Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Switzerland has high gun ownership, low crime

TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:04:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

No. But neither can you use such an evidence to prove that gun ownership does not induce violent crime (guess you are heading that way).
Nordenkalt444
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:14:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 10:04:30 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

No. But neither can you use such an evidence to prove that gun ownership does not induce violent crime (guess you are heading that way).

Breaking news: CNN is reporting that I never said such a thing
Waffles anyone?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:29:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

LOLwut? Did you even read the article?
This essentially is calling for more gun regulation.
Their military doesn't even have ammo in their guns, the only time they do is for emergency situations/rapid deployments. Other than that, the peoples militia are given rifles with nothing in them. The only weapons you can have there is a rifle/shotgun and thats it. Unlike here where pistols and certain semi-automatics are permitted.
Thank you for voting!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:44:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:29:03 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

LOLwut? Did you even read the article?
This essentially is calling for more gun regulation.
Their military doesn't even have ammo in their guns, the only time they do is for emergency situations/rapid deployments. Other than that, the peoples militia are given rifles with nothing in them. The only weapons you can have there is a rifle/shotgun and thats it. Unlike here where pistols and certain semi-automatics are permitted.
It's amazing the ancillary benefits that the US provides for the many nations in the world!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, they dont. They can only use their firearms under certain conditions and they are no longer given ammo to keep in their house. The Swiss have a much lower gun ownership rate then the US when this is taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Swiss have lower crimes because they are a uniform society which is lightly populated. They have been at peace since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

I am for gun rights, I even say that gun ownership reduces crime. However, these cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions. The main crime factor, when merely looking at an overall rate, is socially induced. The only way to gain knowledge of this issue is to use before and after trends (not before and after averages, there is a difference). When this is done, we see that countries that ban guns generally have increased violent crime and increased murder (except Australia, who had a 3% decrease in murder, but extremely high increases in rape and assault).

Now, for the UK people argue that the police changed their method of crime calculation. But before this calculation, studies have shown that less guns lead to more crime, and that more guns lead to less crime. http://www.google.com...

The UK recalculation has been accused of under reporting crime and massaging the numbers. But datasets show a few things:

First, from 1990 - 1997 crime decreased. In 1997, the ban was passed. But it wasn't until 1998 that the ban was being fully enforced and guns were being confiscated by the thousands. Right at 1998, crime increased. It did not fall until 2006. http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

The number of police: http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

The crime fell in 2006 and after because of the record number of police officers, and again guns are not the main crime driver. So the fact that there is still fluctuation is to be expected. Then, crime is increasing in the recent years. Cops are decreasing or flatlining in that period. But in that whole time period, crime was higher than it was in 1996. There is no doubt that the gun ban increased crime some. Overall homicide graph: http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

There is no doubt that guns are good, but dont use cross sectional data ever again.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 1:58:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:29:03 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

LOLwut? Did you even read the article?
This essentially is calling for more gun regulation.
Their military doesn't even have ammo in their guns, the only time they do is for emergency situations/rapid deployments. Other than that, the peoples militia are given rifles with nothing in them. The only weapons you can have there is a rifle/shotgun and thats it. Unlike here where pistols and certain semi-automatics are permitted.

This is all true. But what is wrong with handguns? They are the most used in defense. And semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crime, and are used in defense much more often.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 4:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 10:14:21 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 10:04:30 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

No. But neither can you use such an evidence to prove that gun ownership does not induce violent crime (guess you are heading that way).

Breaking news: CNN is reporting that I never said such a thing

I know. That is why I added "guess you are heading that way."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 5:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 1:56:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:

[select excerpts]

Actually, they dont. They can only use their firearms under certain conditions and they are no longer given ammo to keep in their house. The Swiss have a much lower gun ownership rate then the US when this is taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Swiss have lower crimes because they are a uniform society which is lightly populated. They have been at peace since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

I am for gun rights, I even say that gun ownership reduces crime. However, these cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions.

Now, for the UK people argue that the police changed their method of crime calculation. But before this calculation, studies have shown that less guns lead to more crime, and that more guns lead to less crime.

There is no doubt that guns are good, but dont use cross sectional data ever again.

Hypocritical. You decry someone's use of Swiss statistics citing the dangers of how "cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions. "

Then you proceed to utilize UK data.

By your own arguments, there's no reason to take any of your data into consideration, given that you are attempting to apply UK data onto the US.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
4saken
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 6:17:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@wrichcirw: I think you misunderstood 16kadams.

Comparing two countries to find out the relationship between gun ownership rate and crime rate is not OK.
But comparing the same country before and after the gun ban is fine.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 6:17:33 PM, 4saken wrote:
@wrichcirw: I think you misunderstood 16kadams.

Comparing two countries to find out the relationship between gun ownership rate and crime rate is not OK.
But comparing the same country before and after the gun ban is fine.

The point being, the UK before/after research would be a country-specific generalization that would not apply to other countries. It's erroneous to apply that kind of data to other countries, according to 16kadams, and yet that is exactly what he does.

All 16kadams is saying, because according to him we cannot generalize across countries, is that IN THE UK, such before/after trends occurred.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 1:58:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:29:03 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

LOLwut? Did you even read the article?
This essentially is calling for more gun regulation.
Their military doesn't even have ammo in their guns, the only time they do is for emergency situations/rapid deployments. Other than that, the peoples militia are given rifles with nothing in them. The only weapons you can have there is a rifle/shotgun and thats it. Unlike here where pistols and certain semi-automatics are permitted.

This is all true. But what is wrong with handguns? They are the most used in defense. And semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crime, and are used in defense much more often.

Well 16K according to the statistics of ATF in the US the most commonly used gun in crimes is handguns as well. (At least last time I checked)

I thought it was shotty's/rifles used more in self defense?
Thank you for voting!
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:03:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 5:00:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 1:56:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:

[select excerpts]

Actually, they dont. They can only use their firearms under certain conditions and they are no longer given ammo to keep in their house. The Swiss have a much lower gun ownership rate then the US when this is taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Swiss have lower crimes because they are a uniform society which is lightly populated. They have been at peace since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

I am for gun rights, I even say that gun ownership reduces crime. However, these cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions.

Now, for the UK people argue that the police changed their method of crime calculation. But before this calculation, studies have shown that less guns lead to more crime, and that more guns lead to less crime.

There is no doubt that guns are good, but dont use cross sectional data ever again.

Hypocritical. You decry someone's use of Swiss statistics citing the dangers of how "cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions. "

Then you proceed to utilize UK data.

By your own arguments, there's no reason to take any of your data into consideration, given that you are attempting to apply UK data onto the US.

You dont understand what cross-sectional data is. Cross sectional analysis would be me comparing the overall crime rate of the UK to america. Studying crime trends in a single country after a legal change =/= cross sectional data. The book "The Bias Against Guns" expands on the differences.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:05:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 10:30:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 1:58:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:29:03 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 5/21/2013 8:36:09 AM, Nordenkalt444 wrote:
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the lowest crime rate, is this a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://libertycrier.com...

LOLwut? Did you even read the article?
This essentially is calling for more gun regulation.
Their military doesn't even have ammo in their guns, the only time they do is for emergency situations/rapid deployments. Other than that, the peoples militia are given rifles with nothing in them. The only weapons you can have there is a rifle/shotgun and thats it. Unlike here where pistols and certain semi-automatics are permitted.

This is all true. But what is wrong with handguns? They are the most used in defense. And semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crime, and are used in defense much more often.

Well 16K according to the statistics of ATF in the US the most commonly used gun in crimes is handguns as well. (At least last time I checked)


I am aware. but the ATF does not track DGU's.

I thought it was shotty's/rifles used more in self defense?

No. See Kleck 1997 "Targeting guns". Handguns are the most used in self defense because they are the most likely to be in civilian hands. Rifles and Shotguns are superior to pistols, but less common.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:09:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:01:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 6:17:33 PM, 4saken wrote:
@wrichcirw: I think you misunderstood 16kadams.

Comparing two countries to find out the relationship between gun ownership rate and crime rate is not OK.
But comparing the same country before and after the gun ban is fine.

The point being, the UK before/after research would be a country-specific generalization that would not apply to other countries. It's erroneous to apply that kind of data to other countries, according to 16kadams, and yet that is exactly what he does.

All 16kadams is saying, because according to him we cannot generalize across countries, is that IN THE UK, such before/after trends occurred.

I only cited the UK. The same trend analysis result occurs in the UK, Jamaica, Ireland, DC, Chicago, etc. To compare the rate is spurious because of the other factors involved. It is easier to account for the differences within each country, and if the same trend (crime increase) is observed everywhere, it is easy to make conclusions. Though, comparing the trends is often spurious. Now, there are a few cases where cross-sectional analysis makes sense. For example, Seattle and Vancouver. They are very similar, and controlling for the few differences through regression is quite simple. That correlation supports the more guns less crime hypothesis.

But I am not saying "look, the UK has lower/higher crime", I am saying "look, crime increased in the UK. Crime also increased in other countries, and based on the DGU analysis (which I have not covered much) there is no reason to think that would not happen here".
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:16:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:03:35 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/21/2013 5:00:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 1:56:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:

[select excerpts]

Actually, they dont. They can only use their firearms under certain conditions and they are no longer given ammo to keep in their house. The Swiss have a much lower gun ownership rate then the US when this is taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Swiss have lower crimes because they are a uniform society which is lightly populated. They have been at peace since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

I am for gun rights, I even say that gun ownership reduces crime. However, these cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions.

Now, for the UK people argue that the police changed their method of crime calculation. But before this calculation, studies have shown that less guns lead to more crime, and that more guns lead to less crime.

There is no doubt that guns are good, but dont use cross sectional data ever again.

Hypocritical. You decry someone's use of Swiss statistics citing the dangers of how "cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions. "

Then you proceed to utilize UK data.

By your own arguments, there's no reason to take any of your data into consideration, given that you are attempting to apply UK data onto the US.

You dont understand what cross-sectional data is. Cross sectional analysis would be me comparing the overall crime rate of the UK to america. Studying crime trends in a single country after a legal change =/= cross sectional data. The book "The Bias Against Guns" expands on the differences.

I totally agree with what you say here. I know what cross-sectional data is.

Like I said, IF you are going to apply this UK data to the US, then you'd be hypocritical. Since you can't, then you can't make any assertion about the potential ineffectiveness of US gun control policy based on how it worked in the UK.

---

Let me make this simple since I'm basically repeating myself here:

Is UK gun control policy ineffective? Yes. Does this matter at all to the US gun control debate? No. Why? Because (according to you) cross-sectional data from other countries is "spurious".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:24:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:09:59 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:01:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2013 6:17:33 PM, 4saken wrote:
@wrichcirw: I think you misunderstood 16kadams.

Comparing two countries to find out the relationship between gun ownership rate and crime rate is not OK.
But comparing the same country before and after the gun ban is fine.

The point being, the UK before/after research would be a country-specific generalization that would not apply to other countries. It's erroneous to apply that kind of data to other countries, according to 16kadams, and yet that is exactly what he does.

All 16kadams is saying, because according to him we cannot generalize across countries, is that IN THE UK, such before/after trends occurred.

I only cited the UK. The same trend analysis result occurs in the UK, Jamaica, Ireland, DC, Chicago, etc. To compare the rate is spurious because of the other factors involved. It is easier to account for the differences within each country, and if the same trend (crime increase) is observed everywhere, it is easy to make conclusions. Though, comparing the trends is often spurious. Now, there are a few cases where cross-sectional analysis makes sense. For example, Seattle and Vancouver. They are very similar, and controlling for the few differences through regression is quite simple. That correlation supports the more guns less crime hypothesis.

But I am not saying "look, the UK has lower/higher crime", I am saying "look, crime increased in the UK. Crime also increased in other countries, and based on the DGU analysis (which I have not covered much) there is no reason to think that would not happen here".

You do not see the hypocritical contradiction in your statements.

I know you're talking about crime rates increasing due to gun control policy IN THE UK.

However, you decried someone else using Swiss statistics to demonstrate a potential trend in the US, so what makes it right for you to use UK statistics?

About all of those other entities, you didn't cite that in your original argument.

---

On the bolded, the way I interpret that is "you cannot use cross-sectional data, only I can". I guess that wouldn't make you a hypocrite any more, just someone that is not subject to the standards of anyone else. Had you originally given an explanation as to why cross-sectional data is spurious and why one needs to be careful when using it, fine, you're just more meticulous than others. However, you explicitly say:

"There is no doubt that guns are good, but dont use cross sectional data ever again."

...and then you proceed to use cross sectional data. That makes you a hypocrite.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:08:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 1:56:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually, they dont. They can only use their firearms under certain conditions and they are no longer given ammo to keep in their house. The Swiss have a much lower gun ownership rate then the US when this is taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Swiss have lower crimes because they are a uniform society which is lightly populated. They have been at peace since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

I am for gun rights, I even say that gun ownership reduces crime. However, these cross sectional analysis's between countries leads to spurious conclusions. The main crime factor, when merely looking at an overall rate, is socially induced. The only way to gain knowledge of this issue is to use before and after trends (not before and after averages, there is a difference). When this is done, we see that countries that ban guns generally have increased violent crime and increased murder (except Australia, who had a 3% decrease in murder, but extremely high increases in rape and assault).

Now, for the UK people argue that the police changed their method of crime calculation. But before this calculation, studies have shown that less guns lead to more crime, and that more guns lead to less crime. http://www.google.com...

The UK recalculation has been accused of under reporting crime and massaging the numbers. But datasets show a few things:

First, from 1990 - 1997 crime decreased. In 1997, the ban was passed. But it wasn't until 1998 that the ban was being fully enforced and guns were being confiscated by the thousands. Right at 1998, crime increased. It did not fall until 2006. http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

The number of police: http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

The crime fell in 2006 and after because of the record number of police officers, and again guns are not the main crime driver. So the fact that there is still fluctuation is to be expected. Then, crime is increasing in the recent years. Cops are decreasing or flatlining in that period. But in that whole time period, crime was higher than it was in 1996. There is no doubt that the gun ban increased crime some. Overall homicide graph: http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

There is no doubt that guns are good, but dont use cross sectional data ever again.

Doesn't matter whether the recalculation is massaging numbers. What matters is the British Crime Survey. They did not change their method of calculation, and they show a decrease in homicide rates. If they were artificially lowering numbers, then they'd have to change their method of collecting data to account for any shift in data points.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:17:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:24:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:09:59 AM, 16kadams wrote:

...and then you proceed to use cross sectional data. That makes you a hypocrite.

This came off a lot stronger than I intended. I don't consider you a hypocrite, but this specific instance of data usage does strike me as prima facie hypocritical.

If you're allowed to use UK data to make US assessments, then other people should be able to use other countries for the same purpose, after controlling for appropriate externalities, of course.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?