Please explain why the world needs hand guns?

Hey, ladyboy, stop goading posters into a scrap, this about the second or third post you have directly attacked the same poster.

WTF is wrong with you?

STAY ON TOPIC BEEOTCH, or GTFO

What I'm looking for is an accurate analysis of whether or not gun bearing by ordinary citizens results in a net decrease in violent crimes due to a deterrence effect. Articles are very difficult to find. It looks like we may need to examine Kleck (1997)for a comprehensive review. Even so, I'm afraid the conclusions will prove to be indeterminate.

I hope this is more to your liking.
.........

2. Theory.
A basic sketch of the theoretical relations among the three target variables is that
crime is a function of guns and sanctions. The theoretical signs on the partial derivatives
are subject to some dispute. It is generally recognized that prison incarceration reduces
crime due to a combination of incarceration and deterrent effects (e.g., Moody and
Marvell, 1994, 1997, 1998, Levitt, 1996). We would therefore expect a negative partial
derivative on prison in the crime equation. The theoretical sign on guns in the crime
equation is much more controversial. Guns could cause crime because the more guns
there are, the more will fall into the hands of criminals through loss, theft, etc. (Duggan
2000) and more guns in the home or in public will lead to an escalation of violence,
making crime more likely and more serious. On the other hand, Lott and Mustard (1997)
find that the passage of right-to-carry concealed weapons laws, which presumably
increases the number of guns both at home and in public, causes crime to decrease. The
theory is that if a potential criminal is not sure which of a distribution of potential victims
can defend themselves efficiently with a gun, the criminal is likely to be deterred from
committing any crime involving face to face contact with such a potentially armed
populace. It is entirely possible that both arguments are correct and the net effect of guns
on crime could be positive, negative, or zero. Similarly, both arguments could be wrong
and guns are completely independent of crime, yielding a zero coefficient on guns in the4
crime equation. Thus, the sign of the partial derivative of guns in the crime equation
remains an empirical question. See Kleck (1997) for a thorough review of the literature.
Crime can also cause ordinary citizens to acquire guns for self-defense. Thus we
would expect that the partial derivative of crime in the gun equation is nonnegative.
Society attempts to control crime through the use of sanctions. The criminal justice
system includes the police who investigate crimes and make arrests, prosecutors and
judges who try the accused and sentence the guilty, and prisons where convicted felons
are incarcerated. We expect that crime is negatively related to sanctions and that prisons
are positively related to arrests. We assume that arrests and the prison population are
independent of the level of guns except indirectly through possible impacts on crime
1
.
Assuming a linear model, the specification is as follows.
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3
0 1 2
0 1 2
C
P
G
A
C P G A Z
P C A Z
G C Z
A C Z
α α α α α
β β β β
γ γ γ
δ δ δ
= + + + +
= + + +
= + +
= + +
(1)
where C is crime, P is prison incarceration, G is gun availability, A is arrests; ZC, ZP, ZG
and ZA are vectors of exogenous variables, andα1 3 1 2 1 1
< 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 &#945; &#946; &#946; &#947; &#948; < > > &#8805; > .
The sign on &#945;2 is not known a priori.

..

[link to law.wm.edu]

Not to disparage a good post countering the douchebag OP...but we did have a mall shooting just the other day.

What I'm looking for is an accurate analysis of whether or not gun bearing by ordinary citizens results in a net decrease in violent crimes due to a deterrence effect. Articles are very difficult to find. It looks like we may need to examine Kleck (1997)for a comprehensive review. Even so, I'm afraid the conclusions will prove to be indeterminate.

I hope this is more to your liking.
.........

2. Theory.
A basic sketch of the theoretical relations among the three target variables is that
crime is a function of guns and sanctions. The theoretical signs on the partial derivatives
are subject to some dispute. It is generally recognized that prison incarceration reduces
crime due to a combination of incarceration and deterrent effects (e.g., Moody and
Marvell, 1994, 1997, 1998, Levitt, 1996). We would therefore expect a negative partial
derivative on prison in the crime equation. The theoretical sign on guns in the crime
equation is much more controversial. Guns could cause crime because the more guns
there are, the more will fall into the hands of criminals through loss, theft, etc. (Duggan
2000) and more guns in the home or in public will lead to an escalation of violence,
making crime more likely and more serious. On the other hand, Lott and Mustard (1997)
find that the passage of right-to-carry concealed weapons laws, which presumably
increases the number of guns both at home and in public, causes crime to decrease. The
theory is that if a potential criminal is not sure which of a distribution of potential victims
can defend themselves efficiently with a gun, the criminal is likely to be deterred from
committing any crime involving face to face contact with such a potentially armed
populace. It is entirely possible that both arguments are correct and the net effect of guns
on crime could be positive, negative, or zero. Similarly, both arguments could be wrong
and guns are completely independent of crime, yielding a zero coefficient on guns in the4
crime equation. Thus, the sign of the partial derivative of guns in the crime equation
remains an empirical question. See Kleck (1997) for a thorough review of the literature.
Crime can also cause ordinary citizens to acquire guns for self-defense. Thus we
would expect that the partial derivative of crime in the gun equation is nonnegative.
Society attempts to control crime through the use of sanctions. The criminal justice
system includes the police who investigate crimes and make arrests, prosecutors and
judges who try the accused and sentence the guilty, and prisons where convicted felons
are incarcerated. We expect that crime is negatively related to sanctions and that prisons
are positively related to arrests. We assume that arrests and the prison population are
independent of the level of guns except indirectly through possible impacts on crime
1
.
Assuming a linear model, the specification is as follows.
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3
0 1 2
0 1 2
C
P
G
A
C P G A Z
P C A Z
G C Z
A C Z
&#945; &#945; &#945; &#945; &#945;
&#946; &#946; &#946; &#946;
&#947; &#947; &#947;
&#948; &#948; &#948;
= + + + +
= + + +
= + +
= + +
(1)
where C is crime, P is prison incarceration, G is gun availability, A is arrests; ZC, ZP, ZG
and ZA are vectors of exogenous variables, and&#945;1 3 1 2 1 1
< 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 &#945; &#946; &#946; &#947; &#948; < > > &#8805; > .
The sign on &#945;2 is not known a priori.

..

[link to law.wm.edu]

If you believe I am off topic, I'm afraid you're rather lost.

Try and keep up, essay.

TY, but you will find they are not as common, and response teams are there quickly...

In Mexico City, I heard there was a huge march, because people were getting robbed at gunpoint in the underground section of a car park in a Mall, and after that, they increased security in a major way, and there has not been a single incident since.

My point was that 'dickhead killing spreetard', is gonna try it on anywhere, but they may be less likely to target one specific location if there are armed personnel, it is a deterrent.

Having a locked weapon on campus or school grounds is the sensible, logical and intelligent option right now, especially considering the current mood of America.

it's 'ese', you poorly edumacated useless eating racist bogot, and making digs at someone is not on topic... you seriously lack brain cells, ladyboy, so stop shining dicks, suckwit.....

Whether or not you accept it the facts are the nation is broke and have been laying off police officers left and right for over 3 years now...the crime rate would be going up if your assessment was accurate...unfortunately for you and the anti-gun rights advocates the crime rate continues to drop as more and more citizens are purchasing firearms.

Now, if you trust the government enough to vote for larger government as the OP and Dot does in their own admission, you then must accept the FBI reports as legitimate?

If not, you vote for a larger government that you yourself do not trust.

In light of these FACTS, you really need to change your own view on the subject and become progressive instead of "Progressives".

Done!

And I think that about ties it up.

Very nice.

You obviously didn't read the article I posted earlier.

Violent crime rates are down for the 5th year in a row due to massive gun sales to citizens.

Article regarding a 2009 analysis of the FBI Crime report --> [link to www.washingtontimes.com]

[link to www.fbi.gov (secure)]

Complete crime report --> [link to www.fbi.gov (secure)]

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

forgot the linkie

[link to www.theatlantic.com]

Damn.

Okay, grudgingly, I'll cede Japan...

Sadly, the cat is out of the bag in the States and there's no way to put it back. We're heading for balkanization, whereas in Japan, they're all Japanese.

We can at least meet in the middle on the facts. I think Chip has seen to that.

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

I did read the article, but again.. it's merely a correlation, which does not prove cause.

Let's look at another example..Japan, where virtually no one owns a gun.
---------
from:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

...

Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

...

Ask the 6 million Jews who were murdered by the nazis. Or or 60 million killed by Stalin. Both were socialists by the way....Oh that's right you can't. They're all dead. Murdered by the glorious "state" you liberal idiots worship.

Ever wonder why history keep repeating?Look in the mirror. Mindless idiots like you OP. That's why.

Definitely agree. Good post.

I believe school staff should conceal carry. If a teacher/administrator doesn't want to go armed, that's fine. That there are armed individuals "manning" the schools is a more than sufficient deterrent.

Example - I live in the Southern region of the US in a somewhat rural area. You almost NEVER hear of burglaries at night. Why? All of us "rednecks" have guns ;-)

Agree.. What is the need for automatic and semi automatic weapons that discharge 30 rounds with one trigger pull? That's not a sports gun. What is the application for something like this?

Damn.

Okay, grudgingly, I'll cede Japan...

Sadly, the cat is out of the bag in the States and there's no way to put it back. We're heading for balkanization, whereas in Japan, they're all Japanese.

We can at least meet in the middle on the facts. I think Chip has seen to that.

Agree.. What is the need for automatic and semi automatic weapons that discharge 30 rounds with one trigger pull? That's not a sports gun. What is the application for something like this?

forgot the linkie

[link to www.theatlantic.com]

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

If just ONE teacher had been allowed to carry a gun for protection, maybe one more child would be alive!!!

Criminals will always get guns, trying to ban law abiders from having them to protect themselves from criminals, is just stupid!