Link between lenient gun laws and crime

Does anyone have any sites, data, videos, or anything to help support the argument that lenient gun laws like the ability to carry a concealed firearm have led to a decrease in crime rates? I'm looking for information specifically concerning the United States but I'd be willing to take anything concerning other nations as well.

Other urls found in this thread:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814691
law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
coventry.ac.uk/Global/08 New Research Section/FINAL EFFECT PROJECT REPORT.pdf
sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work
dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/remember-the-2007-harvard-study-showing-more-guns-led-to-less-crime/
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

no but an interesting thing to note. Due to the increase in 'mass shootings' California and Texas have decided to change their gun laws; however they are going in totally different directions.

California is tightening its hold on gun regulations, such as the upcoming assault weapons ban starting January 2017. Conversely Texas is going the opposite direction by loosening up gun laws and making it easier for citizens to obtain CCW and to open carry in more place; such as the law that took effect august 2016, allow ccw permit holders to carry within educational facilities.

My point is, this looks like a really interesting experiment. Both states have gone in polar opposite directions by introducing gun laws around the same time. I cant wait to see the effects in 5 years time

Oh wow that is pretty interesting, thanks for the info.

You will never find good statistics on this topic. The main reason being that it is always harder to prove a negative. I.E. A person hears rustling at their back door in the middle of the night (niggers trying to break in) and pumps their shotgun (universal sound for GTFO) and checks the back door and sees nothing. While we know from that statement their owning a gun prevented a robbery, said person goes back to bed and no data is reported on this incident. Thus it will not get recorded as a statistic anywhere. Situations like this are why firearm ownership makes people safer, but the increase in safety is hard to prove because the dindu ran off before getting blasted.

Well wouldn't the lack of crime as a result of firearm ownership be reflected in the data?

If you think this is an issue you are thoroughly retarded.

You can analyze the prevalence of gun ownership and the prevalence of home invasion type robbery.

You can even control for income (and therefore poverty), ethnic diversity and whatever factors you want using something called statistics.

None of this requires 'proving a negative', all it requires is examining the relationships between variables.

You could piece together some data. There is a gif that shows how many US states have changed their carry laws over the past 25 years. For the most part, carry laws have become much more lenient. Then you would just show violent crime and murder rate statistics during this period, which have dropped considerably as well. Bam. Argument. You could also pick a state that changed to more lenient laws and then show its violent crime rate drop. The counter to both arguments is that violent crime was dropping anyways (because of abortion, etc.). Regardless, it is very easy to piece together something that shows more lenient carry laws being implemented and crime statistics decreasing afterwards, it just won't be an air tight argument.

There's basically no link. Niggers commit most crime, and do so irrationally and impulsively. Guns just give people a right to defend themselves.

go kill yourself with a gun and contribute to the largest group of contributors that fall under the category of gun violence

no but seriously go fuck your mother

t. the saging sage

In the US, race is such an overwhelming factor in murder rates that it overwhelms most other factors, including gun laws.

The exception would be a quasi-police state like NYC which has specifically targeted "ghetto disarmament" as a goal, and has suppressed its murder rate a lot compared to a place like nearby Philly which hasn't.

Basically, urban blacks + guns = cataclysmic rates of murder.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814691

The author has done a lot of research on the subject. That is his latest.

>Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.

law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf

Come back and talk to me about guns when your country lets you have them faggot. On a more serious note please explain how you would go about controlling for all of the "variables" (also please list them for me) in order to calculate effectiveness while using the necessary "statistics". Turns out people have done this before and the results are biased as fuck "studies" that don't deserve to be mentioned. On both sides of the issue.

Not Australian. And we are allowed the same shit you are. More stuff if you include the fact that suppressors are unregulated. And Izmash and Tula, goodness right from the factory...

So you are two fails from two attempts so far.

Stop being such an ignorant faggot. Please.

And sure they are biased, becasue the choice of controls can have a huge effect on outcomes.

None of this has anything to do with 'proving a negative'.

Schrodinger's Nigger?

This is interesting. We'll have to look at the data ourselves if Trump loses, although in that case I think we'd have bigger problems.

Thanks a lot.

coventry.ac.uk/Global/08 New Research Section/FINAL EFFECT PROJECT REPORT.pdf

This report cost 600.000€ to the EU. It proves that the more guns owned by the population = the less crime.
The head of Interpol also argued for concealed carry as the only way to stop terrorism.

Of course, since that report didn't fit the leftist narrative, it was completely ignored despite its cost in the making of the new EU gun law, which aims to restrict and ban always more.

Check out gunfacts.info for a brief sourced overview. Read 'the bias against guns' for a more in depth understanding and eye opening stats.

I carry a Glock 29 and have never been robbed.

How about linking the number of niggers and spics with gun crimes.

Oh, Canada.

>Links report
>invents own interpretation
kek

There's this article sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work

Is interesting to see how crimes rise after a gun ban and how handguns related crimes, something that shouldn't possible to get after a tougher gun control, rise a lot and they need 20-30 years to go back to levels before the ban.

My opinion on this is that gun bans affects negatively the general population, sure is harder for everyone to get weapons, but criminals will find a way to hide their guns when the ban starts or to get them with the black market. The goverment should focus on cracking down the black market of the country instead of going against the guns of everyone.

Australia.
The top chart says it all.
When China decides to invade, which will be soon after the South China Sea shooting war begins, they won't have much resistance.

>In a combined country and individual-level analyses these results remained, and in addition it was observed that the high availability of firearms was associated with lower levels of victimization by contact crime in general, suggesting a potential deterrent effect of availability. In countries where firearms were more available, non-owners were more likely to be victims of gun related violence and homicide

You haven't even read a single line from it. Now about you go fuck yourself?

You just making it up to suit yourself, here is another line.

> Consequently, there is no internationally comparable data available to map trends in
victimisation due to gun enabled crime.

IIRC when Chicago originally adopted CCW laws, it's crime rates were at the absolute lowest it has ever been in the city.

It's been a shit show since they stared tightening it up.

>Admitting limits in the data equate to an about face on what is says

Seriously bong?

Why do you want everyone as weak and open to victimization as you?

Oh shit, nevermind, seems pretty clear.

ha ha ha ha
It's a shame you forgot to include the last bit of your quote from the report, here let me finish it.

> suggesting that gun
ownership may increase the likelihood of violence escalation.

>> suggesting that gun
>ownership may increase the likelihood of violence escalation.

That is not a problem because the escalation is then controlled by the victim. If unarmed, violent escalation of an already violent crime might not be as likely, ie a robbery or rape might not escalate to more violence.
But in these cases, if the violence is escalated by the armed victim the escalation itself is not a problem because it just means the victim could defend himself with dignity and ultimately experience LESS physical violence than if he had not been armed.

Learn some critical thinking if you want to argue guns, as the debate is as much philosophical and moral as it is statistics.

2007.
Trends still hold.

Not even going to bother any more with a faggot who cannot even greentext properly.
I would tell you to kill yourself, but Muhammed and Abdul are going to get the job done soon enough.

Again you are just desperately trying to interpret things to suit yourself.

If this super-duper report says that carrying guns makes for a safer society, then why is the modern world restricting them?

>inb4 American levels of paranoia re: Muh Tyranical Gubmint.

>Not even going to bother any more
No - because you tried to cherrypick a line from the report but failed to include the rest of the sentence. Which I happily found for you and disproved your comment.

>>>/leddit/dgu

How many anecdotes makes a data?

Are you one of those cucks who believe that something is right or morally consistent because it is written in the law? Because that makes further arguing a waste of time.

>inb4
But that is literally the case. After the cold war ended, disarmament groups, both GOs like the UN and NGOs alike, turned their gaze upon private gun ownership so they could continue to exist and live of off tax money.
That is a literal objective truth, just like every oppressive government system sought to disarm it's people.

>disproved your comment.

Which was immediately BTFO by my comment.
Stop ignoring arguments, shill.

What a shitty map. USA has 5 times the homicide rate of many European countries yet it's shown in the same colour. Heck, even Canada has nearly 3 times fewer murders per 100000 people.

I don't really believe tight gun laws would have much an effect on crime rate. However, it might significantly reduce the number of incidents such school shootings for example.

Do you really believe that policy is made from a clear eyed analysis of fact?

Because if so, you are just as retarded as the most paranoid anti-government hack, just in the other direction.

that's cause the snow niggers are too drunk to care

Qualifying comments do not disprove major conclusions.

If violent escalation is risk, but victimization is lower and overall armed homicides are lower, the data is consistent with both statements.

They said the first thing first because it had a bigger effect.

The only thing you have proved here is your inability to read research.

Just because I disproved your comments, it doesn't make me some sort of libtard.

I couldn't give a toss about gun ownership, if I want one, I could go and get one myself.

But I do get concerned when people try and falsify shit to suit themselves and their agenda.

Like this - Do you honestly think you BTFO of my argument? . . . .seriously?

Yes:
The state of New Hampshire

>inb4 American levels of paranoia re: Muh Tyranical Gubmint.
Tyrannical BRITISH gubmint, son.
Irony, or bantz? I'll be the judge.

*violent escalation risk/offense is raised but...

1/10

>USA has 5 times the homicide rate of many European countries
Looks like you're wrong.
Every country decides what 'homicide' means.
For example, Britain doesn't count it unless there's a conviction.
>govt doesn't lie!1!

Yes, and made essentially the same argument.

Explain how the risk of 'violence escalation' is a problem or somehow conflicting with the rest of the research. Otherwise you have been BTFO.

>Britain doesn't count it unless there's a conviction.
When will this meme end.

Crime statistics are recorded as incidents, not as convictions. There are different sets of figures but yet again - choose whichever suits you eh?

>resorting to meme tier shitposting
Pathetic

Increasing potential for violent escalation on a smaller number of cases = less homicides overall.

When you count on the fact that a greater proportion of these homicides will be justifiable self defense, the net effect is clear.

You do understand the concept of net effect right?

Book called "More guns Less crime"

There is very little link between guns and crime

The major link is between racial demographics and crime

I have this.

>When you count on the fact that a greater proportion of these homicides will be justifiable self defense
>fact
Good heavens are you for real?

nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murder-rate
Egypt 0.8
Finland 2.5
It all depends on who's counting.

Look up John Lott. He's done a ton of work on the topic

>still not an argument

If only the criminals are armed, there is ipso facto no potential for law abiding citizens to escalate. I mean are you going to be able to escalate in pursuit of self defense with your government registered plastic butter knife?

No its illegal, which would make you a criminal for protecting your property and person.

so yeah, I am for real.

Depends, are you still claiming the report doesn't show large reductions in crime and overall violence because when people have guns they might resist the now rarer attacks more violently?

Try more guns less crime.

dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/remember-the-2007-harvard-study-showing-more-guns-led-to-less-crime/

>Crime statistics are recorded as incidents, not as convictions. There are different sets of figures but yet again - choose whichever suits you eh?
So if you find a body, but never get a conviction, it's still in your official homocide stats?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

>australia 92
>pol has been implying straya is shanking country
You lied to me, pol.

Wikipedia uses the data from UNODC, it's the same for everyone.

Also, can you explain why you had 20 school shootings last year while we had 24 school shootings in last 110 years? Are US children so disturbed?

More schools, more children, more guns

less cars less wrecks, less pools less drownings etc etc

>your government registered plastic butter knife
Let me remind you of your comment here >resorting to meme tier shitposting

You are assuming that criminals in Britain are wandering around with guns, which despite what you hear, is simply not the case.

This is bullshit too.

As you lot so often laugh in your Brit-Bashing threads. "throwing a biscuit at somebody is classed as assault and listed as a violent crime"

It's almost impossible to reference cross-country statistics due to the way they are recorded.

And YES and incident is still recorded regardless of a conviction.

I had an argument tied up in their buddy, not my fault if you choose to ignore it...

...

>20 school shootings last year

No we didn't.

With "we" I meant "Europe". ~500 million people. We haven't had a single school shooting in Slovenia yet.

If murder and violent crime drops while gun assaults rise, does that mean more gun assaults are defensive uses?

>inb4 their

There was no argument, you resorted to silly memes. It's not illegal to protect yourself or your property - you have been spending too much time on Sup Forums

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

>it's the same for everyone.
No. Crimes are defined differently in every country.
>Also, can you explain why
Freedom has responsibilities. You could have zero crime. Just deploy enough army and police.
All of our mass shootings occur where guns are banned.
> last 110 years?
Picking a start time is vital is you want to manipulate statistics. Slovenia has had whole villages wiped out. US? None.

>And YES and incident is still recorded regardless of a conviction.
Ok...but is it an official homicide if there's no conviction?

Why do people focus so much on school shootings or mass shootings anyway. They make up a tiny percentage of gun deaths which themselves make up a tiny percentage of deaths

Nice quads, bullshit post.

You cannot protect yourself effectively or escalate if you are at a severe disadvantage in terms of weaponry.

It is becoming increasingly clear you do not actually want to discuss this.

If you were just going to say yes and then talk about something I didn't say, you could have made the response shorter.

Yes, of course. There are loads of unsolved murders, they are still recorded as such, they don't disappear just because there is no conviction.

Same for other types of offences, even stolen bikes.

Surprisingly, things are very different in Slovenia vs. the U.S.

Mass grave of 700 people found in Slovenia - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/slovenia/7989567/Mass...

Sep 08, 2010 · Mass grave of 700 people found in Slovenia Investigators in Slovenia have found a mass grave containing the remains of 700 people murdered in the weeks ...
World War II mass grave found in Slovenia - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11223612

Sep 07, 2010 · A mass grave from the end of World War II has been discovered in Slovenia. The 20m-long pit near the town of Prevalje is believed to contain the …
LiveLeak.com - Slovenian Mass Grave Could Be Europe's ...
www.liveleak.com/view?i=d96_1201544430

Slovenian Mass Grave Could Be Europe's Killing Fields. ... A mass grave in Slovenia could turn out to be the largest in ... secrecy kept 1950 Korea mass killings hidden ;
World War II mass graves open a wound in Slovenia - The ...
www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/news/22iht-slovenia.1.7995453.html

Oct 22, 2007 · ... World War II mass graves open a wound in Slovenia. Advertisement. ... World War II mass graves open a wound in ... "The killings that …
Slovenia: Maribor Remembers Mass Killings of Romani and ...
roma.idebate.org/.../slovenia-maribor-remembers-mass-killings...people

Slovenia: Maribor Remembers Mass Killings of Romani and Sinti People. Maribor, 1 August (STA) - A ceremony to remember the 70th anniversary of mass killings of ...

Easy to manipulate emotions with. Even I need to do a double take about it because the first thing that comes to mind is my own kids who might get shot by a madman.

>There are loads of unsolved murders, they are still recorded as such
The point was homicide stats.
You keep dodging the question that You called me out for.
Is an unsolved murder classed as homicide?

Because they are high profile media events.
Unless blacks did it then it didn't happen.

He's a classic libtard moving the goalposts and ignoring arguments. Initial idea of aborting discussion was warranted.

All murders are always homicides. Not all homicides are murders...

>Crimes are defined differently in every country
UNODC used UNODC definition of an intentional homocide.
> Freedom has responsibilities
Europe doesn't have freedom or what?!
> Slovenia has had whole villages wiped out
Would you mind telling me when was that? In WW2? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Listen - if there is a proliferation of guns, even for 'self-defence' then incidents of gun crime will rise . . . that's indisputable.

If there are more guns in circulation, then the chances are 'baddies' will get them too, especially from an inept idiot who doesn't know how to handle their gun or has it removed from them by somebody with a gun to their head.

Not everybody is Jason Bourne.

>All murders are always homicides.
No. Each country defines those terms for themselves.
Here in Texas, I can shoot a burglar breaking into a neighbor's house.
A Brit is a felon for stabbing a burglar in his own house with a plastic spoon. Or so I hear.

Wow, how retarded can a person be?
You literally go and compare WW2 crimes with school shootings? I won't even comment on that it's too idiotic.

Oh please, that's a record of every single time a firearm was discharged on a campus, whether it was an actual shooting or not. Considering how large a campus can be, the neighborhoods that surround them and the sheer amount of guns in America. 20 is fucking nothing and a number that was only reached with an incredibly generous definition of "shooting".

Regardless of who has them, the evidence is that a higher prevalence of legal firearm ownership is associated with lower levels of victimization, including violent offenses...

It doesn't matter if civilians aren't Jason Bourne, because criminals aren't either.

The stakes are raised for everyone and it has a deterrent effect.

List of countries by gun deaths:
Honduras: historically lax gun laws
Venezuela: gun crime rose dramatically after gun laws were imposed
Swaziland: licenses only given after background check
Guatemala: carry a gun -> go to jail
Jamaica: no guns without license
El Salvador: no guns without license
Colombia: no guns bigger than 9mm
Brasil: no guns outside house
Panama: freedom to carry gun as one pleases after simple permit process
Uruguay: no handguns under 9mm
US: constitutional right to bear arms

Any correlation here?

>justifiable homicide isn't homicide
You need to brush up on what these terms actually mean if you are going to argue them.

>and it has a deterrent effect
NO.
>The stakes are raised for everyone
YES

>UNODC used UNODC definition
Thanks, Captain.
>Europe doesn't have freedom or what?!
No.
>Would you mind telling me when was that? In WW2?
It started when humans first emigrated there from Africa.
The last 20 years of your history is unprecendented and not a trend-maker.
Being self-righteous doesn't work for you.

>Listen - if there is a proliferation of guns, even for 'self-defence' then incidents of gun crime will rise . . . that's indisputable.
And yet evidence says the opposite.
You can't choose your own facts.

>I suck cocks for a living
You're right, user. Just make up their quote. It's easier.

>And yet evidence says the opposite.
I don't know what to say anymore . . .I really don't!

I think he got it backwards. Pretty sure he meant
>All homicides are murders

...