Śiva wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:51 pm
Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:51 am
The correlation of more guns, more homicide is undeniable.
I'm just going to respond to your conclusion here; I think that there is a possibility that that correlation may be driven by the desire of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in areas where homicide is more prevalent.
That is a distinct possibility. In fact, I do believe that millions of US citizens do own fire arms explicitly for the purpose of defending themselves from other people with fire arms. But what came first? Increased violent crime or increased private ownership of fire arms? There has to be a correlation proving one or the other, right? Go, find it.

(Data for chart sourced from column five
here).
Oh. Kleck's much discussed study featuring the claim about 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. Since you just put it here I'll just comment on it. I won't go into its methodological failures for now, but just observe that you obviously have not read it, or at best read it selectively. If you had read it in full, you would have noticed that Kleck is not arguing "more guns, less homicide". He is not even arguing "more guns, less crime". His central thesis is that gun control laws do not reduce gun prevalence in US cities. That is a thoroughly uncontroversial assertion to make in a nation where they are not uniform. Unless
all 50 states, counties and cities uniformly and simultaneously end their "shall issue" policies and most severely restrict the right to own side arms, be they concealed or open carry, there will always be enough gaps to drive a 22-wheeler through - sideways.
Kleck & Patterson, page 30 wrote:These results generally support the view that (1) existing gun control laws do not reduce gun prevalence in U.S. cities, (2) gun prevalence does not have any measurable net positive effect on violence rates except for a possible effect on suicide rates, and (3) most gun control laws do not reduce violence rates, though a few may do so.
Also, note that he agrees that more guns means greater likelihood of murder:
Kleck & Patterson, pages 32/33 wrote:Kleck and McElrath (1991) found that an aggressor's possession or use of a gun appears to reduce the probability of a physical attack (as opposed to a mere threat) on the victim and appears to reduce the probability that the attack will result in a physical injury, while increasing the probability that an injury will be fatal.
Lastly, the study is quite equivocal about gun control:
Kleck & Patterson, pages 29/30 wrote:owner licensing appears to reduce homicides and may reduce total suicides. Purchase permits may reduce homicides
Kleck & Patterson, page 30 wrote:Requiring permits to buy guns (BYPERMIT) may reduce rates of suicide. Bans on possession of guns by convicted criminals (CRIMINAL) may reduce rates of aggravated assault and robbery. Bans on possession of guns by mentally ill persons (MENTAL) appear to reduce homicide and may reduce suicide. Requiring a state or local license to be a gun dealer (DEALER) appears to reduce rates of robbery and may reduce aggravated assaults and suicides. Laws that provide mandatory penalties for unlawful gun carrying (MANDPEN) may reduce robbery. Laws providing discretionary additional penalties for committing crimes with a gun (ADDONDIS) may reduce murder and robbery. Finally, local bans on the purchase of handguns appear to reduce robbery rates
The authors have cited several measures that will reduce the prevalence of guns and may reduce crime. Waddaya know?