Is Gun Crime Increased by Supply of Guns or Demand for Guns?
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Using individual-level data from the ATF I found that the percentage of guns used in a crime in Pennsylvania traced to a black buyer increased markedly in 2020. Also Pennsylvania recorded its worst homicide rate for at least 50 years in 2020. pic.twitter.com/BWeua0i9zb
— Forest Dweller (@yukatapangolin) May 19, 2022
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
“Is Gun Crime Increased…”
Gun crime is increased in part by enacting more and more laws that criminalize the possession and ownership of guns.
But the biggest cause of the rise in violent crime is the continued decriminalization of negro criminality. If they didn’t have guns they’d use knives, sticks, chains, or red SUV’s.
Obviously, white racists put down Black on the 4473.
Crime is isn’t low in England because handguns are banned; handguns are banned because crime is low… and has been for centuries. Firearms ownership atrophied over the years as people moved into (relatively) safe cities. Thus by the end of the 20th century one Englishman in a thousand possessed a pistol, making them remarkably easy to outlaw. As we found with the
19th18th Amendment, outlawing something possessed by one in every three or four is somewhat more difficult.Englishmen have not only been permitted but required by medieval law to keep, maintain, and practice regularly with archery equipment. Some think the law may still be in effect.
How much crossbow murder is there today?
Then the coloureds arrived.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Since 1066 England has had a hostile ruling elite which starting in the 13th Century imposed a harsh criminal justice system which killed or exiled 1-2% of the population every year which resulted in steadily decreasing rate of interpersonal violence (from memory, check Joyce Lee Malcolm for the exact details). In the early 20th Century they got terrified by the prospect of a Marxist/Bolshevik revolution and started banning gun ownership; before then read Sherlock Holmes stories where Watson casually puts a revolver in his pocket before they go to somewhere that might be dangerous.
In WWII US citizens donated a lot of rifles for their Home Guard because they desperately needed them, nothing had remained of the archery requirements you mentioned. In the 1950s judicially and 1960s by statute they outlawed effective self-defense, a sort of Marquess of Queensberry regime where can't use more force than the criminal is trying to use against you.
Now, especially with the ruling class far along in the process of electing a new people, and Labour for example removing police protection from parts of the country most especially the rural ones in a textbook exercise of anarcho-tyranny the crime rate is no longer "low."Replies: @John Johnson
False dilemma, because of all the places where career criminals are able to obtain or even make guns, despite every government and cultural attempt at controlling both supply and demand. The issue isn’t guns and never was.
Reg, from your comment…”moved into (relatively) safe cities. A lot of America’s cities are far from safe. Police forces are below their employment numbers and are straining for applicants, so people want to protect themselves.
Probably the availability of illegal guns to young black males from ages 15 — 35 determines gun crime more than overall gun ownership.
19th18th Amendment, outlawing something possessed by one in every three or four is somewhat more difficult.Englishmen have not only been permitted but required by medieval law to keep, maintain, and practice regularly with archery equipment. Some think the law may still be in effect.
How much crossbow murder is there today?Replies: @Dream, @Gordo, @That Would Be Telling, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Black Britons do over 20% of the homicides in England & Wales.
Once against the People’s Republic of Illinois lives up to it’s moniker as a Communist Gun Controller State.
With crossbows?
There’s also a strong quality component to the supply. You hear a lot from the gun community that most gun crimes aren’t committed with fancy \$1200 Berettas but cheap Hi-Points which are VERY cheap. Hi-Points are cheap because the quality and reliability sucks. But they are within easy financial reach of high crime risk demographics.
Does the basic prohibition model apply here? Wouldn’t more gun restrictions in an already gun-saturated society automatically lead to more of a black market for guns, which would increase illegal-gun-market gun violence?
The “idiots with guns” theory I’ve read about is that there are just some people who, having obtained a gun, just can’t resist pointing it at someone – – with their finger on the trigger. This makes sense. Thus, if a gun supply is available, idiots with guns will emerge to do their thing. (Conversely, if the supply is NOT present, the idiots will find other things to be idiots about.) If it operates the other way, then the improbable scenario is: The would-be idiots-with-guns would go around saying, Hey, supply chain, I’m a would-be gun idiot – – can we get some guns in here, so I can do the pointing thing?
The most simple and "hard," as in solid, we really track this are of fatal gun "accidents" (scare quotes because some of them are white line murder) which were ~800 in 1980s and below 500 in the latest year for which there is a statistic, This at the same time the population increase by around half and the number of guns owned by it more than doubled.
And we're pretty sure gun ownership is much more widespread because the "Shall Issue" or better wave of concealed carry laws has made guns a lot more useful for most of the population, from Washington state and Vermont to 42-3 states and prior to the COVID and BLM exodus from big Blue cities ~72% of the population.
But I think it is certainly true that technology has empowered people and some technological advances--ex. guns, cars, airplanes, chemicals, drugs--can pose dangers to other people through malice and/or incompetence.
As technology empowers people you need to likewise be improving your people--weeding out the riff-raff who will misuse that power. I.e. technological advance requires eugenics.
The unrest during the Summer of George spurred a lot of people to buy guns for protection. I wonder how many of those legally purchased guns, especially in the black community, were taken by the buyer’s kid, or cousin, or boyfriend and put to a less legal use. First-time gun owners may be the least likely to see a need for a gun safe or something similar.
… as with the banning of extrajudicial execution or “hate crimes,” this was already illegal.
Here Illinois is making that illegal, while "Biden" is making a bunch of actions against the whole ecosystem, including against a company which sold such receivers and parts which were used illegally by the usual suspects. The media and I think a unit of Pennsylvania government, there was one or more transfers made which can't be legally done without from memory the maker getting the right sort of ATF license, applying serial numbers on what he makes, and the usual record keeping. (Real manufacturing companies of course want to do that, did the latter two before there were any such laws for quality tracking purposes.)Replies: @J.Ross
19th18th Amendment, outlawing something possessed by one in every three or four is somewhat more difficult.Englishmen have not only been permitted but required by medieval law to keep, maintain, and practice regularly with archery equipment. Some think the law may still be in effect.
How much crossbow murder is there today?Replies: @Dream, @Gordo, @That Would Be Telling, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Nah, guns were pretty much unregulated until a few decades ago, but no-one had then because no-one saw the need.
Then the coloureds arrived.
Allowing concealed carry in Philadelphia seems to have pushed the murder rate down a little while seeing an increase in defensive use.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nyc-afraid-possible-pro-gun-supreme-court-win
Another chicken and egg question.
My favorite pawn shop sign was in Flint, Michigan after their economy collapsed when GM moved 35,000 jobs out of the city.
The sign was of the form
My favorite was:
Invade the homes, invite the household goods.
The increase in black gun violence was due to George Floyd, but not just because the cops retreated to the donut shop (as Steve likes to put it). A lot more blacks bought gins because they genuinely believed the propaganda that they needed protection from white cops, white supremacists, and other assorted Klansmen.
“Gun crime” – that is to say, crime – has virtually no correlation with gun-control laws. Look at the sky-high murder rate in gun-controlled Mexico.
The primary variable is the level of social cohesion. If young men of average ability can readily find honest work and support a family in what is considered reasonable conditions, things are generally peaceful. Take that away and it is toxic to the social order. No offense to women, but historically it’s been unemployed surplus young men with no future that have caused trouble.
But: the rich want cheap labor, they want crushing poverty, and they don’t much care how much collateral damage they cause. The poverty in Mexico has made a lot of money for a handful of billionaires – all that lovely, delicious cheap labor you see. “Gun control” laws are just a bandaid trying to keep things from completely falling apart as the rich crush the rest of us into the mud.
Ummm, no, possession of a gun without a serial number that you made yourself was not illegal. That’s what the “ghost gun” propaganda term is all about, guns built from nothing more finished than for AR-15 pattern rifles an “80%” of the work required receiver that you bought without a serial number, or all the way down to something you made from scratch, nowadays often 3D printed.
Here Illinois is making that illegal, while “Biden” is making a bunch of actions against the whole ecosystem, including against a company which sold such receivers and parts which were used illegally by the usual suspects. The media and I think a unit of Pennsylvania government, there was one or more transfers made which can’t be legally done without from memory the maker getting the right sort of ATF license, applying serial numbers on what he makes, and the usual record keeping. (Real manufacturing companies of course want to do that, did the latter two before there were any such laws for quality tracking purposes.)
19th18th Amendment, outlawing something possessed by one in every three or four is somewhat more difficult.Englishmen have not only been permitted but required by medieval law to keep, maintain, and practice regularly with archery equipment. Some think the law may still be in effect.
How much crossbow murder is there today?Replies: @Dream, @Gordo, @That Would Be Telling, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Pretty much wrong in every way.
Since 1066 England has had a hostile ruling elite which starting in the 13th Century imposed a harsh criminal justice system which killed or exiled 1-2% of the population every year which resulted in steadily decreasing rate of interpersonal violence (from memory, check Joyce Lee Malcolm for the exact details). In the early 20th Century they got terrified by the prospect of a Marxist/Bolshevik revolution and started banning gun ownership; before then read Sherlock Holmes stories where Watson casually puts a revolver in his pocket before they go to somewhere that might be dangerous.
In WWII US citizens donated a lot of rifles for their Home Guard because they desperately needed them, nothing had remained of the archery requirements you mentioned. In the 1950s judicially and 1960s by statute they outlawed effective self-defense, a sort of Marquess of Queensberry regime where can’t use more force than the criminal is trying to use against you.
Now, especially with the ruling class far along in the process of electing a new people, and Labour for example removing police protection from parts of the country most especially the rural ones in a textbook exercise of anarcho-tyranny the crime rate is no longer “low.”
Perhaps, but is not born out by the statistics.
The most simple and “hard,” as in solid, we really track this are of fatal gun “accidents” (scare quotes because some of them are white line murder) which were ~800 in 1980s and below 500 in the latest year for which there is a statistic, This at the same time the population increase by around half and the number of guns owned by it more than doubled.
And we’re pretty sure gun ownership is much more widespread because the “Shall Issue” or better wave of concealed carry laws has made guns a lot more useful for most of the population, from Washington state and Vermont to 42-3 states and prior to the COVID and BLM exodus from big Blue cities ~72% of the population.
Yes, and in addition they’re enforced selectively in the least effective way possible.
Basically all of the black population in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is aggregated in Philadelphia – of the 1.25 million blacks in Pennsylvania, approximately 900,000 of them are in Philadelphia proper or neighboring municipalities like Chester or Norristown which are in essence extensions of Philadelphia. This excludes neighboring cities which are similarly extensions of Philadelphia like Camden and Wilmington, which if you added them in would get you close to a round 1,000,000 blacks – I’m not sure if the numbers include guns legally purchased elsewhere but recovered in connection with crimes in Pennsylvania.
So the left graph is really “what happened in Philadelphia in 2019-2020.”
The Tohono O’Odham Indian Reservation in Arizona spans the US-Mexico border, where my nephew, a Border Patrol agent, was posted for a few years. He was assigned to the reservation border with the US, as gun runners used the reservation to transit guns into the US from Mexico. Like drugs, the demand for guns appears unquenched.
And, of course, his experience was that any smuggling corridor contains a wide variety of contraband, other than the targeted commodity. If they’re transiting guns, drugs won’t be far behind, nor alien persons. He had previously worked marine interdiction out of San Diego, and marine vessels used were about equally drugs and aliens.
Here Illinois is making that illegal, while "Biden" is making a bunch of actions against the whole ecosystem, including against a company which sold such receivers and parts which were used illegally by the usual suspects. The media and I think a unit of Pennsylvania government, there was one or more transfers made which can't be legally done without from memory the maker getting the right sort of ATF license, applying serial numbers on what he makes, and the usual record keeping. (Real manufacturing companies of course want to do that, did the latter two before there were any such laws for quality tracking purposes.)Replies: @J.Ross
Incoherent nonsense. It was already the case that “in theory” and in nowhere else could you make a gun from scratch and call it Isobel. Take one step outside and see what happened to you. In any range or show it would be a fellow gun nut who turned you in if you shortened a buttstock.
There are a lot of guns in America and almost all of them just sit around available for personal defense, or are used for sport.
But I think it is certainly true that technology has empowered people and some technological advances–ex. guns, cars, airplanes, chemicals, drugs–can pose dangers to other people through malice and/or incompetence.
As technology empowers people you need to likewise be improving your people–weeding out the riff-raff who will misuse that power. I.e. technological advance requires eugenics.
Is California’s extensive use of leaf blowers demand-driven or supply-driven? Leaf blowers are to California as guns are to Chicago.
As such they are driven by the supply of illegal immigrants who are willing to go deaf for a few extra bucks.Replies: @SafeNow
Leaf blowers, as employed by landscapers, are a tool that creates unproductive jobs for illegal immigrants, paid for by wealthy homeowners.
As such they are driven by the supply of illegal immigrants who are willing to go deaf for a few extra bucks.
My trust/distrust in a person has little to do with their possession/non-possession of a firearm. With that in mind, way too many young black inner-city males want guns to get the respect that they think they deserve from others…exactly the wrong type of attitude for a gun owner to have (because what happens when others don’t give them that respect?) Combine that with the pervasive lack of self-control found among YBM’s, and you have a perfect storm for violent crime. These folks are not to be trusted, by and large.
My fellow pro-second amendment advocates’ “guns solve everything” arguments largely fail in ghettos and black regions of the US. This is because it isn’t really the “good guys vs. bad guys” social scenario they would like it to be in these areas. It’s much more like bad guys vs. bad guys. Or dysfunctional guys vs. dysfunctional guys. Think of young black inner city males as excess-aholics. Anything that can be taken to excess, they’re addicted to. It’s my impression that America’s black community at large sees their young black males this way, too, but can’t exactly admit that to the world. If we were connected to reality, we’d go to great lengths to keep guns out of black areas and neighborhoods. But we aren’t pursuing reality, “we” are pursuing equality.
19th18th Amendment, outlawing something possessed by one in every three or four is somewhat more difficult.Englishmen have not only been permitted but required by medieval law to keep, maintain, and practice regularly with archery equipment. Some think the law may still be in effect.
How much crossbow murder is there today?Replies: @Dream, @Gordo, @That Would Be Telling, @Jenner Ickham Errican
That’s nonsensical. Is “because crime is low” why the English banned handguns for civilians? Or was it done for another reason or reasons?
Since 1066 England has had a hostile ruling elite which starting in the 13th Century imposed a harsh criminal justice system which killed or exiled 1-2% of the population every year which resulted in steadily decreasing rate of interpersonal violence (from memory, check Joyce Lee Malcolm for the exact details). In the early 20th Century they got terrified by the prospect of a Marxist/Bolshevik revolution and started banning gun ownership; before then read Sherlock Holmes stories where Watson casually puts a revolver in his pocket before they go to somewhere that might be dangerous.
In WWII US citizens donated a lot of rifles for their Home Guard because they desperately needed them, nothing had remained of the archery requirements you mentioned. In the 1950s judicially and 1960s by statute they outlawed effective self-defense, a sort of Marquess of Queensberry regime where can't use more force than the criminal is trying to use against you.
Now, especially with the ruling class far along in the process of electing a new people, and Labour for example removing police protection from parts of the country most especially the rural ones in a textbook exercise of anarcho-tyranny the crime rate is no longer "low."Replies: @John Johnson
In the early 20th Century they got terrified by the prospect of a Marxist/Bolshevik revolution and started banning gun ownership
It was really 1988 when they ended private gun ownership.
Some nut went on a massacre and the pols passed the firearms act.
The real problem is that British men are too pacified from the wars. That is why they put up with all kinds of nanny state restrictions.
The British military system was horribly dysgenic and they basically sent all their Germanic and Viking warriors into German machine guns.
The European press also falls for NYTimes style articles on guns. Can’t be like those brutish American chaps and their guns. Such a shame that they aren’t civilized like us.
They really think that way.
Then the coloureds arrived.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
That’s what I said, in other words. Why you prefixed it with “Nah” is beyond me.
I assumed readers would have been quick enough to understand that “enabled” was implied in the next two sentences, but that assumption was apparently too generous.
As such they are driven by the supply of illegal immigrants who are willing to go deaf for a few extra bucks.Replies: @SafeNow
Thank you, very good comment. But please allow me to be fussy and object to the word “landscapers.” The mow, blow, and go guys are “gardeners.” I have an actual landscaper, who has a two-year degree in horticulture. He has taken courses in subjects like soils management and pesticides. When a tree is ailing and it is time to diagnose why, and save the tree, I call the landscaper.
“Enabled” does not equal “because”. You should write what you mean, if that’s what you meant. Of course, your fallback term “enabled” is a non sequitur anyway, not least in part based on your unquantified assertion of “(relatively) safe cities”. Please rework and resubmit your comment if you want a passing grade. 🛠️✏️✅💯🎓
That goes double for screen names.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Lester Bangs maintained that you’d have a good grasp of how good a record might be by how much thought the band put into their own name.
That goes double for screen names.
They’re not even that.
That goes double for screen names.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Interesting. Did Mr. Bangs maintain that more thought or less thought expended in band name choice is better for a record’s quality? And what if a band, under the same name, released multiple records? Would they all be of equal quality because of the band name?
I read it as handguns have been banned for centuries.
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
That's 160 years before the UK, where the process was more incremental.Replies: @That Would Be Telling
No, that first happened in Georgia, in 1837:
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
That’s 160 years before the UK, where the process was more incremental.
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
That's 160 years before the UK, where the process was more incremental.Replies: @That Would Be Telling
This 1837 Georgia law would be from the very first gun control effort in the US. Some people got it in their heads that prohibiting concealed carry, and reading just the beginning of the link indicates a likely size of a handgun as well, would suppress the practice of dueling.