More guns, less crime

To those for whom principles and specific enumerated rights are irrelevant we have this which may make an impression:NRAMoreGunsLessCrimeCoaUWhNWgAAcTRF

Via a tweet from the NRA:


7 thoughts on “More guns, less crime

  1. But in spite of this, progressives still pretend that John Lott didn’t know what he was talking about.

    • You see something that doesn’t support your narrative, you claim that it’s “flawed”, that the so-called “research” was bought and paid for by big corporations, add a few more insults here and there, and keep preaching your narrative.

      That’s the mark of a good and loyal advocate; absolutely no amount of evidence can move him. That puts him high on the pay scale. There is no right and wrong, just your inability, stemming from your various personality and character flaws, to agree with Progressives.

      You’re a science denier, a racist, you like having killing machines, and you’re willing to accept some number of dead children so you can hang on to your toys. Why should anyone even look at your so-called “facts”? At least the authoritarians are willing to try to address the problems, and all you can do is waive your tattered old constitution around and point to statistics while our children are dying.

      So it is that we have professional “stance holders” who will make that argument NO MATTER WHAT. Therefore at some point it’s all push verses shove, and if you refuse to be shoved then you’re the violent one.

      We may be winning on this issue in the court of public opinion, but I wonder how long public opinion will be a major consideration. It certainly didn’t matter in the passing of ObamaCare, and even Republicans in the Idaho legislature are now on a sort of “medical insurance hunger strike” until we have some kind of universal state-sponsored coverage so no one can escape the safety net.

      (Like that? “Resistance is futile; you will never escape the safety net”)

  2. I’ve only been saying this for… well… years.

    An important distinction on Lott’s work is that, as I understand it (I honestly haven’t read his book), he’s claiming a causal relationship, rather than simply a correlation. Such relationships are exceptionally hard to prove, especially in sociological settings, and a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

    The correlation, though, is pretty clear.

  3. Pushing a causal relationship here is hugely fraught with peril. We should avoid it.

    It’s much safer to use this to disprove the “more guns = more crime” claim. And if the overall violent crime rate showed the same trend (which it does) then this just disproves that claim more decisively. As Linoge has shown for several years now.

    (Linoge, are you going to publish a new edition of Graphics Matter? I’m sure Joe or Kevin would be more than happy to host it…)

    • That’s the most recent, with the current UCR data from the last time I bothered to see what they had published :).

      Checking now, though, it would appear they have 2014’s finalized numbers up. I’ll get around to it.

  4. I think the argument for the causal relationship doesn’t just depend on correlation. One argument is time sequence: crime drops after gun laws are liberalized, and increases after they are tightened. That argues against the counterclaim that gun laws are tight because crime is high.
    The other argument comes from talking to criminals, who frequently state they fear armed homeowners more than they fear the police. And those Florida robbers who preyed on tourists, who told an interviewer (much to her leftist surprise) that they chose that group because tourists are unlikely to be armed.

Comments are closed.