No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

[Agravan]

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Guns/revolver-reuters.jpg by AWR Hawkins (http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/AWR-Hawkins) 28 Aug 2013 http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Columnists/Headshots-80x100/contributor-80x100-awrhawkins.png A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime. Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong. For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000. Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate." And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides. The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8. The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world." In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

[Libhater]

In fact the opposite may be true. Once you see signs in a community or other venues that say...."No gun zone" or whatever--the chances of a criminal zeroing in on that area to perform a crime jumps to about 100%. There becomes zero deterrent at that time. This is just common sense--something leftists seem to lack.

[Peter1469]

John Lott has been studying the issue for years. His research shows that more restrictive gun laws increase gun crime rates.

[Chris]

And vice versa, Lott shows, see his [/i]More Gunds, Less Crime[/i].


From Dept of Justice:

http://i.snag.gy/daGLW.jpg

[Cigar]

In other News ,,, :laugh:

Obama offers new gun control steps
Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps today on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of a cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Read more: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20130829/NEWS03/130829004/VIDEOS-Obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps-

:wave:

[Chris]

In other News ,,, :laugh:

Obama offers new gun control steps
Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps today on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of a cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Read more: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20130829/NEWS03/130829004/VIDEOS-Obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps-

:wave:

Will any of that prevent criminals from getting guns or just law-abiding citizens?

[Adelaide]

I'm obviously not an expert at Harvard, but it seems like our gun control legislation largely works for us (I'm not advocating it for the US). Our biggest problem is that illegal weapons get smuggled in from the US, but it is still hard for criminals to get their hands on them. An exception would be in major metro areas where gangs especially have the connections to access those weapons. Gangs mostly shoot at each other, but innocent people can become "collateral" in those situations. Violent crime was steadily declining before the heavier legislation went in place, however, which makes it hard to really make an argument that there is a strong correlation. Our rates of murder and suicide involving firearms is lower than the US. I can't speak for other forms of crime off the top of my head, but most criminals don't want to take the risk of getting caught with a gun, registered or illegal, because that's an additional 5+ laws broken. Usually, they plead guilty and in exchange get out of those charges - but the actual crime they committed doesn't normally get reduced, so it's a bit of an insulator against allowing a criminal to plead out and get a significantly less substantial punishment for the 'actual' crime.

[Mainecoons]

Is this hard to understand?

http://i.snag.gy/daGLW.jpg

[Adelaide]

Is this hard to understand?

http://i.snag.gy/daGLW.jpg

That's an American chart. I'm talking about Canada.

[zelmo1234]

I like executive orders that do things like this, because they can be removed with executive order as well, Even if Hilary is the next president, it is likely that more that 50% of Obama's executive orders are reversed in the first week

Making him the most ineffective President in US history!

[Mr Happy]

John Lott has been studying the issue for years. His research shows that more restrictive gun laws increase gun crime rates.

When I first started on messageboards about 14 years ago there was huge debate over Lott and how accurate and good his research was. His methodolgy is hardly foolproof.

[Chris]

That's an American chart. I'm talking about Canada.



Correct, and good point. While I didn't see a chart for Canada, I did see one for Britain that was almost mirror image. Cultural differences are very important.

[junie]

Is this hard to understand?

http://i.snag.gy/daGLW.jpg



your chart shows the correlation of decreased violent crime after the 1994 assault weapons ban. :D


http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

[Chris]

When I first started on messageboards about 14 years ago there was huge debate over Lott and how accurate and good his research was. His methodolgy is hardly foolproof.


Note that there is a claim but no substance to it. I knew a guy on a forum 20 years ago who did nothing but that. We called him Mr Innuendo.

[Chris]

your chart shows the correlation of decreased violent crime after the 1994 assault weapons ban. :D


http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/


1994? The chart starts in 1970.


Care to define assault weapon?

[zelmo1234]

your chart shows the correlation of decreased violent crime after the 1994 assault weapons ban. :D


http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Yes! Violent crime really starts to decline after the ban expires in 2004

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

However, the first chart has to do with the increase in Concealed carry that stared to offset the Clinton assault weapons ban!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States :grin:

[Chris]

Yes! Violent crime really starts to decline after the ban expires in 2004

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

However, the first chart has to do with the increase in Concealed carry that stared to offset the Clinton assault weapons ban!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States :grin:




Yes! Violent crime really starts to decline after the ban expires in 2004

Not only that but it was already in decline prior to the "assault" weapon ban.

http://i.snag.gy/nUbeZ.jpg

IOW, a trend line through all those points would demonstrate the ban had absolutely no effect.

[Peter1469]

When I first started on messageboards about 14 years ago there was huge debate over Lott and how accurate and good his research was. His methodolgy is hardly foolproof.

I realize he has been vilified by those who want more regulations on guns.

[Mr Happy]

I realize he has been vilified by those who want more regulations on guns.

And championed by those who want less....<shrug>...

[Peter1469]

true. But he has research to back up his claims.

[Mr Happy]

true. But he has research to back up his claims.

Apparently.....

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/RhIL0.jpg

[Chris]

Not only that but it was already in decline prior to the "assault" weapon ban.

http://i.snag.gy/nUbeZ.jpg

IOW, a trend line through all those points would demonstrate the ban had absolutely no effect.


Another chart that corroborates the above charted data:

http://i.snag.gy/E6FsE.jpg

Again, the trend line would demonstrate the assault weapon ban had no effect.

Source: http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/

In a subsequent analysis of the same data, http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/21/assault-deaths-within-the-united-states/, Healy derives the following chart:

http://i.snag.gy/cIWtg.jpg

What's interesting is during the ban in only one region did violent crime decline just slightly, in another it hardly changed, and in two it rose--further rebutting the notion the assault weapon bad had a positive effect.


Still waiting for a definition of assault weapon.