Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds

[hurley842002]

Interesting "study", fortunately it doesn't apply to me, since I don't carry a gun as a deterrent...

[Rucker61]

Always state vs state, without comparing urban vs suburban vs rural, and looking at the demographics of those state subdivisions, and who is committing the crimes. If I were a statistics professor, I'd fail the lot of the them. Poli Sci profs give them top marks, though.

[Rucker61]

True, guns don't deter crime. Neither do laws, or prison, or gun free zones. Guns do however, stop crime, which judiciously applied.

[theGinsue]

I read this today @ lunch. Definitely agenda driven intent.

Without reading the whole thing, I'd say that is likely true, especially for concealed carry. The presence of a gun can't deter crime if no one knows it's there.

Seatbelts dont deter accidents but we're still forced to wear them.

Agreed.

It's true. Guns don't deter crime. They are inanimate objects. Responsible human beings with guns can stop crimes in progress though.

True, guns don't deter crime. Neither do laws, or prison, or gun free zones. Guns do however, stop crime, which judiciously applied.

Pretty much sums up what I was thinking on the subject. I find it particularly interesting, and believe it shows the anti-gun agenda-based intent of both the study and the article that they don't address how guns in the hands of responsible gun owners (versus criminals) can & do save lives when a crime in already being committed. The sad thing is that most folks won't see beyond the rhetoric and will take both the study and article at face value.

[buffalobo]

I'll bet that without much effort I can find a few studies that state the contrary.

^^^This.

5 minutes research show Maryland, Illinois and several other states contradict the assertions made in the study.

sent from my electronic ball and chain

[SAnd]

Without reading the whole thing, I'd say that is likely true, especially for concealed carry. The presence of a gun can't deter crime if no one knows it's there.

They don't have to know that a gun is there. Suspecting that a gun could be there can and often will deter a crime. Mass shootings almost always occur in known gun free zones.

[cstone]

The presence of a gun increases the occurrence of gun homicides.

Because if there were zero guns present there would obviously be no gun homicides.

The proximity to a level 3 trauma center and time of EMS response to any gunshot wound has an enormous impact on the number of gun homicides. If you are close to a trauma center and EMS is fast, you are much less likely to be a gun homicide.

Of the 11,208 gun homicides recorded in 2013, how many were justified and how many were ruled unjustified? To me it matters. Justified homicides are tragic, however, I support them regardless of the mechanism used to bring them about.

I fully support LE and prosecutors targeting the sale and trafficking of stolen guns as well as straw purchases. This rarely seems to be on anyone's agenda.

I do not see the logic in regulating firearm use and ownership by citizens who have committed no crime, because some criminals choose to use firearms to commit crimes. It would be analogous to strictly regulating privately owned vehicles because bank robbers have been known to use get away cars.

The last study like this I read came to the conclusion that gun ownership is strongly related to gun culture. The researchers could not tell whether the gun culture caused more gun ownership or gun ownership caused an association with gun culture. My response was Duh. The researchers indicated that the public health threat caused by gun related injuries should require more focus on gun culture as a way of dealing with the public health threat. I wished that I was making it up, but it is what it is.

Be safe.

[Irving]

They don't have to know that a gun is there. Suspecting that a gun could be there can and often will deter a crime. Mass shootings almost always occur in known gun free zones.

That's because gun free zones are almost always in areas of, well... the masses. Eliminating gun free zones over night wouldn't change the fact that public gathering places are target rich environments.

I can easily argue this both ways, but I don't think it would matter because the presences of guns, or not, is likely to be statistically insignificant either way in the grand scheme of crime statistics. Even if every "mass shooting" in history was ended by someone shooting the gunman, the statistics likely wouldn't change because 12 dead isn't much different than 15 dead when it comes to raw statistics, nor agenda driven reporting.

Heck, since most mass shooters end up killing themselves anyway, one could twist the logic around right now to argue that the same gun used to kill all the innocents was ultimately responsible for saving countless other victims as long as the shooter took their own life while there was still ammo available. That article could be titled "Murder gun saves countless lives" and people would forget they ever browsed through the excerpts from the study by breakfast the next morning.

[Duman]

John Lott has done quite a lot of research on guns and crime. I recommend 'More Guns, Less Crime'

[DOC]

I bet some of those shot or their families wish there was an authorised or illegal gun there to stop this murderer. But we would have never heard about it in such detail if it was.