CCW and crime rates in urban areas
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: CCW and crime rates in urban areas

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,678

    CCW and crime rates in urban areas

    Let me start off by saying that the purpose of this thread is to point out flaws in the arguments of both antis and gun rights advocates.

    I would like to start by saying that it has been my observation that crime statistics in urban areas are often used to justify either tightening or loosening restrictions on gun ownership and concealed carry. What these statistics often ignore are what goes on in rural areas, where crime rates are far lower. Nevertheless, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the effect that CCW laws have on crime rates in urban areas.

    It is a well known fact that the CCW movement has gained momentum in the past decade, with Kansas and Nebraska being the most recent states to allow CCW by law abiding citizens. It is also well known that gun rights advocates often cite decreases in crime rates in other shall issue states as one of their primary arguments in favor of lawful CCW. Gun control activists often use emotion-laden doomsday tactics to discourage the adoption of CCW laws. Both sides have some successess and failures to their credit. Here are some examples.

    Two cities with heavy gun control

    New York City: 2007 marked the first time in decades that NYC had fewer than 500 homicides in a year. With over 8 million residents and 494 homicides, this works out to approximately 6 homicides per 100,000 residents, easily among the lowest in the nation in cities of 500,000 or more residents. Crime rates in NYC have been falling since the 1990s despite the difficulty most people have in obtaining concealed carry permits. Approximately 16,000 New Yorkers have them, and virtually all of them are people who are either wealthy or politically connected (ie., Senator Charles Schumer, Howard Stern, and Donald Trump just to name a few). Anti 2A activists often use NYC as an example of why they believe more gun control leads to less crime. Calls by gun rights organizations to loosen restrictions on the issuance of concealed carry permits in NYC typically fall on deaf ears, and as long as crime rates continue to fall, things are likely to continue to remain the way it is today.

    Washington, D.C.: In 1976, gun control activists lauded the city for the newly passed law that barred all new handgun registrations in the District. The intent of the law was for the number of handguns, through the attrition of registered handgun owners, to eventually decrease to zero. Obviously, that has been the case, but as the number of lawful handgun owners continues to decrease via attrition, the number of handgun owners who are gangbangers and criminals continues to increase and as a result, so has the crime rate. It has gotten so bad that the city and police have declared numerous "crime emergencies," but to no avail. Washington, D.C. continues to be on the list of the nation's most dangerous cities as well as on the list of cities with the highest per capita murder rates. Outlawing the mere ownership of handguns has made concealed carry a moot point, but clearly the promises of less crime and murder that were promised by the handgun ban have made gun control activists eat their words. Gun rights activists routinely use the District as an example of how restictions on gun ownership actualy increase crime rates.


    Two cities with very little gun control

    Gary, Indiana: Indiana was among the first shall issue CCW states, enacting its law even before Florida. Gary, located in the Northwestern part of the state, has led the nation in homicides per 100,000 residents for most of the past 15 years, including 71 in 2007 for a murder rate of approximately 75 per 100,000 residents; for those of you who are wondering, that's 11 times higher than NYC's murder rate, meaning if Gary were the same size as NYC with this same exact murder rate, it would have had a mind-boggling 5,300 murders. Clearly, CCW by law abiding citizens has not made Gary any less dangerous. In this case, being armed has not made law abiding citizens any safer from the thugs and gangbangers who roam the city at will, obviously undeterred by a CCW law that has been on the books for more than two decades. Gun control advocates who argue that CCW laws cause more crime love to show Gary and Detroit as examples of CCW laws having little, if any effect on crime rates.

    Louisville, Kentucky: Kentucky is a shall issue state that honors licenses from every state and allows unlicensed open carry by residents and nonresidents both on foot and in vehicles. Guns are very much a part of Kentucky culture, yet, contrary to gun control advocates' claim that higher rates of gun ownership lead to more crime, Louisville is consistently ranked by the Morgan Quitno press as one of the safest cities in America. Even though Kentucky did not allow concealed carry until 1996, unlicensed open carry has been widespread since long before then, and its murder rates have continued to be close to or below the national average, something that has not changed since the advent of concealed carry. Gun rights advocates like to point to Louisville as an example of concealed carry making cities safer than those without CCW.

    My reason for this thread was to show that contrary to what people on both sides of the CCW like to claim, CCW, or the lack thereof, by itself, does not increase or decrease crime rates. Clearly, cities such as Gary and Detroit, which are largely minority and largely poor, will continue to remain crime ridden regardless of whether CCW is allowed. Other cities such as Louisville, which always has been mostly safe, will continue to be due to the importance of guns in Kentucky's culture. Finally, New York City, which has always been averse to guns, has been one of the safest big cities in America, and seems to have to belief that they should not change the gun laws if they work in keeping the crime rate down.

  2.   
  3. #2
    It levels the playing field. A gun gives a 100 pound female a fighting chance against a 200 pound rapist. It gives a chance to a small elderly male (or female) against a crack head that would other wise bash their heads in. Would the above victims feel better when attacked by some punk with a knife just because he did not have a gun? Like the old saying goes. God made man, Sam Colt made them equal. Or HK, or Walther or Sig, or Smith and Wesson. I am not as concerned as to whether guns reduce crime or not. What I am concerned is that a gun may make me the victor rather than the victim during a crime.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #3
    I toatly agree HK........ I would rather be the victor any day than the victum, I am disabled, and at home most of the time, but I still carry every day, one just never knows when or where the BG is going to strike...
    Glock Carrier in SC.

    MufDady

  5. Talking my 2 cents

    Tattedupboy you started a very good thread here. Has some very insightful information in it.
    Well thought out. How ever HK and MufDady have some very good comments as well. Which brings me to my comment.
    1. If there is one crime or one hundred crimes I will be prepared if the time would come I needed to protract myself or loved one.
    2. Figures lie and liars figure each side will take the same statistics and make it work for them.
    Just my 2 cents worth thanks
    Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant'
    is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist '.

  6. #5
    The greatest impact on crime that you will find is depending on the people of the area and not on any CCW laws or anything else. That can be a local area, not just a town, city or state. That is why I would like to have whoever came up with the "No Child Left Behind" program drawn and quartered.

    A prime example is the shcool whre my wife teaches. Several years ago they rezoned the school and the students come from a different neighborhood that they used to. That is the only real factor that changed. The ethnic ratio and economic ratio did not change. The faculty and staff did not change. The age of the students did not change. The only change was where in the area the students were living. The school immediately went from being one of the state's best, winning yearly awards for success and being the envy of the district to a school that is on probation for academic problems. The discipline rate and related problems has gone out of sight. As I said the factors that the gubmint uses such as race, gender, economic status etc did not change. Only where the students lived.

    You will find the same things in crime rates among cities and states and all the stats that both the pros and the antis spout are a bunch of BS. That is why we need to keep the feds out of local gubmint as much as possible. Many laws that work wonderfully in vermont will not work in South Carolina.

  7. #6

    FN1910 said...

    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    The greatest impact on crime that you will find is depending on the people of the area and not on any CCW laws or anything else. That can be a local area, not just a town, city or state. That is why I would like to have whoever came up with the "No Child Left Behind" program drawn and quartered.

    A prime example is the shcool whre my wife teaches. Several years ago they rezoned the school and the students come from a different neighborhood that they used to. That is the only real factor that changed. The ethnic ratio and economic ratio did not change. The faculty and staff did not change. The age of the students did not change. The only change was where in the area the students were living. The school immediately went from being one of the state's best, winning yearly awards for success and being the envy of the district to a school that is on probation for academic problems. The discipline rate and related problems has gone out of sight. As I said the factors that the gubmint uses such as race, gender, economic status etc did not change. Only where the students lived.

    You will find the same things in crime rates among cities and states and all the stats that both the pros and the antis spout are a bunch of BS. That is why we need to keep the feds out of local gubmint as much as possible. Many laws that work wonderfully in vermont will not work in South Carolina.


    ...That is why we need to keep the feds out of local gubmint as much as possible.

    I think that is one thing most all of us here agree on.:joia:
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #7
    tattedupboy, you make an good point that I agree with. But like others have said, I don't want to be a victim either. I too am disabled and would stand no chance defending myself physically. Decreases in crime rates depend a lot on urban development. Changing poor communities into thriving ones. But that takes money and gun laws don't.
    New York State Consolidated Laws, Civil Rights, Article 2-Bill of Rights, Section 4

    S 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

  9. #8
    no matter how high or low a city's crime is, the people should have the right to defend themselves. a crime can happen anywhere, at anytime, without any warning at all. big city or small country town. whether or not crime goes up or down"statistically" may not matter. what matters is having the right and the means to defend yourself or some one else if the situation ever comes down to it.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,678
    I did not intend to suggest by writing this that I am in favor of repealing shall issue CCW. 2A is the law of the land, and no decent, honest, law abiding citizen, whether in an urban or rural area, should ever be penalized for exercising their god given right to self defense. While NYC has come a long way in reducing crime, it should not have penalized law abiding gun owners (often to the benefit of criminals) to do so. If anything, armed self defense by law abiding citizens against the criminal element needs to be encouraged. Obviously, in high crime areas such as D.C. Gary, and Camden, N.J., bringing down the crime rate is not going to be done simply by changing the gun laws. Gun control activists and gun rights activists alike need to realize that changing gun laws (whether for more restrictions or less) is not, by itself, going to affect crime rates. In these places, political corruption runs rampant, as does poverty and drug use. Changing gun laws does not fix a city's drug problem, make it any less corrupt, or make it any less poor.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,678
    I did not intend to suggest by writing this that I am in favor of repealing shall issue CCW. 2A is the law of the land, and no decent, honest, law abiding citizen, whether in an urban or rural area, should ever be penalized for exercising their god given right to self defense. While NYC has come a long way in reducing crime, it should not have penalized law abiding gun owners (often to the benefit of criminals) to do so. If anything, armed self defense by law abiding citizens against the criminal element needs to be encouraged. Obviously, in high crime areas such as D.C. Gary, and Camden, N.J., bringing down the crime rate is not going to be done simply by changing the gun laws. Gun control activists and gun rights activists alike need to realize that changing gun laws (whether for more restrictions or less) is not, by itself, going to affect crime rates. In these places, political corruption runs rampant, as does poverty and drug use. Changing gun laws does not fix a city's drug problem, make it any less corrupt, or make it any less poor.

    In promoting the benefits of liberalized carry laws, gun rights advocates would be better off explaining the benefits of CC to people who are otherwise unable to fight or run away. If I were a gun control activist, I would have a difficult time coming up with an argument against this one.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast