The Concealed Carry Fantasy

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

Forgive any perceived sock puppeting, but here's another analysis, this time by the CDC, concluding that suicide was the highest risk posed by owning a gun, especially by veterans:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

Again, both are from a single google search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

But that really has little (maybe nothing actually, from my quick look over) with whether guns deter crime. That is looking at gun violence as whole. It makes sense that if there are more guns there will be more gun violence, just as if there are more cars there are more car fatalities. I'm looking for something that specifically looks into whether criminals decide not to go through with the crime if they know the victim is armed. The page you linked doesn't really mention deterrence at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

Forgive any perceived sock puppeting, but here's another analysis, this time by the CDC, concluding that suicide was the highest risk posed by owning a gun, especially by veterans:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

Again, both are from a single google search.

Ok so from that article:

"Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although th e exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

So I guess the data is showing that they ARE a deterrent? Contrary to what the earlier PP was saying.

[Anonymous]

Agree with above PP

I guess libs are stumped right now, or taking their children in for their measles mumps or rubella non vaccination.

[Anonymous]

You want a gun to feel safe knock yourself out. You wanna permit to carry a concealed weapon go for it. It's your world you do whatever you want to ease your anxieties and calm your fears. Walk around armed and ready to blow anyone away at a moments notice if you wish but do society a favor and think before you pull the trigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

Forgive any perceived sock puppeting, but here's another analysis, this time by the CDC, concluding that suicide was the highest risk posed by owning a gun, especially by veterans:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

Again, both are from a single google search.

Ok so from that article:

"Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although th e exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

So I guess the data is showing that they ARE a deterrent? Contrary to what the earlier PP was saying.

They did a nice job of partial quotation, ignoring the state he that other studies put the number at around 100,000. The fact is the NRA cronies passed a law forbidding the CDC from studying gun violence. Seems unlikely that the data is on their side, or else they would be massively funding the research instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

Forgive any perceived sock puppeting, but here's another analysis, this time by the CDC, concluding that suicide was the highest risk posed by owning a gun, especially by veterans:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

Again, both are from a single google search.

Ok so from that article:

"Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although th e exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

So I guess the data is showing that they ARE a deterrent? Contrary to what the earlier PP was saying.

They did a nice job of partial quotation, ignoring the state he that other studies put the number at around 100,000. The fact is the NRA cronies passed a law forbidding the CDC from studying gun violence. Seems unlikely that the data is on their side, or else they would be massively funding the research instead.

I was just quoting the article someone provided...if you have any data on whether criminals are/are not deterred by armed victims, feel free to share. Until then it's really just opinion based.

[Anonymous]

So all these people that keep saying "Firearms do NOT deter criminals" do not have any actual data to back up that claim? Because overall gun violence aside it seems like yes, having a gun does indeed deter a criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you have an anecdote or two to throw around. The problem with that is that the overall data still proves you to be wrong.

The overall data shows that increased gun ownership and concealed carry DOES NOT serve as any kind of effective deterrent against crime, whatsoever. And in fact what does happen is that increased gun ownership and concealed carry correlates far more with increased numbers of gun accidents and suicides.

So not only is there no net positive there are tons of negatives.

Data are not individuals. Tell that to the individuals who's lives were saved because they had a weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an actual link to any studies that show that guns are not a deterrent? Some of you ( or maybe it's one person) keep saying that all the evidence shows that guns are not a deterrent but where is the proof? Did someone link anything substantive earlier? I have not seen it. I do remember reading that something like 60-80% of criminals changed their mind after learning that the victim was armed. I can't seem to find where I read that, but I haven't been able to find anything that says they are not a deterrent. At least not conclusively.

Here's one: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx

Only took a google search

Forgive any perceived sock puppeting, but here's another analysis, this time by the CDC, concluding that suicide was the highest risk posed by owning a gun, especially by veterans:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

Again, both are from a single google search.

So what you are saying is you want government to interfere because people might kill themselves? While suicide is always tragic and horrible, regulating guns won't really help - it's a red-herring. If someone wants to kill themselves, there are many methods in which to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Data are not individuals. Tell that to the individuals who's lives were saved because they had a weapon.

Why don't you tell it to all the mourning loved ones of people who were killed by weapons? You'll have lots more people to apologize to than I will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you have an anecdote or two to throw around. The problem with that is that the overall data still proves you to be wrong.

The overall data shows that increased gun ownership and concealed carry DOES NOT serve as any kind of effective deterrent against crime, whatsoever. And in fact what does happen is that increased gun ownership and concealed carry correlates far more with increased numbers of gun accidents and suicides.

So not only is there no net positive there are tons of negatives.

Data are not individuals. Tell that to the individuals who's lives were saved because they had a weapon.

Don't even bother arguing with that...there is no data that shows that guns are an ineffective deterrent, thats why they keep mentioning all this mysterious data but never actually provide it...they are just trying to sell their opinions as "data".

[Anonymous]

NP here. I just read the thread. The pro-gun poster(s) on this thread seem to be misinterpreting the deterrence point (perhaps willfully). As I read it, the point of PP was that increased gun ownership by society does not deter crime in society. In other words, if we arm 90% of the citizens in Columbus OH, but only arm 10% of the citizens in Indianapolis, we're not going to find that Columbus's crime level drops to 1/10th of the level in Indianapolis.

There's also a related point about whether an increase in gun ownership leads to other bad effects -- like increased suicide or increased accidental deaths -- regardless of any effect on crime.

But logic certainly suggests that a single individual armed with a gun is better able to deter a criminal than a single individual without a gun. It certainly seems someone holding a gun will have a better chance of deterring a criminal threat than the same person not holding a gun. Of course, the person holding a gun also faces an increased risk of blowing his own damn fool head off, and an increased risk of shooting an innocent bystander too. And perhaps the deterrence effect of the gun is less than the deterrence effect of a dog. But if you want to look at an artificially narrow question, then I suppose you can get the answer you want.

And then there are some studies that even suggest my simple logic might be wrong -- https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/ . That study from Philadelphia found people carrying guns are 4 times more likely to be shot than unarmed citizens!: "Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."