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

We found 53 Reddit comments about More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)
Check price on Amazon

53 Reddit comments about More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics):

u/bestmaleperformance · 43 pointsr/Conservative

It really enrages me the hoops I had to jump through to own just a fucking shotgun in my state. I don't have an issue with "common sense" gun laws if they were actually based on common sense. If you want to run a background check on me, fine, I don't think limiting violent offenders ability to buy guns is a massive infringement on my rights (i know some disagree)

My issues were:

A. The waiting period, especially since I was brought to a police station once for defending myself in a massive brawl that broke out at a bar, they were able to run a full background check on me in under 3 minutes, and that was because the computer was "being slow as usual"

B. A whole day wasted at a gun safety course I had to wait weeks for and pay hundreds of dollars where you learn nothing, then fire 4 shots at a target.

C. Then I had to file paperwork with my local police and be grilled and made to feel like a criminal for wanting to have a firearm. It's then up to him if he feels like issuing me a gun and I wait months to hear if my application is even denied, what the fuck!?

I was at a diner when a guy came in and shot his wife to death over an impending divorce, she was a waitress. He emptied the revolver in her in front of everyone and just sat down. He could have easily executed half the people in the place if he wanted to.

When I was 16, I met some girls at the beach with friends, long story short, everyone is off on their own having some fun within a couple hours, the girl I'm with apparently has a boyfriend, who is completely insane and jealous (probably because his girlfriend is fucking everyone) so he pulls up with a shotgun and starts threatening to kill me, her, himself, etc. Luckily I was able to stay cool and talk him down, convincing him that his girlfriend didn't cheat on him, nor was I interested, thankfully for me we had already been done and just sitting on a bench talking.

Anyway fuck anyone that says you'll never need a gun or anyone who tries to keep you from protecting yourself, also the best fact based book I've ever read on guns and that no leftist is able to argue with

u/poundfoolishhh · 27 pointsr/news

You may want to check out More Guns, Less Crime. Which, as the name suggests, sets out to show just that.

Of course, like any controversial book... it has its supporters and critics.

u/glock2010mm · 17 pointsr/CCW

More guns less crime.

30 years of county-level data showing crime stats before and after Shall-issue laws passed. Critics can't disprove it no matter what control methods they use. It's in the 3rd edition which has been proving further that ccw laws and citizens carrying have a net benefit to society and the economy they reside in.

u/Dragoniel · 13 pointsr/progun

And most people seem to be convinced FBI data is flawless and absolutely correct in all regards. Hogwash, I was saying this for years - any statistical data on complex issues such as this is completely and utterly useless without a solid study for its interpretation.

Inconsistencies and straight faults with FBI statistics aren't news, if you did any research on the gun control figures. I always recommend "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", it explains in detail why and how the data ends up being incorrect or interpreted incorrectly, when interpretation is done without detailed understanding of data collection methods used. The book is also available on Torrent networks if it's too expensive for you, just make sure to get the recent edition, it contains more accurate (corrected) info.

u/notinmymoney · 11 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter

> There is no evidence that armed citizens equates to less crime

Actually, there is :

This is probably the number 1 book on data on gun control and crime rate correlation. I've only read excerpts of it and I'm not looking to debate anyone, but there is no better data out there that I can find. If anyone is a fan of Frekonomics, I can tell you the data and research in this book is leagues better and more comprehensive.

There was another paper about how burglary rate in london rose after they practically banned guns, because thieves know owner won't have gun. There was also another paper on how gun crime in austrilia went down after gun confiscation. Anyway, people should do their own research about this.

> There is no evidence that armed citizens equates to less crime. Just as there is no evidence that unarmed citizens means less or more crime either.

If, like you said, there is no evidence of gun ownership vs crime rate, wouldn't it be very concerning that we're legislating so much without data? Why push for gun control or ownership when there is no data to support its effectiveness? Anyway, that book is the best data I found, would appreciate if anyone can point to better research.

u/Dr_Scientist_ · 11 pointsr/changemyview

I have credibility issues with the organization you're citing from. While their "About" page is explicitly neutral (and that's genuinely admirable) every other inch of the webpage is taken up by mainstream conservative talking points. The books they want you to buy are: The War on Guns, More Guns Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns etc.

Their website seems determined to make the case that Europe suffers an equal share of gun violence with things like:

>UPDATE: CPRC Original Research: Of cases of at least 15 murders, all but two of the 25 worst mass public shootings, 59 of the worst 66, occurred outside the United States

>UPDATED: Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe

It really wants to hold up stats like Finland's one mass shooting to create their higher murder rate per million than the US, while trying to downplay more obvious facts like America's 350+ mass shootings last year alone. Also, if you go by CPRC's numbers, they estimate American mass shootings at a much more conservative 3 per year. Like they've only recorded 54 mass shootings since 1998.

Seriously. Check it out for yourself below or maybe click here if you don't want random files on your computer.


Do you see a pattern?

There seems to be a conscious effort to present a false consensus on gun violence. I don't know what the truth is but it's a lot more mixed opinion than this.

u/Markkus619 · 9 pointsr/brasil

Se até 2003, quando se entrava na primeira delegacia de polícia que encontrasse e rapidamente saia com um documento autorizando o porte de sua arma. Por que não era uma carnificina como argumentam que seria se liberassem o porte?

A mas o estatuto salvou vidas...
A resposta pra essa falácia esta aqui.

Sugiro ver os seguintes dado:

No Brasil, após a entrada em vigor do Estatuto do Desarmamento, os números de homicídios praticados com armas de fogo chegaram aos mais altos níveis da história, levando em consideração o crescimento populacional.

No Texas, quando se compara o perfil dos cidadãos que têm porte de arma com aqueles que não têm, observa-se que quem porta armas tem 7,6 vezes menos chances de cometer um crime.

O caso da Inglaterra é bastante emblemático. Assim como no Brasil, com a entrada em vigor do 1997 Firearms Act, lei que proibia o cidadão de portar armas, o país se tornou uma região fértil para a criminalidade.

De acordo com KERRY & LOVETT (2009), a Inglaterra (e o País de Gales) tem o maior número de estupros da Europa. A partir de 1997, ano de entrada em vigor da legislação contra a liberdade de acesso às armas o aumento de casos cresce a números nunca antes vistos.

Em 1959 a Índia começava a controlar armas. Nas décadas seguintes o número de homicídios bateu recorde sucessivos, até 1987.

WRIGHT & ROSSI por meio de questionário analisaram a relação entre os condenados e as armas.

Entre os muitos dados descobertos destaca-se este: 57% dos entrevistados disseram ter mais medo de um cidadão armado do que da polícia. Quase 90% deles acreditam também que um criminoso “habilidoso” deve descobrir se a vítima está armada ou não, antes de realizar o crime.

Considerando que utiliza-se a polícia ostensiva como forma de inibir o crime, o estudo aponta que uma sociedade armada pode ter mais efeito nessa variável que milhares de viaturas nas ruas.

KLECK & GERTZ (1995) procuraram entender melhor como as pessoas utilizavam as armas para defesa.

Uma das descobertas de seu estudo foi o fato de que na esmagadora maioria das vezes em que uma arma é utilizada para proteger alguém, nenhum disparo é efetuado.

Em outras palavras, não existe notificação policial, não há manchete de jornal e, não fosse por uma pesquisa como esta, ninguém ficaria sabendo.

O Ministério da Justiça dos Estados Unidos tem um dos estudos mais importantes do mundo sobre o estupro e as reações de suas vítimas.

Entre vários dados que corroboram a hipótese de que vale a pena reagir a um estupro, o mais expressivo é este: Em apenas 3% dos casos, quando a vítima está armada, seja com uma arma de fogo ou com uma faca, o estupro é consumado.

Aconteceu na Nova Zelândia o mesmo que já vimos em vários outros países. Em 1983 os neozelandeses começavam o seu controle de armas.

Nos anos subsequentes o número de estupros cresceu exponencialmente, de acordo com os dados do próprio governo.

Em 1983 a Nova Zelândia criava sua primeira lei de controle de armas. Os neozelandeses acreditavam que era preciso controlar as armas para evitar que os criminosos tivessem acesso a elas.

Nos anos seguintes a esta primeira legislação, os crimes violentos aumentaram a níveis inéditos.

Os políticos da Nova Zelândia, contudo, ainda não haviam aprendido a lição. Em 1992 promulgaram mais uma lei, que tornava ainda mais restrito o acesso a armas, em especial a armas longas semiautomáticas, como o Ar-15.

Os crimes passaram então a crescer em uma taxa ainda mais alta, conforme apontam os dados fornecidos pelo Ministério da Justiça da Nova Zelândia.

É possível inferir, que as restrições a armas – não importa de que natureza – não apenas não ajudam a coibir os crimes como podem fornecer um fator “protetor” aos criminosos, encorajando a prática dos delitos.

A análise criteriosa dos dados de acidentes, homicídios, suicídios e uso defensivo de armas de fogo, nos mostra que para cada caso de morte, 13 vidas são salvas com a utilização desta ferramenta.

Os dados em questão referem-se aos Estados Unidos, o país com maior número de armas por habitante do mundo

De acordo com LOTT & LANDES, leis que permitem o porte de armas tendem a reduzir: a) número de mortos em homicídios em massa; b) número de feridos nesses incidentes e, c) os próprios homicídios em massa ou tiroteios.

Desde 2003, ano da entrada em vigor do Estatuto do Desarmamento, os gastos reais (corrigidos pela inflação) com segurança pública crescem ano após ano. Ainda assim, todos os indicadores de crimes violentos apenas aumentam.

O estudo suíço denominado “Small Arms Survey” fornece rica fonte de informação sobre armas em todo o mundo.

Os dados levantados em Genebra, corroboram a hipótese de que existe uma tendência de que países com mais armas em poder do povo tenham índices menores de violência.

No Brasil, com uma das legislações mais restritivas do planeta sobre armas de fogo, chegamos ao patamar do país mais violento do mundo, sendo que aproximadamente 90% dos crimes são cometidos com armas de fogo.

No Canadá, com 30 armas para cada 100 habitantes, e uma legislação relativamente liberal, as armas de fogo – de fácil aquisição – raramente são utilizadas em crimes.

Em 1994, os Estados Unidos editaram a chamada “Federal Assault Weapons Ban”, uma restrição a determinados tipos de armas, criados na fértil imaginação dos desarmamentistas.

Como sempre, a desculpa era de que “ninguém precisava de um fuzil de assalto” e, como sempre, os resultados foram catastróficos.

GIUS (2014) examinou alguns efeitos das restrições de armas de assalto e uma das conclusões foi o aumento de 19,3% na taxa de homicídios.

Você já deve ter visto um desarmamentista tentando se aproveitar dos incautos, ao esbravejar freneticamente o suposto enorme perigo das armas em relação as crianças.

Primeiro, eles tentam fazê-los acreditar que armas causam acidentes e, sem demora, logo se lembram de incidentes extraordinários em que algum maluco armado invadiu uma escola e começou a atirar.

Mas o que a ciência e a estatística têm a dizer sobre isso? Será que o terrorismo em que se especializaram os desarmamentistas tem algum fundamento?

Além de o índice de acidentes com armas de fogo ser muito inferior a outras situações mais banais, como afogamento, choque elétrico, sufocação, quedas e envenenamentos, quando analisamos os dados estadunidenses de 1993 a 2011, notamos que enquanto a disponibilidade de armas de fogo – incluídos fuzis, pistolas, espingardas e revólveres – aumenta, o número de crianças mortas por armas de fogo decresce sistematicamente.

Mais uma vez, quem defende o desarmamento não consegue sustentar seus argumentos frente a dados simples.

No na parte de Estatística e Ciência tem todo o compilado. Se quiser mais a fundo vai ter que buscar os estudos.

De livros recomendo:

Mentiram Para Mim Sobre o Desarmamento

Preconceito Contra As Armas

More Guns, Less Crime

E as palestra e debates do Bene Barbosa

u/themanbat · 8 pointsr/CCW

Here's a site with some data saying among other things that Concealed Carry permit holders are about 5 times less likely to kill someone than the average citizen.

So just carrying isn't going to make you more dangerous. Sure you'll probably never need it, but it may save your life or the lives of others, so you might as well be prepared. Here's a list of some of the cases you never hear about where mass shooters were stopped by armed citizens.

The NRA has a great column called Armed Citizen where they report a few noted examples of guns doing good every month. It might be good to mention that a gun is no good to you if you can't get to it in time. Even if you are at home with the gun relatively close by, during a home invasion, the gun isn't going to do you any good upstairs in the safe when you are being beaten up in the entry way.

Also people aren't the only problems that a firearm can solve. Dogs can attack people. So do wild animals. The lady in this case was lucky, but having a pistol on hand might have helped her drive the bear off without getting scratched up so badly.!bB2aVN

There's also a great book called, More Guns Less Crime, that is chock full of studies on the subject.

u/wharris2001 · 6 pointsr/Conservative

Not astonishing at all to anyone who studied the issue. For a summary of relevant research from someone studying the data for decades, see



u/H335 · 6 pointsr/progun

What you are trying to do has been done by John Lott, including normalizing for gun laws, crime laws, demographics, urban vs. rural, etc.

His methodologies (which he covers in detail) may help you with your analysis.

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

Also take a look at Crime Prevention Research Center and

u/mrfurious2k · 4 pointsr/NDQ

It seems to me that most opposition (but not all) to firearms takes one or more of the following forms:

  1. Lack of knowledge: Many anti-gun protestors lack context, operational knowledge, and historical foundations of why the United States has the 2nd Amendment. Consequently, this leads to statements like "fully semi-automatic" or "sole purpose is to kill." This ignorance, while not malicious in intent, leads to uninformed assumptions and recommendations which sometimes achieve the opposite of what was intended. It can also ignore the evidence that shows that violence as a whole has been reducing for decades, much higher risks from other criminal (or daily) activities, and the fact that defensive use of firearms absolutely eclipses illegal use. This ignorance is magnified based on US media which seeks controversy and has its own biases and ignorance blindspots.

  2. Disagreement on the effectiveness as a bulwark against tyranny: Many in opposition either believe that an armed civilian populace would either be unable to resist the government should it become tyrannical, don't believe the government could ever become tyrannical, or believe that such a risk to be so minimal as not worth protecting against.
  3. Lack of compatible values: This may be the toughest bridge to cross. Some don't morally agree with the usage of firearms in any context. Like their pro-liberty 2A counterparts, arguments can quickly spiral into emotionally charged exchanges because people feel that disagreement is an assault on their core beliefs and values. This is often summed up by anti-gun crowd stating, "Some liberty must be curtailed for the safety and security of all" and the pro-liberty folks saying, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    So - where do we start? I would suggest that people who want to better understand the 2A folks read, "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. It's not that I would expect you'll come away from it with your opinions changed. Rather, it should give you some understanding of why people support civilian ownership of firearms for defensive usage. Additionally, I think given that the majority of the world does not enjoy the enshrined freedoms Americans have within the Constitution, they would have an even harder time understanding why some Americans feel that the 2nd Amendment is the guarantee for all of them. I don't have a solution on how to share that experience other than to talk to those people who can rationally entertain tough questions on it.

    Suffice to say, I think Destin and Matt did an extraordinarily evenhanded approach to the topic with the care and attention that they've given to many subjects. They were not there to be cultural warriors or to setup a debate. I think they were just sharing their thoughts and ideas on what continues to be a challenging topic of the day.
u/RebornShill · 4 pointsr/canada

No cause and effect was proven:

> There are some limitations to this kind of research, notably that they do not determine cause-and-effect: whether a state has fewer gun deaths because of the law, said Adam Winkler, a University of California Los Angeles law professor and second amendment expert. Other demographic characteristics -- such as education level, marital stability, rural or urban -- might explain the fewer gun deaths in a particular state. Setting that caveat aside, Winkler said Obama’s statement is true.

> ...

> The problem is, however, that this is an overly general statement. The research doesn’t prove a universal cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and fewer gun deaths; it might just be a correlation. Some laws are more effective than others, and other cultural, demographic or socioeconomic factors might be the driving force behind the number of gun deaths in different states.

This study by John Lott Jr. analysed the cause and effect of firearm regulations on crime. If you have an open mind, then you should give it a read.

u/triit · 3 pointsr/IAmA

If you are seriously interested in understanding why, I suggest you visit (specifically this page about defensive gun uses).

Or check out the book "More Guns Less Crime"

Academically and intellectually, it does make sense. It took me many many many years to accept this conclusion against emotion and what you think of as common sense.

u/ChristopherBurg · 3 pointsr/guns

You may want to brush up on your Google-fu and read what you submit. This story that you linked to is about a police officer who shot the homeowner instead of the criminal.

Otherwise you failed to show that somebody is more likely to have their gun taken from them than being able to use it in a self-defense situation (you'll noticed I posted collections of stories, you have two). Of course numbers of stories really aren't important here so I also submit a research book with cited sources that demonstrate having more lawful gun owners does decrease violent crime. If you would like to submit research material showing your side of the story that would help support your argument. I'll also submit another link for you to read supporting my side of the argument (when Florida introduced right to carry laws their violent crime went noticeably down).

u/Wellthatendedpoorly · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

That depends on the answer you are looking for. Do you want a philisophical discussion? The simple answer is that the second amendment is essentially just the right to defense. I am happy to dissect the language of the second amendment with you, upon your request.

If you want an answer on practicality, people have written volumes on it. Here is a good start:

Is there a specific topic you would like to discuss regarding gun crime or rights? Im even willing to talk about guns themselves (just not here. This being a political sub).

u/londubhawc · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Further, you should look into the statistics related to violent crime rates and gun ownership. While the UK compares favorably to the US in violent crime (the Troubles notwithstanding), you guys apparently compared even more favorably before the government started cracking down on firearms ownership. I'm also told that over here in the Republic, the Guardaí only really started wearing body armor in response to the increase in knife crime that allegedly spiked when the government over here made it irksome to get firearms.

But really, the most compelling arguments have come in the past few years. Even though the economy is shit here, too (unemployment is somewhere around 17% when you include people who aren't even bothering to look for jobs anymore), crime has been going down. This appears to be correlated with the increased firearm ownership resultant from people being terrified that Mr Obama would try to limit gun rights. Even more compelling is that Washington DC's murder rate dropped by something like 25% in a single year following the handgun ban being struck down.

I could go on, but really, I'll simply recommend you read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. Buy a copy, read it, share it with open minded folks. In my opinion, the more people who know the facts on the subject, the better off we are.

u/-Empire · 1 pointr/funny

No, but using aggressive violence against peaceful citizens to mold society into your ideal leftist totalitarian utopia is. Obviously we all want to reduce the number of homicides. The reality is that this is one area where the republicans actually get it right. It is incredibly naive to believe that outlawing guns will eliminate them completely, or even a little. Prohibition never works, whether it's drugs, alcohol, abortion, free speech, immigration, etc. Plus, the numbers are incredibly weighted towards the cause of liberty. More guns, less crime:

u/carlivar · 1 pointr/politics

or you could read this book.

The author isn't a right-wing gun nut. He is an academic with a PhD in economics.

u/youarelovedSOmuch · 1 pointr/btc

You're wrong on this one (good lord I can't believe I'm with Luke Jr lol):

Guns are a tool. They can be used to deescalate a situation or to escalate one. It's not banning bad guys from owning guns that reduces crime, it's arming law-abiding, decent people (which 99% are). This has been proven statistically hundreds of times. You don't, and will never, stop criminals. And you especially won't do it by taking away the liberty of law-abiding citizens. Instead, give each of them the ability to defend themselves. Guns are often times a deterrent, in and of themselves. If a criminal knows or believes someone may be armed, they are more hesitant to rob/assault/rape etc. them. Criminals always want the easiest, most helpless victims.

book link

Basically, the above book was written by a Stanford University/ University of Chicago economics professor who was asked by a student one day what he thought about gun control. He had never really thought about it much, and had little opinion of it himself, so he started reading some studies on it. Being an expert in producing university studies, he began seeing that almost all of the studies on gun control that were done properly showed guns did not increase crime, and the ones that showed guns did, were done extremely poorly, and were often funded by anti-gun groups.

If you don't want to buy a book, spend a few minutes and check these out:

video 1

video 2

The issue of guns is actually very interesting, and much deeper than I once realized.

u/ericnallen · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

How much are you willing to read:

  • Gary Kleck - Point Blank
  • [John R. Lott Jr - More Guns, Less Crime] (

    Both of these authors have attempted to do research into the question you ask. They both go into great detail (Kleck more than Lott) on what they did and what they found. Both interesting reads.

    One thing to keep in mind when asking "How many lives are saved by carrying a gun" is that many people will not report it to the police if they do. The hassle alone isn't worth it, and if you're in an area where the cops & DA have a hard on against gun owners reporting your defense will earn you a felony charge.

    That being said I've seen low numbers of 10-20K, with high being as many as 300K. I don't think we'll ever see good number on defensive gun usage; but I encourage anyone to read at least the above books and see what attempts have been made.
u/GetZePopcorn · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion
u/Landotavius · 1 pointr/SeattleWA

>Then they say that more guns would make us safe.

Seems like it might be true

>I can own. I choose not to because I see no reason to.

I can own. I do own. I see no reason not to. I see no reason why your choice isn't also the right thing for you and I approve of your choice to do so as you see fit. How about some reciprocity?

>You are currently more restricted with how you handle your dog, than you are in how you store your firearm when you aren't home.

Frankly, not sure this is true. Even assuming it is, that just makes the case that the govt is out of control with pet owners too.

>That could be said of a dozen things

And it still wouldn't be true.

>"It's dangerous. You need training." Then you say, "But you can leave them anywhere you wish."

It's a suggestion, not a command. And it's a free country. You shouldn't be irresponsible with how much you drink or eat, but you can, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

u/StabbyDMcStabberson · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/rogue780 · 1 pointr/baltimore

>Which jurisdictions and is it controlled against the gradual reduction of crime after the height of the drug war?

Not a direct answer, but a lot of the research, with admittedly controversial conclusions can be found here (note: site and book are related)

>I'm not sure what "violent crime increased" is factored, but intentional homicide rates have fallen to historic lows after the Australian gun crime. Switzerland has a different level of economic development than America.

To quote CybRdemon in this thread

>No Australias murder rate was dropping before the gun ban, it actually went up after the ban peaking in 2000 and is now back to the normal downward trend, just like the US murder rate has been dropping.

>The rate of armed robbery with guns in Australia did not change from 2001 to 2007, and the over all theft and robbery rate went up. Rape also went up and so did home invasion. The overall crime rate in Australia is higher than the US. In another thread[1] a user PhoenicianPirate had some good resources to show that Australia is not the paradise people think it is.


>When you include suicides, guns in a home are most likely to be used on yourself , a family member or a guest. Homes with guns are more dangerous than homes without guns, period.

Japan, which has a ban on guns has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. I believe it is the fourth highest, but did not look it up tonight.

>Criminals generally aren't going to take unnecessary risk.

Right now criminals who prey on your average person in Baltimore know that the person they are about to attack are unarmed. If they were more likely than not to face someone who is armed that would act as a deterrent and, in my opinion, reduce random violence.

>Too much of the gun culture in America is based on TV shows, movies and advertisements to sell guns. Too little of it is based on what happens to the average person in the average situation.

Like I mentioned before. When I'm out of state and it's permissible for me, I carry a firearm. I was also in the military for six years. Never have I fired a weapon at a person or a living animal. I carry, though, not because I think I'm going to get attacked or need to use it but mostly for the same reason I wear a helmet or a seatbelt. Not because I plan on using it, or even expect to, but just in case.

Also, most gun owners and CCW holders don't subscribe to the TV idea of gun ownership. Those people who are all cowboyed up about guns are generally airsoft owners or people who play COD all day.

>Anyway, major detour. Enjoy all the coming violence in Baltimore because of how fucked the city is economically and from the war on drugs. Not the first rash of violence and not the last of this year, sadly enough.

Honestly, as soon as we can, we're getting out of Baltimore and moving to a more peaceful and less restrictive state like Kentucky, Oregon or Washington State.

u/Irie267 · 1 pointr/guns

This is also the title of a book by economist John R. Lott that puts to bed to myth of more guns more crime. It can be found below and is a great read for pro-gun rights individuals:

u/phunkysox · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

In fact, gun-related crime increased for years after the 1996 “ban," and the only way disputants can claim that violent crime decreased is by widening the window of time beyond 10 years.

As John Lott has correctly noted, violent crime increased immediately after the “ban,” and homicides and armed robberies continued the upward trend until 2000, never dropping below 1996 levels until after 2010 (in the case of armed robberies, they still hadn’t gone below 1996 levels by 2010).

As Miguel Faria, MD. Noted, after the Aussie “ban” was insituted:

That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

John Lott also notes that gun ownership eventually returned to per-capita levels that mirrored the rates prior to the “ban.” So, first, the claim that the “ban” saw a resultant decrease in violent crime, including homicides, is false. Second, violent crime rates only began to decrease years later, as guns returned to Australian hands against the wishes of the politicians writing the laws.

All this while, the “ban” created what one might expect: a huge and dangerous black market for firearms in Oz. It seems many Aussies who wanted to use guns still found them, and peacefully-minded people were forced to go to the black market.

Meanwhile, during the same early-year period of the Aussie “ban,” the U.S. saw a staggering increase in gun ownership, and violent crime, including gun-related homicides and other acts, decreased dramatically.

And guess what? Even after Bill Clinton’s presidency inspired worried gun owners to keep and bear more arms, the per-capita ownership of firearms continued to increase upon his departure, and violent crime continued to decrease.

Here is the link to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting stats from 2007 to 2011 to prove it. Between 2007 and 2011, the number of violent crimes committed with a gun decreased by over 220,000.

As Larry Bell wrote for Forbes on a Pew studyof gun homicide rates between 1993 and 2013:

Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., violent crime and gun crime increased after their draconian gun “bans” of 1997. Over the next two years, as Dr. Faria and I noted in my book, “Live Free or Die”:

While robberies rose 81% in England and Wales , they fell 21% in the US. Likewise, assaults increased 53% in England and Wales, but declined 27% in the US.

Even the old image of the unarmed British Bobby was lost after the “gun ban,” as the U.K. government created armed “19” units to combat violence.

The “hot burglary” rate per-capita in the U.K. is also much higher (50%) than in the US (13%). That means that thieves don’t case a home as often in the U.K., and they do case them in the U.S. Why? As John Lott notes in his monumental book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” interviews with actual criminals tell us that they case homes to avoid confrontations with potentially armed residents.

So what is the takeaway?

How about this: criminals change their behavior when they suspect a potential victim or group of potential victims might be armed. They hunt for easier prey

u/HunterIV4 · 1 pointr/politicsdebate

> So go out the back door.

That's not an option in all homes. It's not in mine. I'd be in just as much danger in my backyard as I am in my house.

Why should I lose my right to defend myself because you can come up with ridiculous solutions to an attacker with a gun that risks my life and the life of my family? Why do you have that right?

>Where did you pull this out of?


>No one said you can't defend your home.

You literally just told me to try and run away, as if that's a home defense strategy. Sorry, I'm not risking my wife and daughter because apparently you think you can outrun bullets.

>By the way, I've been a home owner for over 40 years and never even thought of owning a gun.

Lucky you. You must live in a safe area. Not everyone has that luxury.

>Do you mean to tell me that I have been putting the safety of myself and my family at risk because I do no have a firearm?

Possibly, depending on where you live. Defensive gun use can save lives, and (by most estimates) saves more lives than are lost by guns (if you include suicides and give low estimates for DGU the values are similar, in all other scenarios DGU is more common than gun deaths).

If you are untrained or careless and living in a low-crime area guns probably aren't important for your safety and can be a detriment. For me, living in a higher crime area, isolated from rapid police response, and with many years of training in gun use my guns are rather important for my safety.

Your personal scenario does not mean my rights get overridden because you don't feel you need a gun. Nobody is forcing you to buy one.

u/MildlySuspicious · 1 pointr/Judaism

Yes, your absolutely right! It could be a lot of things... if only someone did an extensive study in the matter.

u/Zeno_of_Reddit · 0 pointsr/politics


"Criminal gangs in Chicago have plenty of ways of getting guns". See how that works? It's as if laws only apply to law abiding citizens because criminals ignore the law.

More gun laws do NOT lead to safer, healthier communities. The data is irrefutable.


As far as "everyone" seeing Trump commit crimes... you are not everyone. Your clique of conspiracy theorists is not everyone. Because if everyone sees it, how did it escape the attention of Mueller and his team of investigators?


Whatever. I'm done trying to talk reason to you, Patrick

u/Wahoop · 0 pointsr/AskEurope

There isn’t so much, and I’m saying it’s because of the proliferation of arms among all classes that acts as a deterrent. more guns less crime

u/UnionHat · 0 pointsr/Renton

The introductory clause of the Second Amendment is mildly informative as to what the Founding Fathers were thinking at the time, but it is just an introductory clause and therefore irrelevant to the declaratory part of the amendment which unambiguously instructs all future congresses: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations are built upon the inviolability of the federal constitution. If we can just change the way we "understand" the constitution because fashions have changed, no law, no regulation, no official opinion of any kind can retain legitimacy.

If we want to grab privately owned guns, the U.S. constitution generously provides a means of changing its most fundamental tenants. Until we pass an amendment displacing the Second Amendment, passing any mere Initiative simply dishonors the primacy of the constitution and destabilizes our entire society.

The idea that passing another law believing that it can control the behavior of the lawless is just silly. Thinking people know that no new gun law is about controlling the law breakers, they are about controlling the law abiding. One has to wonder why the law abiding need controlling and why any free thinking person would support the destruction of personal freedoms.
Read "More Guns, Less Crime"

At the very least, read the Wikipedia article:,_Less_Crime

Basing law on what we wish would happen leads to self satisfaction, but not to a safe society and certainly not a free society. Please don't be one of the timid citizens willing to trade your freedom for a perception of safety. You will end up with neither.

u/StGabriel5 · 0 pointsr/Catholicism

>The statistics hold whether we call guns an intrinsic evil or not

Actually the Church determines if something is an intrinsic evil, not 'statistics' or pragmatism. (Thank God!)

Of course society should have laws against murder.

The problem is a gun is a tool -- not a priori a murder weapon. A tool can be used for many things (something effete urbanites never seem to be able to get through their heads). In rural areas, however, guns get used for many conceivable tasks and uses.

I'm going to pass on the Vox source (a biased source if there was one) and present this instead: More Guns Less Crime

And this:

u/HMFIC_Sheepdogs · -1 pointsr/Idaho

Um, no as usual you are all turned around and confused. Brainwashed by your liberal buddies that aren't so much anti-gun as much as they are anti Joe Blow civilian having a gun.

Ever heard of John Lott? Well he was a liberal professor that wrote a book to show how bad guns were. Except after researching the book he became a gun rights advocate, got attacked by the left wing nuts like yourself and became one of the most pro-gun conservatives we have. You might want to read his book. Be careful though, it's full of truth and facts. Dangerous stuff for liberals to be exposed to.

u/anthozan · -1 pointsr/videos

You should read this article and this book. Contrary to what you may believe more guns do not equal more crime.

u/voidoid · -1 pointsr/TrueReddit

Somebody compiled it into a neat little book for you. But I'm done with this- you've made several claims with no statistics yourself, and I see no reason to push the thread further. It seems evident to me that crime fluctuates due to many factors, and I was simply trying to add two important points to the OP that were neglected. I'm not saying the entire reason that crime has gone down is because of higher gun ownership.

u/danimal2015 · -6 pointsr/chicago

third edition, many rebuttals and counters. Of course it's a controversial subject, so plenty of critics as well as supporters

u/knife_fight3601 · -15 pointsr/barstoolsports

Sick of the gun debate in here echoing the media talking points. Please read this book and get back to me.