Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


Time to start a new battlefield for the gun debate.

The shooting in Newport, Conneticut was tragedy. The number of deaths from this shooting and shootings in other states has led the Democrats to start beating the gun control drums and taking some kind of federal legislative action to tighten regulations. This would be a mistake and I am about to explain to you how it is. My essay on gun control and concealed carry laws will have no distractions. What I am about to bring to you are cold hard facts. Nothing can refute logic.

Statistics

I am a proponent of concealed carry laws. I have always supported it and I feel the need to defend concealed carry laws (CCW for short) in order to prevent a dramatic blunder from happening. CCW laws have strongly benefited the United States. Speaking the U.S., there are only two places that have completely tried to ban guns (eventually stuck down by the Supreme Court). Those two places were the state of Illinois (and more specifically Chicago) and the District of Columbia. The rest of the nation? Exactly 37 states have or shall issue CCW laws, 4 states have completely unrestricted laws on firearms, and 8 may issue. Why do the overwhelming majority of states allow CCW? This because of the strong evidence that has come that proves more guns means less crime. Why do some strongly liberal states have CCW? Back in the 1970s, guns were usually banned in states, but many states now allow people to carry something that protects themselves, including liberal states. This is purely because of scientific evidence. [1]

I will first present scientific data that proves more guns means less crime and that gun control is the wrong way to go. All my studies come from scientific organizations which have the best statistics. Political organizations like the United Nations will not be included because they are primarily political, not scientific. Out of 29 academically referred studies, 18 prove that CCW laws benefit the people and reduce crime, 10 showed no effect, and 1 showed that CCW raises crime. The consensus of the studies prove that gun control is ineffective and that CCW laws do reduce crime. If you are for gun control, you are academically incorrect. Not even a Clinton Administration inspired study conducted by 18 academics could conclude gun control works and saves lives. Instead they declared they needed more research (although one of them broke off saying the statistics found that gun control does work in actually creating crime). [2,3,4]

From 1977 to 1997, a study conducted by Dr. John R. Lott found that murder fell by 7.7%, rape fell by 5.3%, aggravated assaults fell by 7.01%, robbery fell by 2.2%, burglary fell by .5%, larcency fell by 3.3%, and auto theft by 7.1%. Another study in 1999 conducted by Dr. Lott showed murder fell by 10% and the other criminals acts fell majorly as well. In 2009, a study done by Dr. Donahue proved that:

"The most conservative estimates show that adopting these so-called "shall issue" or nondiscretionary permit laws reduced murders by 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%. To put it another way, if those states which did not have concealed handgun laws in 1992 had adopted them, citizens in those states would have avoided suffering approximately 1,500 murders, 4,200 rapes, over 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies. Criminals do apparently respond to deterrence."[5]

These are just some of many studies that conclude that CCW laws decrease crime and gun control does not. Police deaths have also declined as a result of CCW laws. My graph above shows overall violent deaths from one of Dr. Lott's studies. [2,4,7]

Now, if you are concerned that CCW carriers cause crimes you would be wrong again:

"Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000. Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000. Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees, and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter." [6]

So why do we have more violence in the United States from guns? Simple: bigger population. Obviously if your country has a lot more people than another country then there will be more violence and more criminals. The decline in a faithful society that bases it's life off hardwork and pride also has a major effect the increased gun violence.

Conclusion

More guns does mean less crime. All crime rates have fallen and most of the time the criminals are not CCW carriers. CCW laws have also avoided many crimes from being conducted. So everyone, calm down, the best thing to do for yourself is buy a gun to protect yourself. Its the best defense against criminals. They won't know if you carry one or not. Yes, there are deaths and major shootings, there will be deaths and major shootings, but we must prevent more of these from happening. Concealed carry laws do that job. Gun control fails at doing it.
Sources:
1. [link]
2. Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.
3. [link]"Crime+%26+Criminal+Justice"&st=&ps=
4. Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 1997
5. [link]
6. [link]
7. [link]

The graph is from one of Dr. Lott's studies.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I would disagree on one point. It seems that the rate of rape has fallen a lot more drastically than the studies you've looked at.
www.saveservices.org/ Scroll down to the chart on the right
articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/…
Reply
:icon2112yyz2112:
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
After that abortion report/fiasco of yours, one cant help but think you are starting with a conclusion, then underpinning to meet your desired goal.
I dont think that gun control is the answer, or atleast not the only factor.
But I think if 20 dead children are not enough incentive to seek the best answer regardless of ones own hopes on the issue tells me that the reduction to the absurd is not relevant in the US.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
All I am giving out is data proving CCW works and that is it. Conclusions have been around since the dawn of writing an essay and that is why I feel the need to put one in.
Reply
:icon2112yyz2112:
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
You are missing the point of my critique. You seem to, as you did before, start with what you want to be true and work to shore and shim the conclusion. You are taking a stand in contrast to the reductio ad absurdum, which means you have a large burden to carry. The fact that some states have stricter laws, and suffer from violence may just as easily show that state lines are porous and the perpetrators are following the path of least resistance.
One could entertain this premise based on the fact that nations that have adapted gun control have less issues, that countries that are not bordering armed countries have less than those that do. Examples would be Britain vs Canada. If one wants to get this right this should be addressed.
I am not saying what the answer is, I do however find that both sides are behaving in a pig headed manner. Each act as though the other is making absurd assertions. When it seems both have room in the discussion. If some one tries to blame this on the reduction of bubble gum in school, THAT is absurd. It is an important issue and deserves a proper intellectual pursuit of the best way to make a horrid situation as good as can be hoped for.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
"It is an important issue and deserves a proper intellectual pursuit of the best way to make a horrid situation as good as can be hoped for."

But I am using scienfitic studies worked on by intellectuals.

Just curious, would you be kind as to give a proper format for my gun control and CCW essay?
Reply
:icon2112yyz2112:
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
One could start by giving all the reasons why the opposing argument wont work in the US the way it has elsewhere. As I said I agree legislation wont work atleast not alone. But the facts in other countries are what they are in per capita studies it is lower the most extreme would be North Korea, a shitload of oppressed people serious emotional issues, no gun violence because they are under STRICT governmental control. But who wants to move in that direction?
So there are places like Iceland, Britain and here in Canada, not oppressed but alot less per cap gun violence.
Is it the theocratic nature of the US? The attempt to contrast christianity with capitolism? Or is it the push from the secular side? Any and all possibilities that could launch your country to the top of this type of social cancer.
As far as your citing scientific evidence, it must pass peer reviews, which your abortion evidence did not. Thus I am not confident in your claims.
I find there are 2 types of christians politically active in the states the ones that are in it for the good of the United States of America and happen to believe in jesus and those who are theocrats who use either bible or the constitution when it suits pushing what THEY want. I get the feeling you are the latter.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
If I may say, the number 1 concern for me is the US and gun violence, not the entire world in gun violence. There is only one opposing argument, gun control in the US reduces crime.

That is why it is unecessary to include other countries. I don't care about theocratic nature, just data. As for my scientific evidence, they all use matching variables and are the ONLY scientific studies out oat this time, in addition the older studies from the 70s are part of the reason that today most states have CCW laws in place.

I rarely use the bible due to a separation of church and state, for example, in abortion I looked more at economics and health of the mother and child, not moralism because moralism does not matter in the United States.

The Constitution is a different story because it is the law of the land.
Reply
:icon2112yyz2112:
2112yyz2112 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
You may not USE the bible, but it oozes from your fingers none the less. And as you just conceded, you have the truth and now just need to prove it. Hence the first sentence has prescience.
To say nothing of the absurd example of your conpempt of possible christian influence, or any other ideological influence. The gun control rebuttle demands it when it is said GUNS dont kill PEOPLE kill. But you seem to feel that what and how they think is of no use to you.
It is nice to know that even one who agrees for the most part with your position is to be shunned because they dont agree for the right reasons.
As far as the abortion piece goes you cited a fundemental christian study scientifically flawed and of course quite skewed to satisfy what they want to be true.
This is quite obvious in your "gun" argument/solution.
You are happy to find that you are right.....why because you say so.....why because people who profit from this version of truth tell you you are! WOOOT imagine being able to solve a major social cancer in "60 seconds or less" and.....AND have the best interests of your fellow Americans covered as well!!!
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Student Writer
"The gun control rebuttle demands it when it is said GUNS dont kill PEOPLE kill. But you seem to feel that what and how they think is of no use to you."

What matters is what proper steps can be taken to lower crime and CCW laws do that, so I don't there is a need to put in, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

"It is nice to know that even one who agrees for the most part with your position is to be shunned because they dont agree for the right reasons."

Everyone has their own agenda, that is why DA exists.

I will try to work on the abortion piece another time, but as of now I would like to focus on gun control.
Reply
:iconshirouzhiwu:
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The only thing I would add is that gun training, basic tactical training, and practice with the weapon is essential. Without it, you become a walking safety hazard. It's sort of why I think such training should be required before one receives legal adulthood.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
nice chart. makes sense to me :D

though when we do have crime they ride that to no end...
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012
Can you justify assault weapons?
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Student Writer
Assault weapons are probably in the studies.
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
What, concealed assault weapons?
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Student Writer
IDK, this just about CCW and gun control and that it is better that people carry guns to protect themselves.
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Maybe. I can't help but think the moment people with guns do protect themselves, especially in public, the situation will deteriorate rapidly. People are panicky and stupid, and will likely shoot an armed person they see standing over the body over another after hearing gunfire. And the person they shoot could well be the innocent one who was defending himself from the now deceased attacker. Other armed civilians, seeing a shoot-out and deigning to get involved, will do the same.

as it is people can arm themselves with whatever they like and require no training or instruction to do so. They're not soldiers or cops and it is a mistake to assume that they will behave as such when put in danger.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
1. I think that most people would disagree with you on the UN. Regardless, the UN presents the stats from different sources. You could argue against the conclusions the UN makes based off those stats, but I don't think you can argue against the stats that they present.

2. Crime rates have been going down in the Western world since the 1970's in general. I would attribute those declines in crime to this general trend, not guns.

3. Your bigger population point is for the lack of a better word stupid. Crime rates are not effected by population. Yes, if we were just comparing overall numbers, you could say that, but we aren't, henceforth, stupid. Consider this, most western countries, including the US, have the same crime rate. It is the violent crime rate where they differ. If you conclusion is based off a falsehood, then I would go as far as saying it discredits your entire argument.

Guns mean less crime, but they mean far higher murder rates. I'd rather have more robberies than people being shot.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Student Writer
" I think that most people would disagree with you on the UN. Regardless, the UN presents the stats from different sources. You could argue against the conclusions the UN makes based off those stats, but I don't think you can argue against the stats that they present."

The UN has an agenda: world peace. While they may reduce crime, guns don't sound like peace do they? That is why they have that one sculpture of the pistol with the twisted barrel outside. Its a political organization.

"Crime rates have been going down in the Western world since the 1970's in general. I would attribute those declines in crime to this general trend, not guns."

I gave you the Ireland graph. Murders are going up there. So now its time for Jamaica: [link]

Dr. Lott's studies have controlled variables so CCW does not interfere with other factors. He has turned out to be correct, because now all organization investing gun control use his data and technique. So CCW was indeed the factor.

"Your bigger population point is for the lack of a better word stupid. Crime rates are not effected by population. Yes, if we were just comparing overall numbers, you could say that, but we aren't, henceforth, stupid. Consider this, most western countries, including the US, have the same crime rate. It is the violent crime rate where they differ. If you conclusion is based off a falsehood, then I would go as far as saying it discredits your entire argument."

Do you have evidence that the entire population and its wealth, opinions, etc. do not effect violence.



"Guns mean less crime, but they mean far higher murder rates. I'd rather have more robberies than people being shot."

I already showed you the studies show murder has fallen by a large margin, so that is incorrect.

[link]
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
But that doesn't change the numbers. You don't have the ability to discredit a source that you don't like if it is reputable, and I can assure you, you don't get much more reputable than the UN. Not to mention, their numbers are provided from non political sources. You can disagree with the UN's conclusion, but you can't disagree with there numbers.

On Ireland, I disagree with your numbers. [link] According to the UN, they have been fairly constant for the last 20 years.

Jamaica doesn't count. Jamaica isn't a developed country. It's problems are not at all related to guns. The fact that you would even bring them up shows a clear lack of understanding on the issue.

I do actually. Canada, Australia and the US are extremely similar. Income per capita, living standards, laws, culture etc. Even on illegal immigrants Australia is extremely similar. One of the few differences they have are guns. There is no reason that US cities the size of Toronto or Sydney should have different homicide rates. But they are usually much higher. New York and Washington DC have gotten a lot better when most cities have been constant... but hey, guess what they did?

On your last point, that may or may not be true, but A: I don't know your source. You could have made that yourself for all I know, and B: You didn't explain the overwhelming evidence in every other developed country.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Student Writer
You don't understand, they get their information from non-political sources that favor them in order to prove their point. They usually overlook the majority of sources in the case of guns. Also, it is not a high priority for them so their full attention is not on crime in the United States.

So the UN is wrong.

We are talking about if banning guns is good or not. I could care less if Jamiaca isn't a developing country (oh, and I checked scientific National Geographic and it is a modern nation). Our problems are not all related to guns, your problems are not all related to guns, I don't think any country's problem is all related to guns. So in the end the issue of guns being the most important issue or not does not matter. Remember, I am trying to show the effect of CCW and gun control laws primarily in the USA, screw Canada, the UK, and every other country. My primary interest is the US.

Yes, I heard what happened in DC, their gun ban was ruled unconstitutional and now people in DC are allowed to carry guns: [link]

A: I gave them in the study, you should read them.
B: I don't care about the other countries, just the USA.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Or maybe you just don't like the UN's numbers so you are choosing to ignore them.

I think too many American's think the US is some unique case, but the US is really just another country based on English ideology. Life is too short to make mistakes yourself, so learn from others. The US fortunately has many similar countries to look at, and you should.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Student Writer
Wrong, I won't take any political study or information from a political organization on this tiopic, just the scientific ones. We do what our people want, not what the foreigners want, you aren't citizens of a nation, we also do what seems best for our nation based on important studies that give us data on what laws to make.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
No, you're just ignoring stats that are inconvenient for you. And to assume that someone has not motivations when doing a study is naive, especially on an issue that is so polarizing issue.

Your unwillingness to address the numbers that disagree with yours, and your naiveté discredit this.

Until you are willing to address the numbers that disagree with your argument, and reach a conclusion that isn't based on a lie, then I wish to have no further discussion on the topic, as it would be mutually useless.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Student Writer
"No, you're just ignoring stats that are inconvenient for you. And to assume that someone has not motivations when doing a study is naive, especially on an issue that is so polarizing issue."

So now you are makign accusations more bogus than withcraft in Salem.

I told you, I will only use scientific numbers, not political ones.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconhaze3p0:
Haze3P0 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
How come Britain, Japan, Australia have banned guns yet have less gun violence in the U.S.?

Here is a Top 20 of the states with the most gun violence: [link] I hope you notice something in the slideshow.

Overall, I'm not anti-gun. I believe a assault weapons ban won't hurt. You don't need a AR-15 rifle to defend your home.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Student Writer
Also, I found a study from Duke University. In it they found that:

"Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% during the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.

Part of Japan's low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely "...engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions." Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries."
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Student Writer
I already said that the reason there is more gun violence is because of a higher population. There are more people in the USA than in Britain, Japan, and Australia.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
You do know you are lying. A stat is not effected by population. Crime rates are done on a per 100 000 basis. Even if an area has less than 100 000 people, you can extrapolate the data. Therefore, this has nothing to do with population.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Student Writer
100,000 people are part of the population, it just looking into a smaller section.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
So, you are telling me you don't understand how the numbers work or what they mean then. Because that's not what that per 100 000 rate is. How can you hope to analyze something you don't understand?
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Student Writer
You can't climate countries - those countries have ALWAYS had lower crime. And gun control has increased crime in all of those areas.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Living in Canada, I can assure you, that rates have gone from around 3 per 100 000 to 1.5 per 100 000 since the Montreal Massacre. Australia is very similar since Port Arthur.

Of course, you have tapped into a bigger issue. The US has a far weaker social security net, education funding is poorly distributed, and you have less well funded community programs. I personally thing the US has too fix those issues as well. Gun control is a band aid, it'll only do so much, but those issues are the disease.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Student Writer
Again, I have said that your crime never changes no matter what. 3 to 1.5 is a very small margin.

Your right, we can get rid of these issues by reforming them to make them cheaper or just ending them completely so we don't have to worry abgout them.

Gun control is a band aid, CCW is permanent.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkamackazi:
Kamackazi Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Liberals do not understand . If any laws are enacted this will cause crime to be created . By having no laws we create a society that has no crime in the legal sense. Morality has been proven to be nonsense and only those with the will to kill and conquer should be allowed to live . The mythology of a just god and some simple minded savior have been proven to be garbage . Lock and load , thin the heard, and prepare for the new Feudalism.
Reply
:iconjgraham1993:
jgraham1993 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012
gun control, cause prohibition went so well, and the drug war has been won. right?
Reply
:iconrakuun:
Rakuun Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Professional Interface Designer
Liberals just do not understand that if gun control is enacted, the only people who will follow it are law abiding citizens. Criminals and people who mean to do harm will get a firearm regardless of silly laws. Gun control only limits the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against criminals who will still obtain firearms in any illegal way they can.

Why is this so hard to understand?
Reply
:iconblackhedgehog13:
Blackhedgehog13 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
I think they do understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and that's why they are taking it one law at a time. The 2nd Amendment allows armed citizens who can stop a tryantical government
Reply
:iconrakuun:
Rakuun Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Professional Interface Designer
Very true.
Reply
:iconblackhedgehog13:
Blackhedgehog13 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
of course they want to use the regular bullshit of "Guns are dangerous and Bad" to give themselves a pass to take them away
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Student Writer
Its actually pretty funny, the most law abiding citizens are people who have guns and carry them concealed. Now they will have nothing to defend themselves.
Reply
:iconjgraham1993:
jgraham1993 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012
If they made guns illegal it wouldn't stop someone from throwing a twelve pound block of sodium into the swimming pool while the kids were swimming.

or use hydrochloric acid and zinc to make a hydrogen bomb.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:icontitanicfan1000: More from Titanicfan1000





Details

Submitted on
December 20, 2012
File Size
5.3 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
523
Favourites
7 (who?)
Comments
45
×