General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Caused the Two-Decade Dip in Crime Rates? Not ‘Good Guys with Guns.’
Gun rights advocates claim concealed carry is the answer to stopping criminals. The data says that's simply not possible.[img]
[/img]
In the aftermath of the Oregon college shooting that left 10 people dead and nine more injured, conservative politicians and pundits offered their familiar prescription for halting mass shootings: even more guns: “If you had a couple of the teachers or somebody with guns in that room, you would’ve been a hell of a lot better off,” said GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. Ted Nugent, an NRA board member, went event further, saying that just about every member of our populace should carry a concealed weapon. “Disarmed and helpless is an irresponsible, suicidal choice that will get you killed. Defend yourself.”
These proclamations stem from the increasingly popular belief that people carrying concealed firearms deter criminals and mass killers. Indeed, the foundational tenet of the National Rifle Association’s agenda — Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity, permitless carry, and forcing schools to allow concealed carry — is that more “good guys” carrying guns in public will reduce crime and make society safer. In states with RTC laws, it is exceedingly easy to become a “good guy with a gun”— one only needs to pass a background check and a basic gun safety course. In some states like Arizona, you don’t even need a permit; so long as you’re at least 21 years old and not a criminal, you’re free to carry. This push for no-hassle concealed carry is almost unanimously shared by Republican presidential candidates. Trump, for instance, recently touted his support of national RTC reciprocity.
Gun rights advocates frequently highlight the fact that from the early 1990s to today, violent crime nationwide has fallen precipitously, with gun homicides declining 49 perecent. This dip in all types of violent crime happens to correspond with a dramatic surge in the number of states issuing concealed carry permits. Those same advocates, usually citing studies conducted by pro-gun researcher John Lott, contend it is the rising number of good guys with guns on the streets that is responsible for the lower crime rate. But this line of argument runs counter to the facts.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)People don't go out as much (money)
People certainly don't visit theaters as much. (CDs, Netflix and again, money)
People stay home and buy things more (The web)
That's just my 3 perceptions but I'm sure others with add more.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Is associated with stopping the use of lead in gasoline.
Increased use of DNA forensics.
The aging of the baby boomer generation.
JI7
(89,247 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,813 posts)the data is compelling.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)It makes sense.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)could really make a difference.
However, one thing no one has mentioned yet is decreasing lead in the environment, mostly by getting rid of lead in gasoline.
I honestly think it's a combination of these two things.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Do you mean "fewer kids" because they were never born in the first place? And is that conclusion based on the assumption that all of those kids would have been criminals?
Warpy
(111,245 posts)Now you take him out and play with him.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)same observed fall in crime rates occurred in every developed country, not just the USA, including those with more liberal abortion laws. The environmental lead exposure hypothesis seems much more convincing based on the evidence (especially the observed time lag in reduced crime rates in countries that eliminated leaded gasoline later).
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Know what's best for others, expect a byproduct that produces an opposite outcome of epic proportions.
Wounded Bear
(58,647 posts)or is it rule of the other thumb? 
Never mind that....other important rule, follow the money. When examining "Conservative studies" look for the profit motive behind them.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The meme used (and still used) by gun-controllers that "more guns = more crimes" has not been proven.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder
It's my understanding that murder is a 'crime.'
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)So, more guns, fewer gun owners.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The "fewer gun owners" assertion is based on studies employing unverified phone surveys ("unverified" meaning no validation of the accuracy of responses). When you employ that methodology in a survey about a controversial topic, you might as well use the results as birdcage liner. When quizzed on a controversial topic with personal implications for the subject, people lie. It's the same problem as the one with Gary Kleck's infamous "2.5 million defensive gun usages" survey, only in the opposite direction: false negatives instead of false positives.
While it's only anecdotal evidence, I have to reflect on the fact that of the couple dozen or so gun owners I've broached this topic with, not one has stated they'd tell a researcher they owned guns. Not one. And fwiw, at least half of them are fellow liberals..
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)based on type of question and have toolkits available to adjust for such resistance. Most people do not lie if asked questions that are properly constructed.They are more likely to refuse to answer the question than to lie.
Top of my head I'd guess that one of the ways a survey researcher could tell if there was intentional lying is to compare available data on gun registration in the same geography and by key demographics'
Logical
(22,457 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)As I mentioned, Kleck's study has the same crippling flaw as the survey that purports to show dwindling gun ownership: people lie to strangers about shit like this.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I know survey methodological best practices rather well. I have also examined the questions in polls of this type, and don't consider them adequate to sufficiently reduce false negatives. While you're correct in stating more people will refuse the question than will lie, I still consider false negatives in surveys of this type to be a crippling flaw and the results extremely suspect. It's extremely difficult to construct questions that, in the end, have simple yes/no answers in a way that makes that bipolar response anything other than completely obvious to the respondent.
Comparing gun registrations to survey responses might help adjust for skewing (in states that have registration...the majority do not)...but only if the information available from an FOIA request included the number of unique individuals with registrations in their name. Total number of registrations isn't useful in determining number of gun owners (since, obviously, gun owners vary widely in the number of weapons they own). I'm not sure number of individuals with registrations would be available...worth looking into.
As others have pointed out, one place where hard, verifiable data on this question is available is the state of Illinois, where a Firearm Owners ID is required to possess guns and to make purchases of new ones. The former part of the requirement, ownership, is a poor indicator, as many gun owners who had guns prior to the ID requirement and have made no new purchases at retail will ignore the ID requirement. But with new retail purchases requiring that the buyer show their FOID card, the number of new purchases is informative. Again, not a perfect indicator (as some of those new ID will be issued to existing owners who elect to comply), but a goodly percentage will be to genuine new owners...and the state has issued a LOT of new FOID cards. I doubt very much that Illinois is an outlier in this matter. Certainly a better indicator than phone surveys...
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)as well as the use of scales employing more than yes/no responses.
I do agree with you however that the principal issue is the lack of solid data on ownership.. I wish that the GOP and NRA-owned Dems would stop preventing government research.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But in the specific matter of gun ownership, it's not really possible to have a scaled response; one either does or does not own firearms. How many guns one owns is not a question that helps much to determine number of gun owners.
And yes: I strongly oppose the efforts to curb CDC research in this area. I understand the trepidation about the "public health" approach to the problem of gun violence (namely that it falls into an area more commonly regulated by the Administrative branch than the Legislative one...), but that's insufficient reason to inhibit research.
As for the specific matter of gathering reliable data on the number of gun owners and the related question of what sort of guns they have, well...that's an extremely difficult thing to research. There are so many millions of firearms in circulation for which the only post-manufacturer paper record will be the original Form 4470...which when it still exists at all, will be collecting dust in some FFL-holder's storage room in a yellowing banker's box.
Logical
(22,457 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)And thus more illegal guns, and more powerful, lethal models of guns, in the hands of criminals, which are supposed to lead to more gun crimes and gun murders.
At least, that's been one of the statements made repeatedly here on DU.
Yet that statement appears to not hold up.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It's more likely that, with the ongoing effort to stigmatize firearms owners, more and more owners are refusing to admit they have firearms in their homes.
Can you PROVE otherwise?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to gun control.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)for the reason I stated.
Respondents will answer honestly if they oppose or approve of more gun control, while respondents will more likely refuse to acknowledge that they have firearm in the home.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If people think guns are more acceptable why would they be more inclined to be ashamed of gun ownership?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)with the ongoing attempt to stigmatize firearm owners, it's more likely that few firearm owners will acknowledge to they have a firearm in the home.
Also, most won't tell some anonymous caller that they do have a firearm in the home.
Gun extremists may do so, but your average firearm owner probably won't.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)with dad or grandpa's guns is a pretty frequent topic of discussion, nobody seems terribly interested in keeping them.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you can't really extrapolate that to the rest of the American population.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)and are suddenly overcome with "freeedumb" and a crippling fear that Obama is about to take their newly found toy.
When I inherited a pair of M1911 knockoffs and couldn't get the police or sheriff to take them from me, I took them apart and dumped them in a milk carton full of plaster. I have also done that for a few other people who found handguns among unwanted bequeathments.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If one ignores Illinois this might appear to be the case.
Every new FOID card in Illinois can be safely presumed to be a new firearm sold.
And there have been quite alot of new FOID cards issued every year.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)But surely you have read another anti-gun meme in these these threads which holds that the volume of guns and its accessibility is what makes crime go up? But even here one must assume that data concerning the decline in homicide rates over 20+ years is a fanciful notion, like unicorns farting rainbows along Michigan Avenue. The anti-gun meme is defunct on its face.
Could you explain what "ammosexual" means, and how it gains a negative inflection? Would you use the expression when speaking before an anti-gun LGBTQ group? Not that it matters to me, since I am an incorrigible muff diver.
ON EDIT: I forgot this...
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)"The percentage of men who own a firearm is down from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014, while the number of women who own a gun has remained relatively steady since 1980, coming in at 12 percent in 2014. "
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...and take those figures with not just a grain of salt, but the entire shaker full.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)You do what many do. Tend to believe without question sources (in your example, a small circle of friends) that support your belief and tend to dismiss sources that challenge one's belief.
Info about the survey:
"The General Social Survey is administered by NORC at the University of Chicago, primarily using in-person interviewing. The GSS started in 1972 and completed its 30th round in 2014. The typical sample size was 1,500 prior to 1994, but increased to 2,700-3,000 until 2008, and decreased to 2,000 for the most recent surveys. Resulting margins of error are between plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the smaller sample sizes and plus or minus 2.2 percentage points for the larger sample sizes at the 95 percent confidence level. The 2014 survey was conducted March 31-Oct. 11, 2014, among 2,538 American adults. The GSS 1972-2014 Cumulative File was used to produce the statistics presented."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/85c182d0976f44b0a54780b7df8633bb/major-survey-shows-gun-ownership-declining
Info you provided about your friends:
"I have to reflect on the fact that of the couple dozen or so gun owners I've broached this topic with, not one has stated they'd tell a researcher they owned guns. Not one. And fwiw, at least half of them are fellow liberals.."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7254535
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Please believe me, I'm not doing what you suggested I'm doing (trusting an anecdotal source over another source based on preference). I'm not inclined to do that sort of thing, and have even been trained not to...I do Philosophy of Science for a living. My objection to the assertion that gun owners are shrinking in number is based on my previously-stated problems with the survey methodology. I debated with myself about including that bit about gun owners I have spoken to precisely because I thought it might be a distraction...and I should have listened to that little inner voice! =)
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)It says that the percentage of the population who are gun owners has decreased since the survey began. Given that the population has increased in the past thirty+ years, there actually may be more gun owners today then back then or there may be about the same or slightly less. Somebody with decent math skills might be able to figure that out given the info in the article and knowledge of the demographics and population of the U.S. when the first and last survey were taken.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The meme does NOT address the percentage of gun-owners. Presumably, the argument is that a lot of guns and their availability causes the crime.
As to the % of gun-owners, that data is in question, except the % of female owners which has increased to nearly 20%. I would point out that manufacturers have rather clumsily responded to this upsurge by producing pink this, and pink that. But that's what you get when you respond too slowly to a bigger demand. Notably, the small, hammerless revolver has made a comeback as it is often favored by women for CC.
And the homicide rate has Still declined.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)we can safely conclude that gun ownership rates are consistent with rates in the early to mid 70s. Im not sure why the gun controllers are stuck on the GSS poll.
While gun ownership is consistent with where it was forty years ago, and appears to be trending upward, I do believe that it is less than 10 percentage points away from all time highs. The reason for this is largely due to GCA '68 and the move towards significant firearm restrictions in several large cities and some states and of course the now defunct bans (D.C. and Chicago).
It's a lot easier to be a gun owner when every mom and pop hardware store, every major department store, and many gas/service stations sell firearms.
Having said that, crime rates were much lower before the major gun control push of the late 60s. Guns aren't the problem.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)starting in the 1990s. Frankly, I don't think guns, gun-owner rates or concealed-carry have much to do with any of it.
I remember as a kid going into 7-11 in the 50s and seeing .25 pot-metal revolvers going for $8. I already knew these guns were crap, and I certainly was not of age to by one. The man behind the counter describd them in terms that would get a "hide" if I repeated them here. I also junked plans to buy a Stevens shotgun through mail order after the '68 GCA; but by then I had a Remington 870 Wingmaster. Never a malfunction in over half a century.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)I agree with the article that it most likely isn't due to CCW, but at the same time no one has proposed a really solid, viable explanation for the dip either.
My dream is that, if we were able to narrow down why crime has fallen so precipitously in the past 20-30 years, we could start encouraging those drivers and push it down even further.
And while it's clear more guns didn't drive down the crime rate, it also shows that adding 50 million or so additional guns to the US market over 30 years didn't cause a massive spike in murders either.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)according to economist Steven Levitt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Levitt makes one heck of a plausible case for it in Freakonomics though. I'm not going to try and hash out his primary arguments, but I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't have had a demonstrable impact on crime.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Considering how difficult it has become to obtain an abortion precisely for the demographic to which one would presume most unwanted babies will be born, it's just a matter of waiting until these kids once again get old enough to start doing crime. If it is abuse, neglect, and poverty that causes much crime, and forcing women to have kids against their will is what causes abuse, neglect, and poverty, it will show in the statistics in a while, considering how difficult it has become to get abortions in large parts of the US.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Now that we've taken lead out of gasoline, paint products, and children's toys, it's possible that less exposure to lead has resulted in less organic brain disease, and less poor impulse control.
uawchild
(2,208 posts)I have heard about this too! Taking it out of "leaded" gas cut down on lead exposure for children considerably, especially in cities. The additive tetraethyl lead was put in gas as a cheap way to increase "octane rating", sorta make it more high test I guess.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)"Lead is a very potent neurotoxin," says Gesch. "It has a range of effects on the brain that have been demonstrated through hundreds of different biological studies. Lead alters the formation of the brain. It reduces the grey matter in areas responsible for things such as impulse control and executive functioning - meaning thinking and planning."
In other words - lead poisoning leads to bad decisions. The lead theorists say the poison has a time-lag effect which could not be understood until recently.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)So even though people carrying doesn't have anything to do with it, that doesn't explain why gun crime has fallen despite millions of guns purchased in the last 20 years.
The obvious answer is that the presence of guns alone does not increase the gun crime rate.
W_HAMILTON
(7,862 posts)n/t
beevul
(12,194 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,174 posts)by Smith and Wesson" and see how quickly you get burglarized. The only thing burglars like finding as much as money or drugs is GUNS. From the article:
"And instead of a being a deterrent, a 2002 study by Dr. Phillip Cook indicates that more guns in an area mean more burglaries, as criminals capitalize on the lucrative opportunity that stolen guns present."
More guns kept by "good guys" just means more guns for "bad guys" to steal and either use to commit more crime or sell to someone who can't legally buy one.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)He stated one day that his sign was all the security his property needed. When I told him that he was advertising that his place was full of valuable firearms and equipment, he had an alarm system installed the following week.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Very, very strange shit going on. Good, but strange.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We just need rehabilitation instead of warehousing human beings.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)is Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun site devoted entirely to gun control. Why would anyone rely on such a biased site for credible analysis?
I don't believe that guns have lowered the crime rate. But all I ever here from controllers is that the U.S. is awash in guns, meanwhile crime is at forty or fifty year lows. I guess guns aren't linked to crime after all.
bob4460
(235 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)violent crimes, research shows. DNA testing first became practical in a wide range of crime scene investigations starting in the early 90's; a lot of murderers and rapists have been caught, and a lot of potential murderers and rapists have decided against committing their crimes because of DNA testing.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)it took a lot of criminally associated assholes off the street.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The WOD is a failed policy, we need to end it, drastically cut the DEA, reduce the DOD budget, shift the funds to better mental health care and infrastructure rebuilding, which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, better mental health care would help reduce suicides of all manner.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)But I sure didn't miss the skinhead and Vietnamese gangs that had all but disappeared from my neighborhood because they were all in jail.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'm all for imprisoning violent drug gangs, but the WOD has imprisoned millions of non violent, casual users, who should be in a treatment program than in prison.
Lilyhoney
(1,985 posts)HoustonDave
(60 posts)OK, so as I understand it - some of the folks here think the lack of lead in gasoline (started in 1973, years before crime rates SPIKED at huge numbers in the '80s and early '90s) could be the reason why crime has dropped recently.... and that increasing numbers of guns owned and increased numbers of concealed carry permits in the exact time frame as the crime figures drop is just coincidence. Regardless of which side you support, that is a touching example of faith vs. facts.... or perhaps that is better described as "touched".
UTUSN
(70,683 posts)And I posted here but misremembered her name and called her Shebang, which a couple of DUers found amusing.
Initech
(100,063 posts)They're in denial that they are addicted to their precious guns. 
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The legalization of abortion, widespread use of birth control by woman (particularly the pill and the IUD), and the removal of lead from automobile gasoline in the late sixties/early seventies ushered in a new generation that, 20 years later (late 80's/early 90's) was less likely to be raised to be career criminals or be inherently violent.
The kind of policies that we can't get enacted nowadays because some people want to go after hardware, thus putting Republicans in positions of power!