Reddit reviews More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)

Since you're clearly a hoplophobe you'll probably be turned off just by the title, but this book does an excellent job of proving it. It wasn't written by a 'gun nut' but by a researcher who actually expected different results from his study than what he found.

Because the bad guys are always first to follow strict gun laws. Check out the book, More Guns, Less Crime.

In the scenario you provided, the "proliferation of more weapons" does nothing to protect your child. Children under the age of 18 cannot carry handguns. So the odds of survival for your kid are roughly the same now as they were before the SCOTUS ruling. They stand the same likelihood of becoming victims of gang crime now as they did before. They also are just as UNLIKELY to be shot by a stray bullet from a law abiding citizen as they were before because if you read the new laws for the city of Chicago, gun owners can not take their guns outside.

Now, if Chicago were to change the laws to be more like the rest of the nation, perhaps there would be less random acts of gang violence against law abiding citizens for fear of encountering an armed victim. If you really are interested in this topic, I recommend John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. And if you are really interested in protecting the life of your child while he or she is walking to school within Chicago city limits, I recommend you sew kevlar into their backpack or move to a different state.

If anyone didn't know, the author, John R. Lott, Jr., also wrote the famous book "More Guns, Less Crime".

>It's stupid, there're no facts backing it up

Actually there's a whole book about it. More Guns, Less Crime

> you don't see anything wrong with a city full of people carrying guns at all times? is this the best way toward safety?

I see nothing wrong with that, at all. Except no one has the right to bring anything onto your private property without your consent. And as far as it being the path way toward lowering crime... the answer is a resounding yes. Or Kleck's book. Or this (pdf), pages through 649-694.

I understand your concern. Believe me, I do. Criminals shouldn't have guns. Violent men and women shouldn't have them. But gun control doesn't prevent them from obtaining them. That's the logical failure of gun control advocates. Gun control doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, it prevents innocent civilians from defending their loved ones and property. At its core, gun control handicaps in favor of the criminal-minded, against the law-abiding citizen.

Keep in mind that countries like Somali have strict laws against weapons ownership. Matter of fact, the law is written that civilians are not allowed to own automatic weapons. Yet they do and in great number and each year pirates and so fort increase in numbers. The reason why is really two folds: one the government can't stop it and two there's no enforcement of the laws.

I suggest reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636 which pinpoints gun ownership and lesser crimes.

Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet per year they have the highest rate of gun-related deaths. Yet in cities where they have policies for gun ownerships, especially a permit to carry a weapon, tend to be the safest city with fewest crimes.

Sure. I mean there are no studies that show more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens actually decreases crime... oh wait there is. Likewise Florida's violent crime rate dropped when they passed right-to-carry laws.

There are also endless stories of people successfully defending themselves with firearms.

> I think the way to a better world though is not through forcing guns out of peoples hands but having them willingly put them down (sport and hobby guns excluded).

Once the criminals stop using weapons us law abiding citizens will be glad to also stop carrying means of self-defense.

I'll also mention your first claim can't be verified for one reason. In order for the claim to be valid we have to know with certainty that the criminal wouldn't have shot the victim if the victim didn't have a means of defending themselves. If you take any self-defense class they teach you if you're being mugged just give the guy your valuables and hope he'll be on their way.

In most cases the only reason the victim will use a firearm in self-defense is if the criminal has made it apparent that violence was going to be used against the victim even if they did comply. It's highly likely that had the robbery victim not had a gun in the cases you're claiming they would still have been shot but the criminal would have gotten away without any resistance.

I downvoted you, but I thought I'd actually reply too.

I was just looking for your opinion on rape?

By your logic, they (the victim) should just stop fighting? Less chance of being "killed" right?

The big bad bullies want your car? House? Wife? Children? Just give it to them! Avoid confrontation, it is safer!

The fact of the matter is that people have the right and ability to protect themselves. If the citizens of this country were stripped of that ability, crime would increase, because only police would be able to protect you (and there is a very limited number available at any given time, in any given location).

I'll just leave this here, and Google has plenty more...but I gotta run...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.a65d5a7d2280Q

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott

Well, emotionally, of course I agree. However, following facts, I have to disagree: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

And in a gunless world, the guy with the biggest crossbow reigns supreme. I don't seem to recall much less violence before the invention of gunpowder.

And look: Things that are true on a micro level are also true on a macro level: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

> unless you're saying that crime has dropped independent of police coverage...

I'll say that! Lots of people say that, for example there's the More Guns, Less Crime argument and the Freakanomics pro-abortion argument.

So we can go ahead and cut the police force, and their pensions, now - right?

http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Now Just. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Idiot.

I'm sure either one of us can write a detailed and well researched paper on the levels of gun ownership, the income disparity, the racial makeup and level of violence in the United States, RSA and other nations.

For me, I recommend reading John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime as a very well researched book deconstructing that very assumption that you assert.

> Giving people guns doesn't just make everything better.

I'm sorry, I disagree strongly. Violent crime is nearly non-existent in well-armed societies like Switzerland. The US would be a lot better except the main driver of violence is the drug war.

>but I wish people did more training.

I do too. I'd love it if "big government" had free shooting ranges, gun safety videos for kids in classrooms, maybe even free gun safety and marksmanship classes.

Switzerland does things like this. If we brought our troops home from every overseas deployment, and replaced that $500 billion expenditure with $10 billion a year for gun ranges, marksmanship training, and ammo to practice, I think we'd have a much better society.

>Intruders should be punished, but when a gun is involved someone tends to end up dead.

If only more intruders could get shot, they would stop their practices altogether. There are studies indicating strong correlations between the level of gun ownership and whether home invasions are commonly attempted.

>Regardless of being a criminal at that moment, it's stuff worth a life?

That's not the issue. The issue is that many times you don't know if a criminal is armed. That's why castle doctrine exists: if someone is in your house illegally and you genuinely fear they are a threat to kill you, you have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. They initiated the dangerous situation, they bear the risk.

>We do need to figure out how to reduce crime,

End drug prohibition. 50% of violent crime ends tomorrow.

>but giving people guns doesn't make crime stop.

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Here's a book full of statistical analysis that demonstrates with facts and figures exactly what I've been saying: More Guns, Less Crime.

Australia tried to ban guns, so Now you guys stab and slice each other instead. And the citizens are left defenseless.

Obviously you can only take guns away from the innocent citizens, and you can never take them away from the criminals. If you think society is better off by disarming honest, innocent citizens, then you're so stupid I can't help you.

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

I think so, and there have been various published studies on the issue. I think the threat of retaliatory violence diminishes the chance of violence. The counties with the highest gun ownership have the lowest number of crimes, for example. Washington DC has some of the strictest gun laws but some of the highest levels of crime.