guns per capata

[Plane]

How can you be sure that greater numbers of guns are associated with greater numbers of homicides? I would have guessed the opposite , that high numbers of homicides drive the numbers of gun owners up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-2/@@data-declaration
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-2

If guns cause crime, then the world before guns might be expected to be peaceful and safe. However, according to Malcolm, “Medieval England was boisterous and violent…. This high level of homicide and violent crime existed when few firearms were in circulation.” (Malcolm 2002, p. 33.) Instead, as firearms became common, there was a persistent decline in homicide that continued into the twentieth century. The decline was sharpest in the seventeenth century. For example, the homicide rate in Essex County in the late 1500’s was 6.75 per 100,000. However, the rate for 1600-1650 was 4.3 and the rate for 1650-1700 was 2.8. (Stone 1983) This dramatic fall in lethal violence is more understandable if we consider that the flintlock, introduced in the early 1600’s, was particularly useful for personal self-defense as it could be kept and carried primed and loaded. It was much more efficient than the older matchlock weapons.2http://www.wm.edu/as/economics/research/seminars/seminardocs/Moody.pdf
The data in this Article reveal a more complex picture. As a general (but not invariable rule), countries with more guns have more economic freedom, less corruption, and more economic success. (Kopel, et.al. 2008, p. 21)

[Kramer]

How can you be sure that greater numbers of guns are associated with greater numbers of homicides? I would have guessed the opposite , that high numbers of homicides drive the numbers of gun owners up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-2/@@data-declaration
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-2

If guns cause crime, then the world before guns might be expected to be peaceful and safe. However, according to Malcolm, “Medieval England was boisterous and violent…. This high level of homicide and violent crime existed when few firearms were in circulation.” (Malcolm 2002, p. 33.) Instead, as firearms became common, there was a persistent decline in homicide that continued into the twentieth century. The decline was sharpest in the seventeenth century. For example, the homicide rate in Essex County in the late 1500’s was 6.75 per 100,000. However, the rate for 1600-1650 was 4.3 and the rate for 1650-1700 was 2.8. (Stone 1983) This dramatic fall in lethal violence is more understandable if we consider that the flintlock, introduced in the early 1600’s, was particularly useful for personal self-defense as it could be kept and carried primed and loaded. It was much more efficient than the older matchlock weapons.2http://www.wm.edu/as/economics/research/seminars/seminardocs/Moody.pdf
The data in this Article reveal a more complex picture. As a general (but not invariable rule), countries with more guns have more economic freedom, less corruption, and more economic success. (Kopel, et.al. 2008, p. 21)

with liberalism common sense goes out the window.