View Single Post
Old July 29, 2012, 11:46 AM   #168
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,695
Quote:
When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding...
OK.
So in the case of one State and two seperate types of offence, a change in gun law has probably effected a change in rates of incidence.

That is a far cry from saying that guns will affect the incidence of all crimes, or that the lack of guns will make crime rise.

There has to be the propensity for crime in the first place.

And, as I've said before, if you decide to follow that logic, then crime in the US should be very low, given its rank of world's highest rate of private gun ownership.

We know that is not the case.

So, irrespective of these two examples which, in isolation, uphold a direct correlation, overall any correlation is far from distinct and will have far more influential factors at play aside from guns. Guns may well play a part, but not the part....

On the whole the threat of bodily harm does not seem to stop people from deciding they're going to rob, or kill. If it was that simple, the States with the death penalty would have a lower incidence of murder than those without, yet in fact the opposite is true... Something greater is at play.

I simply feel that playing the crime rates card doesn't necessarily work in the favour of those who wish to defend gun ownership.

Rather than "guns help lower crime rates", for me the better arguement "guns allow me to defend myself when the police can't or won't while we all wait for the government to tackle the issues that cause high crime rates in the first place"...

And, as such, using the UK as an example of how the lack of guns causes crime to rise is misrepresentative, IMO.

By contrast a statement such as "illegally owned guns contribute to a higher crime rate" I think would apply to the US, the UK, Estonia, Australia and indeed most places...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; July 29, 2012 at 02:07 PM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06702 seconds with 8 queries