’t the Wild West, but the Mild West. No recurrent shootouts at four-way stops, no blood in the streets. Quite the contrary, Texans are safer than before.

But why are we safer? Why did the fears of the naysayers fail to materialize?

One of the reasons I authored Senate Bill 60, the Concealed Handgun Law, was because I trust my fellow Texans. Contrary to opinions expressed on almost every editorial page across the state, I knew that when law-abiding Texans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms was restored with the passage of S.B. 60, they would exercise good judgment and behave responsibly.

Ten years later, and the statistics continue to prove the point.

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.(continues)


Texas CCW
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#2 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 19 May 2012 - 06:36 PM

View PostRoderick, on 19 May 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Here's just one example, to start with, Texas, the Wild West and all that.

Texas CCW

okay... Don't you think there'd be a selection bias in the people who apply in terms of some wouldn't bother with a permit?

It's an interesting quote. How do those stats compare with nationwide? It's good that there's a percentage reduction, but what are the absolute numbers?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 19 May 2012 - 08:28 PM

View Postscotto, on 19 May 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

okay... Don't you think there'd be a selection bias in the people who apply in terms of some wouldn't bother with a permit?

It's an interesting quote. How do those stats compare with nationwide? It's good that there's a percentage reduction, but what are the absolute numbers?

There would be a selection bias, criminals are not given permits,

Generally Concealed Carry has seen a reduction in the States that allow it, which is the majority.
One State has virtually no gun laws at all and those who carry do so openly and its crime rate is very low.

Crime rates across the USA have been falling since 1980; the table at:
Table, crime stats USA
clearly shows a downward trend from 1980 to 2009.

During this period there was a large increase in gun ownership and concealed and open carrying of pistols.
The table is from the United States Census Bureau.

More guns, less crime?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#4 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:36 AM

View PostRoderick, on 19 May 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Crime rates across the USA have been falling since 1980; the table at:
Table, crime stats USA
clearly shows a downward trend from 1980 to 2009.

It seems the US, like us, has seen a general downward trend in crime for some time, perhaps this is nothing to do with gun laws at all in either country.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 May 2012 - 07:15 AM

View Postscotto, on 20 May 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

It seems the US, like us, has seen a general downward trend in crime for some time, perhaps this is nothing to do with gun laws at all in either country.

Perhaps so, in which case there is no need for the restrictive laws in this country but, remember, it is a mantra of the anti-gun brigade that 'more guns means more crime'.
At every opportunity we are exhorted to 'look at the US' as an example of what having a lot of guns does to a society.
Looking nearer to home, at New Zealand, they had laws as restrictive as Australia, they woke up, repealed the laws and wrote some sensible ones that abolished registration of rifles and shotguns; not only did they save public moneys but their crime rate with firearms is now less than Australia's. Canada, which was the model upon which our laws were based, has also done away with longarms registration and destroyed the data bases, because they also woke up to the fact that registration achieves nothing more than a great waste of money.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#6 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:35 AM

View PostRoderick, on 20 May 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

Perhaps so, in which case there is no need for the restrictive laws in this country but, remember, it is a mantra of the anti-gun brigade that 'more guns means more crime'.
At every opportunity we are exhorted to 'look at the US' as an example of what having a lot of guns does to a society.
Looking nearer to home, at New Zealand, they had laws as restrictive as Australia, they woke up, repealed the laws and wrote some sensible ones that abolished registration of rifles and shotguns; not only did they save public moneys but their crime rate with firearms is now less than Australia's. Canada, which was the model upon which our laws were based, has also done away with longarms registration and destroyed the data bases, because they also woke up to the fact that registration achieves nothing more than a great waste of money.

I understand your points, but were it the changes not brought in after Port Arthur, which was pepetrated with a longarm?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:49 AM

View Postscotto, on 20 May 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

I understand your points, but were it the changes not brought in after Port Arthur, which was pepetrated with a longarm?

Port Arthur was indeed perpetrated with longarms on an absolutely defenceless group of people, and it is their very defenceless that should have been addressed.

No one there present possessed a means of defence, had one person had a pistol the outcome may have been vastly different; we shall never know because the law made it easy for Bryant.

Where were tho police who, some say, are supposed to protect the citizens.

What should have been asked after Port Arthur was how to improve the system, how to avert such a thing happening again or to at least lessen the possible toll. Not allowing people the means of protection was not the answer.

Instead we had a kneejerk reaction of "not going down the American path", well the American path seems to lead to a reduction in crime and does allow the victim a chance to defend.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#8 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:49 AM

View PostRoderick, on 20 May 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Port Arthur was indeed perpetrated with longarms on an absolutely defenceless group of people, and it is their very defenceless that should have been addressed.

No one there present possessed a means of defence, had one person had a pistol the outcome may have been vastly different; we shall never know because the law made it easy for Bryant.

Where were tho police who, some say, are supposed to protect the citizens.

What should have been asked after Port Arthur was how to improve the system, how to avert such a thing happening again or to at least lessen the possible toll. Not allowing people the means of protection was not the answer.

Instead we had a kneejerk reaction of "not going down the American path", well the American path seems to lead to a reduction in crime and does allow the victim a chance to defend.

And here are back again at arming every person on the street. There's not a society in the world, literally, that thinks this is a good idea.

And again, there's no evidence to suggest that making gun laws more permissive has reduced crime in the US.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:10 AM

Who wants to arm every person on the street?

I am merely pointing out the fact that if one has a right to self defence then one also has a right to the means of defence.

If the State cannot guarantee that its citizens will be protected then what right does it have to deny them the means of protecting themselves?

When the State is in danger it doesn't hesitate to arm the citizens nor to coerce them, if necessary, to have arms and to learn to use them and to kill honest, law abiding people who just have the misfortune to be on the other side.

Yet, in peacetime, it denies the same citizens any effective, or, for that matter, ineffective, means of defence; remember it is an offence in Australia to possess anything for the purpose of self defence.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#10 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:48 AM

View PostRoderick, on 20 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Who wants to arm every person on the street?

I am merely pointing out the fact that if one has a right to self defence then one also has a right to the means of defence.

If the State cannot guarantee that its citizens will be protected then what right does it have to deny them the means of protecting themselves?

When the State is in danger it doesn't hesitate to arm the citizens nor to coerce them, if necessary, to have arms and to learn to use them and to kill honest, law abiding people who just have the misfortune to be on the other side.

Yet, in peacetime, it denies the same citizens any effective, or, for that matter, ineffective, means of defence; remember it is an offence in Australia to possess anything for the purpose of self defence.

It seems by your standard everyone would need to be armed in order to be safe.

And what level of guarantee do you think is adequate? If you demand an absolute guarantee of 100% safety, then obviously this is bound to fail, but it would be meaningless as it is impossible, as it is in any circumstances.

What measures are possible besides arming the population?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 20 May 2012 - 12:35 PM

View PostRoderick, on 20 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Who wants to arm every person on the street?

I am merely pointing out the fact that if one has a right to self defence then one also has a right to the means of defence.

If the State cannot guarantee that its citizens will be protected then what right does it have to deny them the means of protecting themselves?

You are making an awful lot of assumptions here:
* assuming that all these weapons would only ever be used in self defence
* assuming that weapons can never be taken off someone by force and used against them
* assuming that the weapons won't be used by someone in a rush of passion
* assuming that large-scale massacres like Port Arthur or Hoddle St won't be replaced by a greater number of smaller incidents involving firearms
* assuming that weapons won't find their way into innocent hands
* assuming that the rest of the community is just fine with the idea of thousands of potential vigilantes walking the streets with loaded weapons
* assuming that someone who kills someone else who is not directly threatening them won't be charged with murder
* assuming that there aren't already people in the community who carry weapons for our protection

There's no need for the community to arm everyone. We already pay people to carry weapons for our protection. These are called the police. You may have heard of them.

These massacres had one thing in common. Police showed up. Police who are paid by the community to carry weapons. The police did not kill the perpetrators. But their mere presence did stop further violence.

You might be just fine with the idea that a head shot is all that is needed to stop further massacres. However, if you are the one who does this head shot, you will probably be charged with murder if you are not directly threatened. What if you kill the wrong person?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 May 2012 - 01:32 PM

I made no assumptions, you did.
The police were not at Port Arthur that day and they arrived after the massacre.

The police usually arrive after a crime has been committed and act as the clean up squad.

Not that they do not put their lives on the line on occasions but by the very nature of things they cannot provide immediate protection to all citizens.

So how can people protect themselves against unlawful attack?

No assumptions just a few practical suggestions?

How could the carnage at Port Arthur have been stopped?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#13 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:33 PM

View PostRoderick, on 20 May 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

I made no assumptions, you did.

You ignored the points I made. Too difficult to refute?

Quote

The police were not at Port Arthur that day and they arrived after the massacre.

The police usually arrive after a crime has been committed and act as the clean up squad.

Not that they do not put their lives on the line on occasions but by the very nature of things they cannot provide immediate protection to all citizens.

So how can people protect themselves against unlawful attack?

No assumptions just a few practical suggestions?

How could the carnage at Port Arthur have been stopped?

Why are you so obsessed by this? You have posted numerous posts on this topic, threadjacking several threads to do so, and starting more besides. Most of us do not like the idea of self-appointed vigilantes roaming the streets with loaded guns. It doesn't matter how law-abiding they may be, a police check proves nothing because no police check in the world can predict the future - the gun may be stolen or taken from them by force - and then what? I would rather place my faith in the police force - after all, that's what they are for - than relying on the possibility that an anonymous, uncontactable vigilante may just happen to be passing by with a gun. You're assuming that the general public will trust a stranger with a gun - that stranger may be about to commit armed robbery.

In an emergency, dial 000 and ask for the police. It's more reliable.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:04 PM

The general public already trusts strangers with a gun; thousands of whom have high powered, repeating rifles in their homes, as well as shotguns and pistols.

My concern is the utter hypocracy of the Law allowing self defence but the politicians denying people the only effective means of such defence in all circumstances.

John Howard was a prime example, he wore body armour but denied the same level of safety equipment protection to vulnerable members of society.
He also had armed bodyguards.

" In an emergency, dial 000 and ask for the police. It's more reliable."

There is a saying that when danger is seconds away the police are only minutes away
-----------------------------------------
I didn't ignore any points that you made, unless you mean the assumptions that you attributed to me.

.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#15 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 May 2012 - 02:31 PM

I find it repellent that you think it's a good idea to put ranged weapons into the hands of people for "self-defence". The number of teenagers within 10 km of my home who've bled out on the streets in the last five years (about two or three) is ample proof of the utter failure of that concept. Those knives that they and their argumentative friends were carrying were for "self defence" too. At least with a knife there's no stray bullets to kill bystanders.

And don't give me that "licensed firearms" crap. You can pretend all you like that firearms would only be possessed by those who are licensed to own them. In that deluded fantasy world, pigs might fly too. In the real world, illicit drugs are easy to obtain, many teenagers walk the streets with knives (which is against the law) and criminals can obtain guns easily. It's a real stretch to assert that some imaginary line exists that would suddenly cause young people not to obtain guns illegally if they were more readily available. Once one person in a group possesses a firearm, everyone's got to have them. When hotheaded youths with firearms (some possibly obtained illegally) have a dispute and they go for their weapons, it's rather a stretch to imagine that a firearm won't be discharged at some point. Considering how frequently stabbings do take place, I wouldn't bet on the likelihood of the firearms always keeping the peace.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 23 May 2012 - 11:59 PM

The scenario of youths arguing and one of them pulling a gun, which then hits and kills a bystander, has already happened in Sydney some time ago. More would be terrific. Not.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#17 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:19 AM

But more guns means less crime.

So why don't we opt for less crime?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#18 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 24 May 2012 - 09:00 AM

View PostBam, on 20 May 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

You ignored the points I made. Too difficult to refute?


Why are you so obsessed by this? You have posted numerous posts on this topic, threadjacking several threads to do so, and starting more besides. Most of us do not like the idea of self-appointed vigilantes roaming the streets with loaded guns. It doesn't matter how law-abiding they may be, a police check proves nothing because no police check in the world can predict the future - the gun may be stolen or taken from them by force - and then what? I would rather place my faith in the police force - after all, that's what they are for - than relying on the possibility that an anonymous, uncontactable vigilante may just happen to be passing by with a gun. You're assuming that the general public will trust a stranger with a gun - that stranger may be about to commit armed robbery.

In an emergency, dial 000 and ask for the police. It's more reliable.


Starting new threads is an absolutely legitimate practice; if a site is to progress then it is also an essential.

So I'm accused of 'threadjacking', when and where? Pray tell.

A little less emotionalism and a tad more accuracy, on your part, would be welcome.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#19 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:46 PM

View PostRoderick, on 24 May 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

But more guns means less crime.

So why don't we opt for less crime?

But you haven't shown that at al. Why not opt for both?

Gun ownership is not a right.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 25 May 2012 - 03:34 PM

View Postscotto, on 25 May 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

But you haven't shown that at al. Why not opt for both?

Gun ownership is not a right.


America is almost always cited as the example of 'More guns means more crime' and as gun ownership has gone up there and crime has fallen then, on the same terms one can say that 'More guns means less crime.

Self defence is a Right therefore as a gun is often the only means of defence it is also a Right.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

Share this topic:


  • 19 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply