RRO2610 claimed in an earlier post that "right to carry" states have lower crime rates. Let's take a look at the statistics from the Dept of Justice.

By far, Louisiana has the highest per capita gun homicide rate at 10.13 per 100,000 people.  Ooops!   Louisiana is a "right to carry" state.  Maryland has the second highest per capita gun homicide rate of 6.95 per 100,000.  A drop off of more than 30%.  Maryland has strict gun control laws.

A closer look at the state gun homicide rates reveals that there is no simple and direct correlation between right to carry laws and gun homicide rates.  There are many other factors such as poverty levels, education funding, social services, etc.

Your own post states

" Maryland has the second highest per capita gun homicide rate of 6.95 per 100,000."

You go on to state,

"Maryland has strict gun control laws."

Obviously, strict gun control laws do not correlate with lower crime rates. Your statistics, not mine.

is trying to say that there is no direct corrolation between gun homicide rates in 'right to carry' and 'strict control' states and incidents of lower crime rates.  just because you have 'right to carry' doesn't mean you're going to have lower gun homicides, and just because you have 'strict control' doesn't mean you will have lower gun homicides.

therefore, rro's claim is clearly erroneous. accordingly, he thinks you would need to look at other factors.  like education, poverty, etc. and from there see why the gun rates may differ so much from one state to another.  his hypothesis is merely that rro's is incorrect.

However, I did a little more research and found an article that supports what I was saying.  One of the reasons states like Vermont and Alaska have much lower gun homicide rates despite liberal gun laws is that they don't have the extensive inner-city poverty problems that plague so many other states.

I think there are clues to be found by looking at gun homicide rates in other countries. In 2003, the U.S. has 41 gun homicides per 1 million people.  Canada 5.1  England 0.3  Japan 0.3

Nevertheless, there seems to be no consensus among researchers as to the effect gun control laws have on crime rates.  Below is one study that says gun control laws do result in lower crime rates.  But I think it's safe to say that a definitive answer remains elusive because there are so many confounding variables.  

i'm sure urban centers is the key.  the more poor, urban centers you have the higher the rate will be.  whether the state itself has 'strict control' or 'carry' laws, the size of the cities, and how poor they are is probably the biggest indicator.

you know, like NYC might have high rate, but how much of that is in the south bronx?  would it matter if there was 'strict control' or 'carry' laws?

i'm all for guns, everyone should have them, but i do get amused when people that live in east bumblefuck say they need a gun for protection.  who is going to shoot you?  there is like 1 crime a year in east bumblefuck and that crime was probably committed by some high school kid or a family member who wanted to steal some money to buy his girlfriend flowers and some chewing tobacco!!!

any stats that are city specific and then deal with whether the state they are in have 'carry' or 'strict control' laws?  

If you break into a house in east(or west) Bumblefuck, you are more likely to get shot than arrested, which might be one of the reasons there is less crime in both east and west bumblefuck. Cause and effect???

In all seriousness though, you and script do have a valid point about urban areas. The problem with the research is most researchers already have made up their minds before they do the research, and are only looking for stats that back up their preconceptions. The anti gunner and the NRA are oth guilty of this.

yeah, i guess i would be less likely to break into a home where i thought the person had a gun.  which in east bumblefuck, i would assume everybody had a gun.  whereas, in small city, usa i would assume most people do not.  in a large city, i wouldn't even bother.  god only knows what may be behind that door!

Possibly it's even more complex than we imagine.

In your post you cite RRO2610's claim that "right to carry" states have "lower crime rates."  You respond by citing "per capita gun homicide rates."  Not the same thing, the latter is but one component of the former.

And what is a "crime rate"?  I'm guessing that RRO2610 is making reference to the FBI Crime Index measure, which is a statistical composite of 7 different felonies.  It's possible that a "right to carry" state could have a lower overall crime rate as measured by the FBI Index compared to a state with no "right to carry,"  and still have a lower gun homicide rate.  Probably not that likely, but possible.

I do  agree that this subject requires the sorting out of all manner of confounding and coincidental and spurious variables,  correlations which are mistaken for/misrepresentated as [innocently and ortherwise] causation, and the like.  And yes, lots of researchers come to this subject with fixed conclusions.

It might be better to start this anaalysis by comparing states with little restriction/regulation of gun ownership versus states with  greater regulation/restriction of gun ownership [granted, this is relative].  The example discussed by ragmen and GaGambler -- the deterent effect of home invading someone who may possibly be armed -- is not a function of "right to carry" [since the weapon is within and on one's property] as much as it is that of simple owership and possession.

-- Modified on 11/7/2007 9:47:53 PM

-- Modified on 11/7/2007 9:48:16 PM

“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders.”

It's much funnier hearing him say it.

Any firearm aficionado will tell you that ammo costs have risen like gasoline prices. In addition I've noted about a 35+% increase in the price of many popular name brand firearms in the last 10 years.
Cell phones, digital cameras, DVD players, even automobiles drop in price after the initial "New and/or improved" wears off; but the same rifle, revolver, or semi auto pistol that has been manufactured for a quarter century or longer is approximately $150 - $200 more than it was in 1997.

 “Gun Safety” is directly linked to familiarity and practice with the weapon. The various ancillary costs of regular and edifying trigger time at the nearest shooting range are IMO counter productive to the goal of having knowledgeable and practiced gun owners.  

1) The legal aspects are incredibly simple.  Rights to defense are common law, not constitutional (which is almost entirely about the Federal govt structure) and matters of STATE (criminal) LAW.  

The 2nd amendment is a political straw man, because (even operating from the NRA interpretation), there is a rule of reason in every constitutional provision that still permits considerable regulation.  By comparison, we've been thru constitutional amendments about alcohol, and everybody still has different policies about handling it.

IOW, does anybody really think crew-served weapons are going to be permitted because of the 2nd amendment?  How about carrying into court, or divorce mediation, or school, or anywhere the sheriff doesn't like?  Can anybody draw a principled distinction - I mean, from anywhere excepting one's ass?


2) The policy issues are more difficult, for many reasons, and are probably more susceptible to economic analysis (ie economic procedures in analyzing owner/non-owner/stranger/suspect/victim interactions) than the BS cliches we hear all the time from people with no experience - thank god real experience is close to non-existent.

Probably the best solutions are local, at the municipal & county levels, or even lower.  Let people make their mistakes & figure it out for themselves.

-- Modified on 11/8/2007 7:33:21 AM

best social & political commentary is coming from comedians - Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Chris Rock - and farther back, George Carlin & Bill Cosby - even farther back, Lenny Bruce.

i saw a more recent comedic bit by him recently and he seemed to have lost it a bit.  i always thought he was pretty funny, and did a great job of mixing politics with humor, but i think he finally lost it.  i never really agreed with his politics so i don't think it was just my disagreement with the subject matter.

it may have been his last hbo show.  perhaps it was just a bad night.

He is so full of his own rhetoric that he's not even funny anymore. Not that that is always bad, Dick Gregory used to be very funny, but that was a long, long time ago.

might be offended to be called a comedian.

And maybe the fact that the jokes are getting old is   more a function of the situation.  I wouldn't blame him if he was tired of it & looked for a new gig.


I forgot to mention Letterman - even he gets into the edges of politics.  

It's hard to imagine any good comedian avoiding political stuff, unless his name was Jim Carey, and that gets old even faster.

What else has so much potential material?  Divorces?

and doesn't always deal with politics.  well, he does touch on history a bit more than most, but he doesn't talk about US politics so much.  

although being british might have something to do with that.

i think he stopped doing stand up though, and some of his shows weren't very funny.  there was one though that i almost died watching.  which would probably make DH happy.  'dressed to kill' was the name i think.

-- Modified on 11/8/2007 2:05:17 PM

Incorrect.  Maher started as a comedian doing stand-up and then as actor.  I still regard him as a comedian instead of any type of political pundit.

is the fact that he ALWAYS stood up for Ann Coulter.  On everything.  He wouldn't let a bad word be said about the gal.  Although from an episode on his show a couple weeks ago i think that may be changing.

and he should have stayed a comedian, as a political pundit/comedian he is so transparently biased he's no longer funny.

Jon Stewart OTOH while also leaning way left, still mananges to be extremely funny and actually fair to his guests even the righties, except when he gets the occasional idiot who really deserves whatever ridicule he gets. Even then he does very little bashing, he justs lets them prove how ridiculous they are with there own words

That's way regardless of who get elected next time around be it Guiliani or Clinton, they both will provide enough political theatre for Stewart to revel in. BTW, he reupped with Comedy Central until 2010.

The problem is there are stupid people everywhere and there are laws to stop them.I just don't want my life restricted by what the stupidest of the population might do. There will always be people who skirt the law if guns are totally restricted and I'd rather have a gun when I meet them.