‘More Guns, Less Crime’ author planned to speak at UT today

[harvey007]

Source: Austin, TX Statesman

In an unfortunate coincidence, several student organization, including the Libertarian Longhorns, the UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the UT Objectivism Society and the UT Federalist Society planned to host John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime,” at the UT Law School.

It was planned for 6 this evening. The event is postponed tentatively, said Jeff Shi, a full-time student computer science student and the president of UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, “and we are talking to Mr. Lott about alternative plans.”

I don’t want to comment on any political aspects of this,” Shi said. “I hope everything turns out well and the only casualties are the bad guys.”
The Federalist Society posted a message on Twitter at 11:30 saying, “In light of this morning’s events, John Lott’s talk at the law school has been canceled.”

Read more: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/09/28/more_guns_less_crime_author_pl.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

6. Don't judge a book by its cover

Or its title. You should read it before criticizing it.

[RSillsbee]

8. It actually worked better than you may think

Open carry was common during the pioneer era and in the American Old West. According to UCLA historian Dr. Roger McGrath in his book Guns, Highwaymen and Vigilantes: Violence in the Old West (1984), the rates of murder, robbery, rape, and other assorted violent crimes were far lower than they are today, and McGrath attributes those lower rates directly to the open carry of firearms.

In the book McGrath states that "the young, the old, and the female—those most vulnerable—were far safer in the most wild and wooly frontier towns than they are in any American city today," because "people had arms, knew how to use them, and were willing to fight with deadly force to protect their persons or property."

[JDPriestly]

12. Problem is -- we don't live in the Old West.

We live in crowded cities, on densely populated college campuses, etc.

Gun advocates raise challenging questions about how far individual citizens can go in protecting themselves -- their personal safety in a society with a lot of criminal activity, and our human rights which are always imperiled not just by government but by individuals and business entities?

I don't think that permitting the open carrying of guns in public places is the answer. Guns have power in and of themselves. And you cannot determine in advance which person is sane enough to carry a gun and which is not. But, the questions still loom, so what is the answer? I change my mind on this one. I just don't know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Washington and Utah allow it on their public college campuses.

To little ill effect.

I would also point out that your avatar, Eleanor Roosevelt, was a rather good pistol shot and had a concealed handgun permit.

If it was permissable for ER, it's good enough for any qualified American. I have no truck with 'royalist' gun control.






http://www.liberalswithguns.com/id2.html

[JDPriestly]

22. I hope you did not interpret my post as some sort of condemnation

of your point of view. I am just saying that it is a very complex issue. I have family in rural America. They hunt a lot. That's great in my view. So I don't have a problem with that.

I live in Los Angeles. My first neighbor here had a bumper sticker saying, "God created man. Smith & Wesson keeps them equal." He was very scary. One night the police came to my door and asked me "Do you know where your children are?" I was just shocked because I thought my children (aged 7 and 9) were sleeping in their beds in their room where I had just put them maybe an hour earlier. You cannot imagine how frightened I was because I thought the officers were going to tell me that something had happened to my children.

I answered the officer, "Yes. They are in bed in their room -- sleeping." He looked at me in a very puzzled way. And then a bit later he said something about ". . . the wrong house." Of course, the right house was the guy who needed the Smith & Wesson to feel equal.

We live in a crowded city. I treat all my neighbors well. I don't really want to live next to a neighbor who is as likely as not to have a shoot-out with the police while my young children are sleeping in their beds in their room right next to his house. So, this is a very complicated issue.

Communities should perhaps have the right to establish their own restrictions on gun permits. Nothing wrong with a gun permit for the right person in the right situation.

But do I really want a dangerous person with a gun permit right next door? And very often just how dangerous or crazy a person is does not become evident until they start shooting at someone. It's a really tough call. I'm not sure where I stand.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. I have no problem with un-arbitrary restictions on gun permits.

With two important caveats:

1. The power to grant or deny such permits should not be in the hands of authorities. As long as a person has passed a background

check and whatever reasonable training course a state might require, they have a right to a permit.


2. This is now a civil right (see the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald), so any restrictions

must be held to the strictest scrutiny.

[Ian David]

28. If you wanted to go to someone's house to kill them, it took you all day on horseback. n/t

[defendandprotect]

80. .. but seems there was always a SALOON handy filled with people .....

and eventually they took their guns on entering -- right?

[RSillsbee]

89. Actually no,

This wasn't always the case. John Wesley Hardin was killed in a saloon,by John Selman, in El Paso in 1895. He was armed and shot in the back. James Butler Hickok was also shot in a saloon.

Having said that, a saloon is a private establishment. I completely support the right of a property owner to forbid the carrying of weapons on his property. He'll not get my business but I do respect his rights

[RSillsbee]

92. As an addendum

If any civil liberties were overlooked in the old west it would have been the 4th & 5th amendments. Hardin was arrested twice because the state police simply rode into town and detained anyone who didn't actually live in the town or the immediate surrounding area. The first time he shot his way out of it (Killing two soldiers) and the second time near the Texas Arkansas border he was captured and sent to WACO.

John Wesley Hardin was not man to be trifled with. One of the legends surrounding him concerned a relative of his who ran afoul of some local bully, while Hardin was trying to persuade his relative that the bully was out of his (the relative's) league the bully showed up at the saloon Hardin and the cousin were in and began to make dire threats. The legend has it that no sooner had the bully stopped talking than Hardin dropped him and turned to the relative and said " See, that's exactly what he would have done to you."

He was also arrested once in Escambia County Florida where he was living under the name J.T. McSwain.

By today's standards he would be what is known as a prohibited possessor

[Journeyman]

2. UT - site of Charles Whitman's incomprehensible act & the end of public innocence. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html



When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

[pattmarty]

3. Yeah, but just think what would have happened to Whitman if ALL.....

....the students were armed. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[pocoloco]

4. Thank God some people were!

"Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit"

[Kolesar]

7. Yuk. I remember a documentary on that creep...eom

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Like I asked downthread, prehaps you'd care to comment here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x341698

[proteus_lives]

20. Brain tumor.

So every should lose their rights because he had a brain tumor?

[gratuitous]

5. Yes, why would anyone want to comment on any political aspects of this?

Especially since it so effectively and efficiently puts the lie to Mr. Lott's thesis? Let us speak no more of it. I said, good day, sir!

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Perhaps you'd care to comment here and explain a few things for us:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x341698

[gratuitous]

34. Thank you for your concern

But I decline to get into a religious argument with the adherents of the High Church of Redemptive Violence. But you keep on being an iconoclast, although I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. I like it when you call other posters "ignorant".

I really do. More of that, please.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. If I were so 'religiously' inclined, the declining rates of violent crime would sadden me

But since I'm not, I'm rather glad.


Perhaps you might help me with something, since you're here- The one time I did actually use a firearm in a defensive manner,

no shots were fired and the only injuries were (perhaps) to the underwear of the alternative shopper who I persuaded to shop

elswhere.


Should I have:

(a) left this miscreant in a spreading pool of his own blood (which I could have done, but did not),

(b) given him what he desired, i.e. the contents of our cash register, or

(c) (what I did do) send him upon his merry way, with the only injuries being to his ego and my nerves?


TIA for your no doubt sage advice....

[gratuitous]

39. You should just shoot me

That would carry your argument compellingly, I would think.

See you around the forums.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. I have no desire to shoot anyone, and barring someone attacking me or my loved ones....

....I never will shoot anyone. So why do you perceive me as an existential threat? I haven't owned a gun for years.


I rather doubt most of the >80 million Americans that do own guns are a threat to you, either.

And as the statistics point out, what danger there was is lessening.

So, what's with the angst?

[RSillsbee]

66. While Mr. Lott's thesis is unprovable

The recent upsurge in gun ownership congruent to the falling crime rate does prove that more guns does not equal more crime.

Care to comment on that?

[warpigs]

94. Because the people buying guns already have a bunch.

They are just paranoid that Obama will take their guns away. Being manipulated by the gun industry to sell more guns and bullets.

[RSillsbee]

95. Would you care to comment on what I actually wrote?

[Blue_Tires]

9. well, we all know how Charlton Heston would have handled this...

[Ian David]

29. He would have had a pro-gun rally there the next day. n/t

[Doctor_J]

14. Hahahahahahaha

[defendandprotect]

15. Let's not change society or our culture -- 'GUNS FOR EVERYONE' ....!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Agreed. The rates of violent crime and murder are declining

I missed the call for "GUNS FOR EVERYONE". Perhaps you could explain?:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4285962

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x282322

[defendandprotect]

49. You mean the GOP/NRA don't want "guns for everyone" .... ????

I must have missed that -- !!

[Xenotime]

67. Same here. That's all gun fundies think about is guns, guns, guns.

[proteus_lives]

21. Works for me!

No one should be denied their rights.

[defendandprotect]

51. "A well-regulated militia" unfortunately stands between you and that alleged right ....

however, I'm sure the GOP/Gang of 5 will continue to see things the Gun Lobby/

NRA way ....

Liberals and progressives still hope for a Supreme Court we don't have to be ashamed

of --

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. So help solve the problem by reestablishing "the well-regulated militia" you claim is necessary....

....while making it better than the Swiss or Colonial-era American one by allowing ALL citizens, regardless of gender or

sexual orientation to join.


If lack of a "well-regulated militia" is your bete noir, help bring a modern one into existence.

You've talked the talk, would you walk the walk?

[defendandprotect]

73. The "well-regulated militia," the load and fire gun -- and "bearing arms" are antiques ....

as you know -- phased out -- unless you want a helicopter or a missile?

As all guns were eventually needless in peaceful societies -- until the right wing

created newly violent societies and decided to join the GOP with the NRA to create

and use the gun lobby for gun sales -- !!

And, of course, the Drug War was a major tool used by the right wing to create violence --

and fear of violence --

[S_B_Jackson]

83. Phased out by the National Defense Act of 1903 and replaced with...

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Aren't you glad to know you're a member? :D

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Still peddling Marija Gimbutas' 'scholarship', I see.

Religious faith is no just basis for public policy. Theocracy, any theocracy is abhorrent to me.


Anyway, it's irrelevant if all herbivores are in favor of veganism- as long as there are carnivores about

[RSillsbee]

90. As all guns were eventually needless in peaceful societies

I'm sorry , when did any society become so peaceful as to be crime free?

[proteus_lives]

59. You're humping a dead horse.

The authoritarian militia argument was blown out of the water years ago.

I must admit, I'm surprised to you for the stripping away of people's rights. Go figure.

[DBoon]

17. more jobs less crime

I'd like to see that one

[mbperrin]

18. If the message can't stand in the context of reality, must not have been

much to it.

QED

[Doctor_J]

23. i wondered about that

you'd think the UT Guns For All Club would have jumped at the chance to present "Professor" Lott under these circumstances. The cancellation is strange.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. The reality is, there *are* more guns and there *is* less crime

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x341698

Murder and other violent crimes are down for the third year in a row. I don't necessarily buy the arguments that the increase in

guns caused the decline in crime.

[Ian David]

30. Global temperatures and the world population are both also increasing.

As is the number of cable channels.

Correlation does not imply causality.

[Pavulon]

32. Boy those FBI stats are sure compelling. Like the ones that point out more people are stabbed

to death than assault rifled to death in the US.

[Ian David]

At least if someone is using a knife, I have a decent chance of fighting back...

... or at least getting his DNA left behind on my corpse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Be glad knife crime is also down. I'd just as soon skip either option,

as like most people I don't usually wear a spiffy metal suit from Stark Industries.

[Ian David]

64. I'd rather be shot in the head from behind from a sniper rifle if I had to pick.

But I still think my best chance in a fight would be against someone with a knife, rather than someone a hundred feet away with an assault rifle.

[RSillsbee]

68. Your best chance

Funny, I would think your best chance in a fight against some one armed w/ a knife would be if you had a gun

[Ian David]

69. Yes, but while I'm carrying around the gun waiting for someone to try and stab me...

... I'm statistically more likely to be a victim of my own gun.

[RSillsbee]

70. Only if you use statistics from the throughly debunked Kellerman study

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=334436
I trust you'll accept our very own DU as an unbiased source?

[benEzra]

81. No, you're not.

I know of no studies whatsoever that found any significant use of a homeowners' gun against a homeowner, never mind people actually carrying firearms concealed on their person, and I know for a fact that the National Crime Victimization Survey didn't capture any.

To get that rather famous factoid, I believe Kellerman et al ignored all defensive uses in which the attacker didn't die, counted all cases of a homeowner murdered with a criminal's gun as if the homeowner were murdered with their own gun (even if said gun were unloaded and locked upstairs), didn't distinguish between people involved in criminal enterprise from those who weren't, and still had to count suicides in the "killing a friend or family member" to get the statistics to work out favorably.

Given those parameters, you can make a whole lot of things in your home look like they're going to kill you.

[Pavulon]

41. Nope a knife is quiet and a person who has the drop can slit you from neck to nuts

you would have no chance. And if they did it right they could stab you in such a way that you do not bleed out externally (ie punching your lung and heart)..

So in many ways the knife is far more useful for a NON DEFENSIVE attack.

[defendandprotect]

52. +1000% --

[fascisthunter]

19. I've Read Crazier Shit Than This

...time for people in the country and suburbs come take a stroll through some bad bad neighborhoods we city folk live in. Living with guns is not a healthy or sane option for most of us. More guns???? Yes, and the craziest folks in society will be buying them... thanks geniuses.

[proteus_lives]

24. That's a broad-brush.

I live in a city. I own firearms, how is that not a "sane or healthy" option?

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. See post #25. BTW, I don't dig 'localist' approaches to civil rights

That's what gives us things like Proposition 8, and the Texas anti-sodomy laws overthrown in Lawrence v. Texas.

There's one Constitution, and it applies equally to all (Fourteenth Amendment).

[slackmaster]

31. It makes perfect sense for someone who strolls through bad neighborhoods to want to be armed

It makes more sense to stay out of them altogether, but not everyone has that option.

[AndyTiedye]

35. Stray Bullets Become a Leading Cause of Death

So you shoot the bad guy, get him on the second shot. That other bullet is going to hit something or someone else.
Even if you never miss, the bullet may go right through the bad guy and keep going if it doesn't hit anything hard enough to stop it.

[Pavulon]

38. Except thats just not true. I know it sound cool to you

but in reality hollow points are designed to dump all their energy into a person and generally end up with a skin stop or leave a body with non lethal energy.

Hard ball ammo like that mandated by the morons in the state of NJ is far more likely to overpenetrate and kill others.

Most people dont use low powered rifle rounds like the 7.62x39 or 556nato for home defense.

[AndyTiedye]

43. Not Sure That Helps

but in reality hollow points are designed to dump all their energy into a person and generally end up with a skin stop or leave a body with non lethal energy.

That helps #2 (bullets that keep going) and makes #1 (you missed the bad guy and hit someone else) worse.

Perhaps YOU are an excellent shot, but most people aren't.

[Pavulon]

44. Most people dont fire guns, using the tiny number of self defense shootings can you back your claim?

If you feel so obliged use police shootings for statistics on bystander hits. In the smaller sample size of CCW shootings the hit rates are higher.'

Bottom line its a constitutional right, you have zero chance of changing it.

[AndyTiedye]

48. RKBA is law of the land and I support it, But I do not choose to exercise that right

He says we need MORE guns.

Here in the USA, everybody who wants a gun already has one.

Who are all the additional guns for?

Will people who have just been scared into buying guns have the same skill as current gun owners?




I don't want to take away your guns, but I don't want one.

[Pavulon]

53. That is completely rational.

I respect people who dont want to own firearms for what ever reason. Its their call. I wish all current owners would take the free instruction offered by most ranges or police departments. Any firearm comes with great responsibility and should be treated accordingly by its owners. I support laws that mandate safe storage around kids.

Ownership is certainly an opt in event that every person should carefully consider.

[slackmaster]

60. You haven't even read the book

:eyes:

[AndyTiedye]

71. If You Would Answer My Question Upthread, It Might Help Me Decide If I Want To

I would like a bit more information before I support this author financially by buying his book.

Guns are already so freely available now that anyone who wants one already has one.
The few remaining restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court.

Who are the "more guns" for?

[slackmaster]

72. Your question is based on a false premise, which is not surprising

Considering that you are basing your assessment of the book solely on its title.

[Pavulon]

33. I moved out of shit neighborhoods. On purpose

the people with guns generally kill each other . But hey I dont want to be in the crossfire.

[LanternWaste]

45. That certainly sounds like a group of fun-loving college students

Libertarian Longhorns, the UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the UT Objectivism Society and the UT Federalist Society.

That certainly sounds like a group of fun-loving college students. A six pack of tall-boy Dialectic and Dogma, while arguing the merits of Star Trek vs. the Next Generation. Woo-hoo...

[fascisthunter]

46. there's a very good retort to this "claim"

The Fantasy World of "More Guns = Less Crime"

The "gun rights" absolutists are continuing their campaign to ensure that guns are carried into every corner of American society, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signing legislation to allows guns in places of worship, Arizona allowing the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit, and Utah giving out concealed carry licenses like candy to folks who have never set foot in the state. The madness is driven by the "more guns=less crime" malarkey that has become the mantra of the gun lobby.

The "more guns" argument goes like this. The world is neatly divided into good guys and bad guys. The bad guys will always have guns and will attack the good guys who are unarmed, but not the good guys who may be able to shoot back. "Criminals still prefer to prey on the weak," says former NRA President Sandy Froman, "and they don't like armed victims." According to this argument, the bad guys will be deterred from committing criminal acts by the fear that the good guys are carrying guns. In the fantasy world constructed by the "gun rights" crowd, this idea is taken as presumed truth. In the world we actually live in, it doesn't work so well.

Proponents of the deterrence theory attempt to give it a quasi-scholarly veneer by citing the work of John Lott, who has made headline-grabbing claims that state laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons have caused sharp reductions in crime. Lott's studies were long ago discredited by economists and public health scholars at a veritable Who's Who of major research universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and Carnegie-Mellon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/the-fantasy-world-of-more_b_657198.html

[divideandconquer]

47. John Lott/Mary Rosh is a typical rightwing liar and lunatic

Her name was Mary Rosh.

Mary Rosh often spoke sweetly of her days as a student of John's, she gave a glowing Amazon.com review of his book "More Guns, Less Crime," she criticized anyone who questioned John's research or his conclusions, and she attacked other researchers in her ardent defense of Lott's idea that more guns on the streets leads to less crime.

She was also a petite defenseless creature. We know this because John, we mean, she said:

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?…Even if I am not wearing heels, I don’t think that there are many men that I could outrun.

"As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Then a researcher at the conservative think tank CATO Institute discovered the truth about Mary Rosh and undressed John Lott for all the world to see.

Currently, Lott is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
-------------------------
<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/>

[benEzra]

50. And yet...

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/crime_091310.html



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

[X_Digger]

54. Coupled with..

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/Total%20NICS%20Background%20Checks.pdf

Year....NICS checks
2004......8,687,671
2005......8,952,945
2006....10,036,933
2007....11,177,335
2008....12,709,023
2009....14,033,824

Definitely disproves the 'more guns = more crime' meme.

[divideandconquer]

55. And yet we have the highest murder rate of adavnced nations, worse than India

Worse than India but the gun pushers are so proud! Pathetic

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

[X_Digger]

56. Our NON-gun murder rate is higher than other nations' TOTAL murder rate

Our non-gun murder rate is roughly 1.45 per 100,000. (based on
310M population and figures from
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html)

From your own link, converting to per 100k..

United Kingdom:..1.40633 	
Italy:...........1.28393
Spain:...........1.22456
Germany:.........1.16461
Tunisia:.........1.12159
Netherlands:.....1.11538
New Zealand:.....1.11524
Denmark:.........1.06775	
Norway:..........1.06684	
Ireland:.........0.94621
Switzerland:.....0.92135
Indonesia:.......0.91084	
Greece:..........0.75928
Hong Kong:.......0.55080
Japan:...........0.49993
Saudi Arabia:....0.39745
Qatar:...........0.11586


We have a violent nation. Well, I shouldn't say that, we're
more prone to homicidal violence. Haven't even looked at total
violent crime. But even assuming that all gun murders wouldn't
have happened by other means, we'd *still* be above many
'advanced' nations.

eta: fixed table

[divideandconquer]

61. Yeah, it's the American people are no good and guns are needed to defend against them!

:crazy:

[X_Digger]

65. What a thoughtful reply..

Care to actually address what I said?

Here's another link from your favorite site..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

Our overall violent crime rate is actually lower than a lot of 'advanced' nations.

[divideandconquer]

78. Which advanced nations have a higher murder rate? You change the subject

That's why it's impossible to debate gun pushers, they won't tell the truth or dishonestly change the subject.

BTW, your comparison just shows Americans aren't more evil or violent, they just have the easiest access to guns.

[X_Digger]

82. Now who's dodging?

I said.. "We have a violent nation. Well, I shouldn't say that, we're more prone to homicidal violence. Haven't even looked at total violent crime."

At the same time, I showed you that our non-gun murder rate is higher than other nations total murder, gun or not, then compared our total violent crime to other nations'.

BTW, your comparison just shows Americans aren't more evil or violent, they just have the easiest access to guns.

It went right over your head, didn't it? OUR NON-GUN HOMICIDE RATE IS HIGHER THAN OTHER NATIONS TOTAL HOMICIDE RATE. NON-GUN!

If you made all gun homicides disappear, and there was NO method substitution, we'd STILL be above a lot of 'advanced' nations.

eta:
Here's the math, in case you're curious..

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html
In 2009 there were 13,636 total murders, 4,490 of which were by NOT by firearm.

4,490 * 100,000 / 310,000,000 = 1.448

Roughly 1.45 per 100,000 without using a gun in the US.

From your nationmaster site, the UK has a homicide rate of 0.0140633 per 1,000 people.

0.0140633* 100 = 1.41
1,000 * 100 = 100,000

So the UK's total homicide rate is 1.41 per 100,000 people.

[benEzra]

62. And the blame for that lies squarely on the altar of Prohibition.

Prohibition simply does not work in this country; we found that out in the 1920's (when alcohol cartel wars drove our murder rate well above 9 per 100K) but the neopuritans just won't let it go. The Swiss and Czechs have gun access comparable to the USA but with violence levels similar to the UK (Switzerland is actually safer than the UK at last count).

Demilitarize and decriminalize our approach to the drug issue, tax and regulate it, and I believe we'd see the decline in our crime rates accelerate.

[LanternWaste]

74. Then we should lift the prohibition against...

If your implication is that as prohibition does not work, that in and of itself is reason enough to justify its dissolution, yes? Then we should lift the prohibition against robbery? Or are there hidden qualifiers I missed?

[X_Digger]

75. Google 'malum in se' v 'malum prohibitum' n/t

[LanternWaste]

76. being used in the legal, moral or classical sense

It is unclear whether prohibition is being used as per the the legal, moral or classical definition in the post I replied to. I am not clever enough to make the presumption w/o additional qualifiers.

[X_Digger]

77. Both legal and moral..

.. while the crime you specified is typically 'malum in se' in both the legal and moral sense, the Failed War on (Some) Drugs is 'malum prohibitum'.

[benEzra]

79. You honestly don't see a difference

between growing and ingesting a plant without threatening or harming anyone else, and using violence against an innocent human being who intends no harm to you in order to take what is rightfully theirs?

The two are not, in fact, morally equivalent. The reason Prohibition doesn't work is that a plurality of people do not see drinking wine, or smoking a cannabis leaf, as an inherently evil act---unlike, say, pulling a knife on someone and demanding he give you his wallet. The people who like wine (or pot) will quietly keep using it, most of the people who don't drink/smoke don't bear hatred toward those who do, and in general the only people who are gung-ho about Prohibition are professional busybodies, neopuritans, and those who benefit financially from it. So demand remains high, supply meets demand, and all you've done is push the industry outside the boundaries of regulation and taxation into a Darwinian he-who-kills-his-competition-gets-the-business mode. That's what happened in the 1920's, and that's what has happened today.

It should be patently obvious why criminalizing robbery, or rape, or murder, or child exploitation, or fraud, or drunk driving, are in a different category. There is no victim when my neighbor lights up a cigarette or drinks a cup of brew after work, regardless of what species of plant it's made from, IMO. I don't use drugs myself, except for a Mike's Hard Lemonade now and then, but I think the War on (Some) Drugs is an asinine waste of resources and social capital, used primarily to empower proponents of More Authority and to enrich drug kingpins and those on their payrolls.

[RSillsbee]

91. Yes there are.

Robbery violates the rights of another human being smoking weed does not. Unless you blow the smoke in my face.

[slackmaster]

63. It's obvious to anyone who has actually read the book...

...that you haven't read it.

[Taverner]

57. Excluding Lott, it is a good question to ask

I am guessing if everyone is armed, crime will not go up or down. There is no causal relationship.

[pipoman]

87. Yep

but it really isn't about arming everyone for Lott or any one else who is sane. It is about defeat of the erroneously asserted meme of 'more guns, more crime'. More guns owned by more law abiding people who wish to own them. I do think it would be dangerous if people who didn't want them were required to own them.

[classysassy]

85. More guns less crime

why not arm the entire nation disband the military,police and all other agencies that deal in protecting the country?The N.R.A. and their fear tactics are working the gun lovers want to prove how tough they are,It seem to me that the American citizens have been duped bu the gun lobby.

[pipoman]

86. Uh

the NRA has nothing to do with this story. The mantra of those who choose to support the conservative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has always been 'more guns, more crime' which is and has been completely debunked by the simple fact that violent crime and firearms accidents are both at 20+ year lows even though there have never been more guns in circulation than there is today, and tomorrow there will be thousands more.

So at least, in the name of truthfulness, realize that violent crime has nothing to do with lawful firearms keeping and bearing.

[Pavulon]

93. no you got bamboozled

into thinking that a set of laws that was easy to pass and enforce was a substitute for a crime solution. Take a look at S. Chicago guns illegal but bodies still stacking..

now look at telluride co and Greenwich ct, guns, no crime. Why?

Prohibition always fails.