On the one hand, correlation doesn’t equal causation.
So I’ll restrain my end-zone happy dance at the news that gun crime in Virginia has plummeted as gun sales boomed:
Firearms sales rose 16 percent to a record 490,119 guns purchased from licensed gun dealers in 2012, according to sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
During the same period, major crimes committed with firearms dropped 5 percent to 4,378.
“This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don’t necessarily lead to more crime,” said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory.
See also: the rest of the freaking country.
Bit remember – correlation isn’t causation. Knowing that people who live near Mosquitos are prone to getting malaria doesn’t mean Mosquitos cause malaria. But that knowledge can help lead you to the cause. Mosquitos carry malaria.
Do more guns decrease crime? Not necessarily. But there’s enough patterns in enough places to give you an idea that there’s something to investigate that has to do with the availability of guns to the law-abiding.
‘Do more guns decrease crime?’
Interestingly, that’s not the question we really have to answer. Gun control folks claim that more guns equals more crime, more violence, and more deaths. Disproving that claim is the same as a win.
I read that the crime rate in any society is generally a function of the percentage of unattached young males. Could it simply be that the aging of the population means that a small proportion of our society is young, or that a smaller proportion of those young men are unattached? Between 1995 and 2010, police officers have increased their numbers by roughly 20%. It would be interesting to at least rule out more traditional explanation of crime rates, before searching for a new explanation. Nevertheless, I would like the opportunity see you do your end zone happy dance.
The increased presence of guns certainly increases the number of gun crimes. As do knives do chainsaws. The question is whether or not the crimes would occur if guns were not present. Never heard about the “unattached” factor, however young males have always been the main culprits.
A recent news story was touting the decrease of US gun-related homicides in 2009-2010 from 5.2/100,000 to 4.3/100,000 in major metropolitan areas. This was despite the proliferation of “assault weapons”, carry permits, and the gun culture that those against firearms also tout.
However, the story was able to show that gun related suicides increased in the same period and locations from 5.1/100,000 to 5.4/ 100,000.
A psychologist who was asked to explain the increase of gun related suicides cited the poor economy, stress, etc. However, he never addressed how the guns managed to increase in usage for suicide, only the reason why suicides may be on the rise.
I suggest that this might illustrate the point of my first paragraph; suicides will happen for whatever reason suicides happen. A gun is an efficient way to do it. However, if the causal factors still remain, suicides would likely still happen using the next most efficient method if guns weren’t present.
Better than nothing for the anti’s I guess.
MBerg takes an observed fact, lists randomly chosen theories without citation and ends by shrugging his proverbial shoulders and saying, ‘Who knows why?’
Maybe that title was too long?
I know it’s only correlation, but I like it.
MBerg takes an observed fact, lists randomly chosen theories
vs
I read that the crime rate in any society is generally a function of the percentage of unattached young males
Care to state, EmeryTheSoci@listDegenrate, the trend in percentage of unattached young males over the last couple of years? Or was it read to you by your neighbour? You are the worst projector, and a hypocritical one at that. A true libturd.
I read that the crime rate in any society is generally a function of the percentage of unattached young males.
I’m not sure that that explains a whole lot. Care to explain the ethnic/racial differences in the US using that theory? Similarly, given the rapid rate of decline of marriage and the rise of the hookup culture in the US our rate of crime should have increased, not decreased.
There have been many theories put forward, but most fail these days. We’ve got more poverty and real loss of income among the poor, yet crime has fallen.
Similarly, the only positive correlations that I’m aware of are lower exposure to lead, higher incarceration rates, and an increased culture of self defense. And a funny thing happened in England: banning guns increased violent crime. Strange, but true.
For the moment, few people agree on the relative significance of all of these factors. All or none may have contributed to the fall in crime. For criminologists and social scientists, trying to assess the causes is a growth industry.
Must be tough carrying those goal posts on your shoulders, eh, EmeryThe USAHater? Are you related to DogWHereISPinalCountyNabbit? You got homework to do.
I guess that “attachment” should be defined before it is considered a cause for crime. The word carries many definitions, many of which could be a logical factor if supported by the correct research and data. I agree with nerdbert if the word is used in the romantic sense; there’s a lot of attaching going on, as evidenced with the high out-of-wedlock birth rate, much of which happens in groups which are statistically (if you choose to look) “high crime.”