Texans given deadly force gun laws

[rtwo]

It did in Texas!

Crime has gone down where citizens can legally carry weapons. By contrast, the places with the most violent crime is where the gun control laws are most stringent.

Can you provide statistics for these claims? And there is still the issue of why the US has more crime than other industrialized nations, including nations with strict gun control laws.

Just for the sake of fairness, would you kindly provide stats and sources for your claims?

[Guest LadyC]

these aren't texas stats, but they are very interesting facts on what happened when florida passed a right to bear arms law:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida United States

homicide rate -36% -0.4%

firearm homicide rate -37% +15%

handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

(3)

the numbers speak for themselves. florida's crime rates dropped while the rest of the US crime rates went up, regarding guns.

[apothanein kerdos]

Record Number Of Americans Jailed - Sun, 3 Dec 2006

WASHINGTON

[Tubal-Cain]

Just for the sake of fairness, would you kindly provide stats and sources for your claims?

No problem. NationMaster.com allows for comparing statistics from different countries. Here are links that give statistics about crime where you can see how the US ranks compared to other industrialized nations:

Adults prosecuted (per capita) by country

Assaults (per capita) by country

Murders (per capita) by country

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

Prisoners > Per capita by country

Rapes (per capita) by country

Here's a PDF with some tables about gun ownership and homicide rates. I'll summarize here:

Table 1: Percentage of households owning firearms in 1989 and 1992

Country - % in 1989 - % in 1992

England & Wales - 4.7 - 4.4

Scotland - 4.7 - N/A

Northern Ireland - 8.4 - N/A

Netherlands - 1.9 - 1.9

Germany - 8.9 - N/A

Switzerland - 27.2 - N/A

Belgium - 16.6 - 16.5

France - 22.6 - N/A

Finland- 23.2 - 25.2

Norway - 32.0 - N/A

USA - 48.0 - N/A

Canada - 29.1 - 24.2

Australia - 19.6 - 15.1

Spain - 13.1 - N/A

CSSR - N/A - 5.2

Italy - N/A - 16.0

New Zealand - N/A - 22.3

Sweden - N/A - 15.1

Table 2: Homicides per million

England & Wales 6.7

Scotland 16.3

Northern Ireland 43.3

Netherlands 11.8

Germany 12.1

Switzerland 11.7

Belgium 18.5

France 12.5

Finland 29.6

Norway 12.1

USA 75.9

Canada 26.0

Australia 19.5

Spain 13.7

CSSR 13.5

Italy 17.4

New Zealand 20.2

Sweden 13.3

So although the US has more guns than these other countries they also have the highest homicide rate. These stats seem to undermine the claim that gun control laws necessarily lead to more violence.

[Tubal-Cain]

these aren't texas stats, but they are very interesting facts on what happened when florida passed a right to bear arms law:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida United States

homicide rate -36% -0.4%

firearm homicide rate -37% +15%

handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

(3)

the numbers speak for themselves. florida's crime rates dropped while the rest of the US crime rates went up, regarding guns.

I'm not sure where you got your stats from but I found Florida crime stats here. The homicide rate in 1987 was 11.4 per 100,000 and in 2005 it was 5.0. For the US as a whole the homicide rate in 1987 was 8.3 per 100,000 and in 2005 it was 5.6. So it is incorrect to say that murder rates in the US went up. However, Florida has certainly had a more dramatic decrease in homicides than the US average over that period. Then again, Massachusetts is said to have some of the toughest gun laws in the country and their murder rate was 3.0 per 100,000 in 1987 and in 2005 was down to 2.7. The statistics do not point to an obvious solution.

[Eliyahuw]

This returns back to my original question - why are there so many convicted felons in American prisons if the "right to bear arms" is supposed to act a deterent against crime?

Simple, out of your statistics, break it down into what kind of felony. You can be a felon by bouncing a check. How many of these felons are non violent felons.

Guns are the popular weapon of choice by felons for a reason when it comes to engaging in crimminal act. Presumably, it gives the owner a decided advantage over the victim that no other weapon possesses.

Again what kind of felon?

If public access to firearms works as a deterent then America should have a lower crime rate than other countries with strict gun control.

The reason why is the number of states and lawmakers that shackle the owner of a gun with illegal and unnescessary restrictions. The fault also lies in the judicial system that will not put the violent felons under a jail or execute them.

If public access to firearms doesn't work as a deterent then America should have a crime rate equal to or greater than other countries with strict gun control.

Your also setting up another strawman. The second amendment was never implemented for defense against criminals. It was set up for controlling government. it was put in the constitution so that no one can be considered a traitor if the people rose up and fought against a illegal government. Best example of this was the Civil war. The second amendment protected the southerners from being tried and executed as traitors since they had the right to do so guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

Otherwise if they weren't protected, then Jefferson Davis would have been the first one executed after Lee Surrendered. Lee would have been the second to be executed and on down.

[Eliyahuw]

This returns back to my original question - why are there so many convicted felons in American prisons if the "right to bear arms" is supposed to act a deterent against crime?

Many of these convicted felons who commit crimes do not have their guns legally, and they obtain a gun on the black market, steal them, obtain them illegally, etc. solely for the purpose of committing a crime. On the other, if I own a gun legally, I will have a sign in my window warning a prospective criminal "BEWARE, ARMED AND DANGEROUS.... BREAK IN AT YOUR OWN RISK!!" They get the message loud and clear.

Whether felons get their guns legally or illegally is not the issue - the issue is why the public's "right to bear arms" doesn't translate into lower instead of higher crime rates?

With 230 million guns in circulation, felons already know that a substantial % of the population are carrying weapons but why doesn't that deter them?

It does translate into lower crime. Those areas of the country that pass legislation requiring people to own a gun have no crime. Those areas that pass legislation to allow open carry have low crime. Those areas that pass legislation to allow for killing criminals outside of your own property have lower crime.

its the areas like the northeast that ban guns and try to legislate them into uselessness that have the crime rates that soar.

one of the most stupid and ill thought out law ever passed was requiring locks on guns. A locked gun is about as useful as a boat anchor in a dessert.

[apothanein kerdos]

Again, who cares about statistics?

Are our rights based on pragmatism?

[Tubal-Cain]

its the areas like the northeast that ban guns and try to legislate them into uselessness that have the crime rates that soar.

The northeast doesn't seem to have soaring crime rates. Here's the amount of violent crime by state:

#1 District of Columbia: 1.379 per 100 people

#2 South Carolina: 0.774 per 100 people

#3 Florida: 0.696 per 100 people

#4 Maryland: 0.695 per 100 people

#5 Tennessee: 0.688 per 100 people

#6 New Mexico: 0.678 per 100 people

#7 Louisiana: 0.638 per 100 people

#8 Alaska: 0.627 per 100 people

#9 Nevada: 0.595 per 100 people

#10 Delaware: 0.56 per 100 people

#11 California: 0.548 per 100 people

#12 Illinois: 0.541 per 100 people

#13 Texas: 0.532 per 100 people

#14 Oklahoma: 0.497 per 100 people

#15 Arkansas: 0.494 per 100 people

#16 Michigan: 0.49 per 100 people

#17 Arizona: 0.487 per 100 people

#18 Missouri: 0.487 per 100 people

#19 Massachusetts: 0.46 per 100 people

#20 Georgia: 0.443 per 100 people

#21 New York: 0.441 per 100 people

#22 North Carolina: 0.44 per 100 people

#23 Alabama: 0.424 per 100 people

#24 Pennsylvania: 0.41 per 100 people

#25 Kansas: 0.373 per 100 people

#26 Colorado: 0.368 per 100 people

#27 New Jersey: 0.355 per 100 people

#28 Ohio: 0.342 per 100 people

#29 Washington: 0.339 per 100 people

#30 Indiana: 0.324 per 100 people

#31 Nebraska: 0.307 per 100 people

#32 Oregon: 0.295 per 100 people

#33 Mississippi: 0.293 per 100 people

#34 Montana: 0.291 per 100 people

#35 Connecticut: 0.286 per 100 people

#36 Virginia: 0.272 per 100 people

#37 West Virginia: 0.271 per 100 people

#38 Iowa: 0.27 per 100 people

#39 Minnesota: 0.268 per 100 people

#40 Hawaii: 0.252 per 100 people

#41 Rhode Island: 0.248 per 100 people

#42 Kentucky: 0.243 per 100 people

#43 Idaho: 0.239 per 100 people

#44 Wyoming: 0.228 per 100 people

#45 Utah: 0.228 per 100 people

#46 Wisconsin: 0.209 per 100 people

#47 South Dakota: 0.17 per 100 people

#48 New Hampshire: 0.166 per 100 people

#49 Vermont: 0.112 per 100 people

#50 Maine: 0.103 per 100 people

#51 North Dakota: 0.079 per 100 people

Weighted average: 0.4 per 100 people

6 states (including DC) above the weighted average and 5 below.

[Tubal-Cain]

Again, who cares about statistics?

Stat junkies and those who are interested in the best policy for cutting down on crime.

Are our rights based on pragmatism?

No, they are based on the law. However, the laws can change and so a debate over the best approach to fighting crime may (or may not) be helped by statistics.