|
>[citation needed] Easy to check yourself - find list of gun ownership by country, or by OECD, or by state. Find homicide rates for each, also easy. Put in excel or Google sheets, run a correlation. >Well, no - they might have slightly different laws, but generally speaking firearms are wildly available everywhere. Such a simplistic argument would then imply crimes, homicides with guns, etc., should be the same rate across states, and they are not. By your argument, no per state laws would have any effect, in which case they're useless. But this seems far from true. So, if laws do have any effect, it should be detectable. Since the correlation for gun owner vs overall homicide rates point to the opposite direction, and it seems like that there are far more defensive gun uses, perhaps people are deterring some crime. >Can you show me where it says that? Page 15: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)." Also, somewhat related, p16, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies". |
Yeah, what it shows is the exact opposite to your claim.
>Such a simplistic argument would then imply crimes, homicides with guns, etc., should be the same rate across states
No, it would only work like that if it was the only variable.
>Page 15: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses
Please read the methodology. In that very same paper you’ve quoted.