Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (Wyoming: purchase, live in)

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

That’s not at all what I said.

I haven’t read the referenced study, and as such, can’t comment on it. However, even if I stipulate to the highlighted conclusion, it’s important to look at the positive uses of guns over the same time period. The actual numbers are rather “squishy” due to a number of factors, but reasonable estimates of the lawful uses of guns in self defense range from 10’s of thousands to millions per year, completely dwarfing the 2016 data presented above.

First of all, we are not arguing the same thing. Too many people in this debate equate "gun control" or "gun regulation" with banning guns, and it's a dishonest argument. One's ability to own certain types of guns does not mean one cannot protect oneself with other types of guns, nor do things like background checks ultimately impede that outcome.

Second, I question the conclusion you are drawing here about the "saved" figures. My first question is about the method in which all those people were threatened in the first place that they were "saved" by firearms. I suspect firearms themselves were a big part of the threat. My second is how most other nations with no laws protecting personal firearm ownership or with otherwise low rates of firearm ownership do not tend to have correspondingly high rates of homicide? After all, if people in those nations can't protect themselves with firearms, how are they protecting themselves? Shouldn't we be seeing huge numbers of murders all across Europe, for example?
Or are you arguing that Americans are uniquely violent people?

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

It’s a non-event, a thing that never occurred. It doesn’t cancel out anything.

But aren't we arguing that all people are in danger who don't own firearms? Should I expect to be murdered at some point due to my lack of ownership?

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

First of all, we are not arguing the same thing. Too many people in this debate equate "gun control" or "gun regulation" with banning guns, and it's a dishonest argument. One's ability to own certain types of guns does not mean one cannot protect oneself with other types of guns, nor do things like background checks ultimately impede that outcome.

Second, I question the conclusion you are drawing here about the "saved" figures. My first question is about the method in which all those people were threatened in the first place that they were "saved" by firearms. I suspect firearms themselves were a big part of the threat. My second is how most other nations with no laws protecting personal firearm ownership or with otherwise low rates of firearm ownership do not tend to have correspondingly high rates of homicide? After all, if people in those nations can't protect themselves with firearms, how are they protecting themselves? Shouldn't we be seeing huge numbers of murders all across Europe, for example?
Or are you arguing that Americans are uniquely violent people?

I'm a proud American and I'd argue all day long that we're pretty violent. We generally didn't come here because we got along great with people in our old countries. Hell, just look at American football and how violent a game that is.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

But aren't we arguing that all people are in danger who don't own firearms? Should I expect to be murdered at some point due to my lack of ownership?

This one's a batting-practice fastball. In theory, if there's a credible threat that any given person might have a gun on them, it will protect you from crime whether you're actually one of the people with guns or not, because fewer people will try to commit crimes overall. Not claiming the theory holds up in real life. But, surely you can see the logic.

It's a bit like how the Covid vaccine worked -- scratch that, how it was supposed to work. There were supposed to be enough people who were dead ends for the virus that the virus would stop circulating, allowing the people who declined the vaccine to be protected as well.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

I'm a proud American and I'd argue all day long that we're pretty violent. We generally didn't come here because we got along great with people in our old countries. Hell, just look at American football and how violent a game that is.

Who is "we"? Only a few small groups of people- like the Puritans- originally came due to not getting along in their home countries. The vast majority of people came for new opportunities, economics, etc., especially after the US actually formed as a nation. And aren't you just arguing that Americans- coming from so many different places and ancestries- are actually representative of the greater world and its people? That would definitely not support that Americans are uniquely violent people because "Americans" come from everywhere.

It's not the nationality, it's the tolerance of violence- but especially gun violence- that makes the US unique. But I would argue that based on polling, most people- including most gun owners- actually support gun control and regulations like training, background checks, magazine limitations, etc. So I'm not even sure if it's tolerance of gun violence so much as we are being held hostage by special interests who make billions on creating a culture of fear.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Who is "we"? Only a few small groups of people- like the Puritans- originally came due to not getting along in their home countries. The vast majority of people came for new opportunities, economics, etc., especially after the US actually formed as a nation. And aren't you just arguing that Americans- coming from so many different places and ancestries- are actually representative of the greater world and its people? That would definitely not support that Americans are uniquely violent people because "Americans" come from everywhere.

It's not the nationality, it's the tolerance of violence- but especially gun violence- that makes the US unique. But I would argue that based on polling, most people- including most gun owners- actually support gun control and regulations like training, background checks, magazine limitations, etc. So I'm not even sure if it's tolerance of gun violence so much as we are being held hostage by special interests who make billions on creating a culture of fear.

Is a country that is "representative of the greater world and its people" going to be more or less violent than, say, Denmark? More violent, right? Surely you don't disagree with this.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

This one's a batting-practice fastball. In theory, if there's a credible threat that any given person might have a gun on them, it will protect you from crime whether you're actually one of the people with guns or not, because fewer people will try to commit crimes overall. Not claiming the theory holds up in real life. But, surely you can see the logic.

It's a bit like how the Covid vaccine worked -- scratch that, how it was supposed to work. There were supposed to be enough people who were dead ends for the virus that the virus would stop circulating, allowing the people who declined the vaccine to be protected as well.

That's not how risk actually works, though. If you were in a situation where no one had a firearm, you would certainly be at a lower risk than in a situation where everyone, incuding you, did. Introducing a weapon into any situation will automatically increase the risk of it being used, intentionally or accidentally.

But that's not how vaccines work, either, because they all work differently. Some offer 100% protection, and some like the flu and Covid vaccines only decrease risk, not eliminate it completely. The problem with firearms is that as long as they are in a situation, they remain a threat to everyone within range. There is no such thing as 100% protection with a firearm.

[memph]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Yeah, that's not how things work. You can't just make things up and assume connections, especially when studies have consistently shown that more guns do not deter crime, and if anything, actually increase it. There's been an established relationship between gun proliferation and reduced regulations and gun violence.

Some want to assume the drop in crime is related to the new law, but it shows a lack of imagination for other possibilities. For example, why couldn't it be that crime would've dropped even more had the law not gone into effect, and that the law was actually keeping crime higher than it otherwise would've been? Without any real data, you can't assume anything.

Also, if guns are such a deterrant, why doesn't a nation with one of the most heavily-armed populations on earth have little to no crime instead of the very high crime rates compared to the rest of the Western world?

The US has a lot of social issues. Finland has one of the next highest rates of firearm ownership but much lower homicide rates.

Wyoming and Idaho are in the top 5 states for gun ownership and near the bottom for homicide rates.

States with lowest homicide rates (2022) vs Gun Ownership rate

RI 1.46/100k vs 13.9%
NE 1.63/100k vs 39.2%
IA 1.66/100k vs 38.5%
NH 1.81/100k vs 46.3%
HI 1.94/100k vs 9.1%
UT 2.01/100k vs 39.7%
MA 2.12/100k vs 9.9%
ME 2.19/100k vs 47.7%
WY 2.42/100k vs 60.7%
MN 2.59/100k vs 39.1%
NJ 2.74/100k vs 8.9%
ID 2.79/100k vs 57.8%
VT 3.41/100k vs 50.3%
ND 3.48/100k vs 53.3%
CT 3.77/100k vs 18.8%
NY 3.84/100k vs 14.5%

So you have states with high gun ownership with low homicides (WY, ID, ND, VT, ME, NH), states with medium gun ownership with low homicides (NE, IA, UT, MN) and states with low gun ownership with low homicides (RI, HI, MA, NJ, CT, NY).

Also, if you compare the northern plains/mountain states of the US to their Canadian neighbours, and the rural high gun ownership northern New England states to their Canadian neighbours, the Canadian provinces have much lower gun ownership rates, but it doesn't seem to lead to lower homicide rates.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

Is a country that is "representative of the greater world and its people" going to be more or less violent than, say, Denmark? More violent, right? Surely you don't disagree with this.

Why would that be a fair assumption, though? We can't say that because the situation in Denmark is not the same as it is in the US regarding firearms. In the US, 44% of Americans live in a household that has guns, with 32% owning them personally. At most, only 7% of Danes personally own them, so personal gun ownership is almost 5x higher in the US. This actually corresponds fairly well with the difference in gun violence rates. Gun violence deaths in Denmark run about 0.95 per 100,000, while in the US, the rate is about 5.9 per 100,000, or about 6x higher.
So it seems like personal gun ownership, at least in this comparison, is mostly correlated with gun violence, not the people themselves. It would argue that gun access is the main player.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

That's not how risk actually works, though. If you were in a situation where no one had a firearm, you would certainly be at a lower risk than in a situation where everyone, incuding you, did. Introducing a weapon into any situation will automatically increase the risk of it being used, intentionally or accidentally.

That's actually your argument? "If there weren't any guns, there wouldn't be any shootings?"

Surely you can see why people hear your comments and think, "he wants guns to be confiscated." Right?