Is an Armed Society a Deterrent to Crime?

[cmj685]

I ran across a great quote from Ragnar Benson the other day in a book I was reading about rural America. It is one of those delightfully short and straight-to-the-point kind of statements that, in a day of political correctness gone mad, only country folk seem to be able to make any more. I thought I would share it with you.

"Is extensive firearms ownership among homeowners a deterrent to crime in this country? The short answer is 'probably'. Numerous studies and polls of convicted felons have shown that criminals dislike the notion of confronting a homeowner during a burglary, especially if they think that homeowner might do something crazy like shoot them...."

Too funny! And too common sense!

[mmcnx2]

Let see, they can try to rob a home with a high probability of confronting an armed home owner. Might be a deterrent, gee you think!

My protected by S&W stickers on a few select windows is an attempt to send just that message.

Now I'm sure some folks will have all sorts of reasons not to have the stickers, like then the robbers know I have guns and they may break in just for them, or it could imply the home owners predeteremined position to shoot. All I can say is to each their own, the stickers are staying.

[Seismic Sam]

Actually, an armed society is a hell of a lot more deterrent than that. After Pearl Harbor, the Ameican Pacific fleet was in ruins, which mean that a Japanese invasion force COULD have been landed on the beaches in California (Oregon and Washington are just too dangerous and rocky...) if they had wanted to. This was considered by the Japanese high command, but in a memo which the liberal press will never print, one of the Japanese Generals basically said that most Americans had a rusty but servicible rifle sitting behind their front door, and for THAT reason alone the idea of an Amrican invasion was never further considered.

Even more conclusive proof is that Hitler never invaded Switzerland even though they were German speaking, and the reason was simple. Switzerland has TRUE universal military service, and EVERY man has to serve like they do in the US Reserves from age 18 to 40. This law is still on the books, and I got to talk to Swiss 3M employees who were about to go in for their yearly training. Uhh, and there is NO loss in pay while you are getting your training. More importantly, when you reach age 40, the Swiss government retires you from ACTIVE service (doesn't mean you still can't be called up, and you are REQUIRED to take your service rifle HOME with you)!! These days, that would be an FN or FAL full auto .308 assault rifle, but in WWII is was Gewehr 98 bolt rifles which are very accurate and deadly, like the 1903 Springfield. Hitler knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that taking Switzerland would cost him HUGE losses (and to this day, they STILL mine all the bridges into that very mountainous country, so they can blow all avenues of invasion if thay have to...) and he never tried to take that country.

[goalie]

Deterrent to a military invasion and a deterrent to crime are two different things.

That said, I doubt that gun ownership reduces crime as a whole in any significant way. What it likely does is re-distribute the crime into other areas and/or types of crime.

Studies about guns preventing crime are just as flawed as studies showing proximity to guns increases your risk of violence. It is too hard to control for all the variables that would allow you to actually assert a cause and effect relationship between and increase in the number of guns and a significant reduction in crime.

Now, while it may be damn close to impossible to demonstrate in a statistically significant manner that more guns actually does mean less crime, history does show rather conclusively that more guns certainly does NOT equal MORE crime. Even the CDC could not demonstrate a single statistically significant link between any gun law and a directly resulting reduction in crime.




In the end, it doesn't mean a damn thing though. Even if more guns did mean more crime, I still have a RIGHT to mine. Period. That right is not dependent upon warm, fuzzy outcomes.

[bensdad]

I don't care if they deter crime. I care that I have the capability to defend myself and little cherubs (Bensmom can defend herself).

[Seismic Sam]

I don't care if they deter crime. I care that I have the capability to defend myself and little cherubs (Bensmom can defend herself).

Yes, we're quite aware of that, as she is the one in the family who wears the Gopher Bar STFU t-shirt!!

[GregM]

Well, let's look at this from the opposing viewpoint. Is an UNARMED society a deterrent to crime? Gun control advocates would say yes, because they want to believe that more gun laws would put fewer guns into the hands of criminals and would facilitate criminal investgations (even though the people they're REALLY worried about are the responsible, law abiding citizens with guns).

I doubt that we will ever see a rock-hard, irrefutable connection established between more guns and less crime. But the evidence for armed deterrence, including statements by hardened criminals, outweighs the evidence for unarmed deterrence. Even without any evidence, unarmed deterrence just looks like a total non-starter.

[Pat Cannon]

In the end, it doesn't mean a damn thing though. Even if more guns did mean more crime, I still have a RIGHT to mine. Period. That right is not dependent upon warm, fuzzy outcomes.

Exactly. Even IF an armed society is more dangerous, the danger is more justly distributed.

[usnret]

[Belgiboy]

Actually, an armed society is a hell of a lot more deterrent than that. After Pearl Harbor, the Ameican Pacific fleet was in ruins, which mean that a Japanese invasion force COULD have been landed on the beaches in California (Oregon and Washington are just too dangerous and rocky...) if they had wanted to. This was considered by the Japanese high command, but in a memo which the liberal press will never print, one of the Japanese Generals basically said that most Americans had a rusty but servicible rifle sitting behind their front door, and for THAT reason alone the idea of an Amrican invasion was never further considered.

Even more conclusive proof is that Hitler never invaded Switzerland even though they were German speaking, and the reason was simple. Switzerland has TRUE universal military service, and EVERY man has to serve like they do in the US Reserves from age 18 to 40. This law is still on the books, and I got to talk to Swiss 3M employees who were about to go in for their yearly training. Uhh, and there is NO loss in pay while you are getting your training. More importantly, when you reach age 40, the Swiss government retires you from ACTIVE service (doesn't mean you still can't be called up, and you are REQUIRED to take your service rifle HOME with you)!! These days, that would be an FN or FAL full auto .308 assault rifle, but in WWII is was Gewehr 98 bolt rifles which are very accurate and deadly, like the 1903 Springfield. Hitler knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that taking Switzerland would cost him HUGE losses (and to this day, they STILL mine all the bridges into that very mountainous country, so they can blow all avenues of invasion if thay have to...) and he never tried to take that country.

True and I remember many travels in my youth to Switzerland, walking in the mountains and coming up on the small ranges that were just about everywhere. In the weekends the civilian/military reserve soldiers (male and female) were shooting. Picture a 5 lane, 100 meter range tucked away in the background for the 'Sound of Music'. Everybody was always shooting offhand, standing up and they were sure hitting the gasthauses afterwards.
They were shooting Schmidt Rubin K31s though, never seen or heard of a German Mauser for the Swiss. I could be wrong of course, it's happened many times.

[R.E.T.]

Well, let's look at this from the opposing viewpoint. Is an UNARMED society a deterrent to crime? Gun control advocates would say yes, because they want to believe that more gun laws would put fewer guns into the hands of criminals and would facilitate criminal investgations (even though the people they're REALLY worried about are the responsible, law abiding citizens with guns).

I doubt that we will ever see a rock-hard, irrefutable connection established between more guns and less crime. But the evidence for armed deterrence, including statements by hardened criminals, outweighs the evidence for unarmed deterrence. Even without any evidence, unarmed deterrence just looks like a total non-starter.

Look what happened to the crime rate in England and Australia after they disarmed the public.

[Rip Van Winkle]

More importantly, when you reach age 40, the Swiss government retires you from ACTIVE service (doesn't mean you still can't be called up, and you are REQUIRED to take your service rifle HOME with you)!! These days, that would be an FN or FAL full auto .308 assault rifle, but in WWII is was Gewehr 98 bolt rifles which are very accurate and deadly, like the 1903 Springfield. Hitler knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that taking Switzerland would cost him HUGE losses (and to this day, they STILL mine all the bridges into that very mountainous country, so they can blow all avenues of invasion if thay have to...) and he never tried to take that country.

Not to nit pick but the Swiss Servie Rifle is the SIG SG 550 (Sturmgewehr 90)



IIRC the tale goes, on the dawn of WW1 Kaiser Wilhelm asked Swiss President Ludwig Forrer how many men in arms he had. Forrer replied 1 milion. The Kieser than asked Forrer what he would do if he sent his 5 million man army across the Swiss frontier. President Forrer was said to say, "Tell each of my men to fire 5 times and go home".

[DanM]

Even more conclusive proof is that Hitler never invaded Switzerland even though they were German speaking, and the reason was simple. Switzerland has TRUE universal military service, and EVERY man has to serve like they do in the US Reserves from age 18 to 40. This law is still on the books, and I got to talk to Swiss 3M employees who were about to go in for their yearly training. Uhh, and there is NO loss in pay while you are getting your training. More importantly, when you reach age 40, the Swiss government retires you from ACTIVE service (doesn't mean you still can't be called up, and you are REQUIRED to take your service rifle HOME with you)!! These days, that would be an FN or FAL full auto .308 assault rifle, but in WWII is was Gewehr 98 bolt rifles which are very accurate and deadly, like the 1903 Springfield. Hitler knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that taking Switzerland would cost him HUGE losses (and to this day, they STILL mine all the bridges into that very mountainous country, so they can blow all avenues of invasion if thay have to...) and he never tried to take that country.

The Swiss service rifle from 1933 through 1958 was the Schmidt Rubin K31.

http://www.swissrifles.com/sr/

[Lugh]

In the end, it doesn't mean a damn thing though. Even if more guns did mean more crime, I still have a RIGHT to mine. Period. That right is not dependent upon warm, fuzzy outcomes.

Having lived in Alaska for a few years I consider warm, fuzzy things coming out of unexpected directions an excellent reason to work to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.