[Newsbot]

Title: CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is �Important Crime Deterrent'
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2013-08-22 07:34:19

[uwish]

nothing 99% of firearms owners didn't already know...

[peck420]

I seriously question the actual correlation between gun ownership and crime rates (for or against, doesn't matter), on the simple basis that we have 2 countries, with heavily intertwined cultures, experiencing declines in crime.

One has fairly strict gun control, one has fairly lax gun control.

Per this study (and almost every study I have seen on the issue), that shouldn't happen.

Each country should be experiencing the opposite result as the other.

Any who, back to work.

[BartSimpson]

uwish uwish:

nothing 99% of firearms owners didn't already know...

And it's so obvious that even a politically biased Centers for Disease Control can't ignore it.

[Jabberwalker]

I'm a fan of pre-emptive strikes, myself.

"I don't like your looks and I don't trust you!"

BANG! ...BANG!

[Jabberwalker]

Oh, sorry.

BANG! BANG! BANG!

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

bzzzzzzzzt!

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

I seriously question the actual correlation between gun ownership and crime rates (for or against, doesn't matter), on the simple basis that we have 2 countries, with heavily intertwined cultures, experiencing declines in crime.

One has fairly strict gun control, one has fairly lax gun control.

Per this study (and almost every study I have seen on the issue), that shouldn't happen.

Each country should be experiencing the opposite result as the other.

That assumes though that gun control alone is the factor for a decreasing crime rate in both societies.

There has been shown however to have a causal relationship between concealed carry, and gun crime and violent crime reduction. Canada does not allow this, so to say it's a factor in violent crime reduction here would be incorrect.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

I'm a fan of pre-emptive strikes, myself.

"I don't like your looks and I don't trust you!"

BANG! ...BANG!

If that policy was acceptable in Canada I suspect you'd be dead by now.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Oh, sorry.

BANG! BANG! BANG!

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

bzzzzzzzzt!

Oh, and forgive my previous comment, I didn't know you were a Toronto cop.

[peck420]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That assumes though that gun control alone is the factor for a decreasing crime rate in both societies.

Isn't that what many (if not most) studies for, or against, gun control attempt to claim? My position is that violence is significantly more linked to cultural mores and norms then the weapon used to enact said violence. On second reading of my post, I can see how unclear I am in that regard.

$1:

There has been shown however to have a causal relationship between concealed carry, and gun crime and violent crime reduction. Canada does not allow this, so to say it's a factor in violent crime reduction here would be incorrect.

It must be extremely casual! If Canada has extremely limited conceal carry, so limited that it is a non factor in studies, then our decreasing violent crime rate must not be effected by it. So, I question how much of an effect it has on the equally decreasing violent crime rate south of the boarder. Although, there is a case to be made that the cultural differences magnify the effect of conceal carry...

I just haven't seen anything that links weapon choice to violence rate. If people are going to be violent, they are going to be violent, the weapon becomes a secondary, or even tertiary, factor...well, that is my humble opinion.

[Zipperfish]

They're great for shooting moose too.

[bootlegga]

Self-defence is fine, but the only people that really NEED an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine are soldiers and a relative handful of cops (SWAT).

The average citizen in North America does not NEED an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. They just WANT one.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That assumes though that gun control alone is the factor for a decreasing crime rate in both societies.

Isn't that what many (if not most) studies for, or against, gun control attempt to claim? My position is that violence is significantly more linked to cultural mores and norms then the weapon used to enact said violence. On second reading of my post, I can see how unclear I am in that regard.

Ok, that makes more sense. So, we are arguing the same side then?

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

There has been shown however to have a causal relationship between concealed carry, and gun crime and violent crime reduction. Canada does not allow this, so to say it's a factor in violent crime reduction here would be incorrect.

It must be extremely casual! If Canada has extremely limited conceal carry, so limited that it is a non factor in studies, then our decreasing violent crime rate must not be effected by it. So, I question how much of an effect it has on the equally decreasing violent crime rate south of the boarder. Although, there is a case to be made that the cultural differences magnify the effect of conceal carry...

I just haven't seen anything that links weapon choice to violence rate. If people are going to be violent, they are going to be violent, the weapon becomes a secondary, or even tertiary, factor...well, that is my humble opinion.

Like I said, you can't compare reductions in violent crime because of enacting concealed carry in the States to any reduction in violent crime in Canada, because we do not allow concealed carry. Therefore, there are other factors in the reduction of violent crime in Canada.

And weapon choice is everything. A woman can't conceal carry a Mossberg shotgun to prevent being raped. But a Mossberg is a decent weapon for home defence. Both of these choices result in a reduction of violence, because people thinking of causing the violence think again and decide against it. Theoretically.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Self-defence is fine, but the only people that really NEED an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine are soldiers and a relative handful of cops (SWAT).

The average citizen in North America does not NEED an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. They just WANT one.

"Assault rifles" have always been illegal in Canada. 30 round mags are illegal in Canada. An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle".

I don't know why you are always repeating this Boots. You are smarter than that.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Self-defence is fine, but the only people that really NEED an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine are soldiers and a relative handful of cops (SWAT).

If private citizens are prohibited from owning such arms then the police don't need them, either.

And if the police need them then private citizens who are confronted with the same situations as the police need them, too. Otherwise you've acknowledged a threat that validates the police being heavily armed and you're deliberately victimizing your fellow citizens by requiring that they remain vulnerable to those threats.