Stricter Laws Don't Work

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
States’ crime rates show scant linkage to *** laws

President Obama has called for stricter federal *** laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower ***-crime rates in the states.

States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter *** laws — but their ***-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent ***-possession laws.

For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest ***-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of *** laws by the Brady Campaign to End *** ********, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI.

Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest *** laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.

Analysts said the data underscore that there are no simple or easy broad answers to combating *** ********, which is a complex equation involving ***-ownership rates, how ready authorities are to prosecute *** crimes and how widely they ban ownership.

Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, said in an email that a simple comparison between states’ strength of *** laws and ***-crime rates doesn’t say much about the effects of the laws because the exercise fails to control for other factors such as ***-ownership rates.

In an exhaustive analysis with data from 170 U.S. cities that did control for such factors, Mr. Kleck and fellow researcher E. Britt Patterson concluded that there was no general impact of ***-control laws on crime rates — with a few notable exceptions.

“There do appear to be some *** controls which work, all of them relatively moderate, popular and inexpensive,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, there is support for a ***-control policy organized around ***-owner licensing or purchase permits (or some other form of ***-buyer screening); stricter local dealer licensing; bans on possession of guns by criminals and mentally ill people; stronger controls over ******* carrying; and possibly discretionary add-on penalties for committing felonies with a ***.

“On the other hand, popular favorites such as waiting periods and *** registration do not appear to affect ******** rates,” he said.

No state patterns

The Times analysis looked at the Brady Campaign’s rankings for strength of each state’s *** laws and at Mayors Against ******* Guns’ rankings for how states perform in disclosing mental health data to the background check system. That information was then matched against the FBI’s 2011 ***-crime rankings for homicides, robberies and assaults.

The results showed no correlation among the strength of laws and disclosure and the crime rates.

For example, Maryland and New Jersey — both of them populous states with large metropolitan areas — have tight *** laws but poor mental health disclosure. But New Jersey’s ***-crime rate was in the middle of the pack, while Maryland ranked sixth-highest in homicides involving guns and second-highest in robberies with guns.

Delaware and Virginia, which both ranked high in mental health disclosure and ranked 18th and 19th in the Brady tally of tough *** laws, also had divergent crime rates.

Delaware ranked among the top 10 in number of *** robberies and *** assaults, while Virginia was in the middle of the pack on its measures.

Article


Statistical anomalies were found between rural states such as Louisiana and Vermont. The former state has lax *** laws and has high ***-crime rates on all three measures. Although Vermont also is a rural state with a strong tradition of *** ownership — the Brady Campaign ranks it 26th in terms of strength of *** laws — it has low ***-crime rates. For further head-scratching, Vermont ranks among the nation’s worst in turning over mental health records to the background check system.


State law details

John Lott, who has conducted extensive research on the link between *** laws and crime rates, said he has examined 13 kinds of ***-control laws, but one that stands out as reducing crime is concealed-carry.

“What you see is the states that issue the most [concealed-carry] permits have the most drops in violent crime,” he said. “When states pass carry laws, some criminals stop committing crimes, some criminals switch to other types of crimes and some criminals move out of the area.”

He said that a deep dive into data is essential to understanding why different regions of the country see different results. Mr. Lott pointed to Texas and Pennsylvania, both of which are right-to-carry states, but he explained that the permitting process is much more expensive in Texas.

“If I have a $140 fee versus a $20 fee, I’m more likely to get suburban white males,” he said. However, he noted, “poor blacks in high-crime areas benefit the most from carrying a ***.”

“Those differences make a huge difference in how many people go through the process to get the permit,” he concluded.

Still, the two large states had mixed results in crime rates in 2011. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Pennsylvania had higher rates of robberies and homicides committed with firearms than Texas, while the Lone Star State had nearly half again as many *** assaults per 100,000 population.

Changing patterns

The Brady Campaign declined a request for comment, but David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of *******, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who now works with Mayors Against ******* Guns, said that linking *** laws and background check compliance with crime rates is risky — particularly since 40 percent of *** transactions are private sales that don’t require background checks.

“Requiring a criminal background check for every *** in every circumstance is something not yet tried,” he said. “How do you measure prevention? It’s tough to do a double-blind test.”

Mr. Chipman also pointed to Virginia’s first-of-its-kind 1989 law creating an instant check system — the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program — as an example of a law that had a tangible effect on criminal behavior and the *** market.

“When Virginia ****** that law, all of the New Yorkers who used to come down — they never came back and tried to buy the guns themselves in the store,” he said. “They were ****** to use straw purchasers, and many of them went to other states.

“Did it immediately prevent all *** trafficking? Of course not. But it sure changed it,” he said.

In 1991, the ATF reported that 40 percent of more than 1,200 guns recovered at crime scenes in New York were traced to Virginia, though *** rights advocates dispute the data. In 2011, 407 guns out of almost 9,000 guns recovered and traced in New York came from Virginia, according to the agency — about 5 percent.

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, co-chairman of Mayors Against ******* Guns, also argues that some specific changes can lower crime rates. He told the U.S. Conference of Mayors last week that after Colorado closed its loophole allowing private dealers to sell guns without conducting background checks, fewer Colorado-sold guns turned up at crime scenes.

He also said that in states that require background checks on all sales, 38 percent less women are fatally shot by their boyfriends and husbands.

He also cited a recent Duke University study that showed once a severely mentally ill person’s records are turned over to the background check system, that person is 31 percent less likely to be convicted of a violent crime.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
What's news about this. It's been a well known fact for YEARS, that whenever a state enacts a CCW law, crime goes down, and the misconception of shoot outs in the streets, are quickly dispelled. And lets face it, the people that don't want to believe it, won't, no matter how many times they're robbed at *** point.
 
Stricter laws doesn't work ?
Then, explain these intentional homicide rate/100.000 people

Japan : 0.4
Germany : 0.8
Italy : 0.9
France : 1.1
UK : 1.2
US : 4.8
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls

And match it with these statistics about *** ownership (number of guns per 100 people)
US : 89
France : 31
Germany : 30
Italy : 12
UK : 6
Japan 0.6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...l-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Less guns, less crimes
 
Stricter laws doesn't work ?
Then, explain these intentional homicide rate/100.000 people

Japan : 0.4

I can't speak for the rest of those countries on your list but having lived in Japan for years, their low homicide and overall crime rate has nothing to do with their *** laws and everything to do with their culture. The Japanese could be armed to the teeth and their homicide rate would remain virtually the same. You could literally leave the front door to your home wide open without fear anyone would come in unless it was your neighbor checking that you were ok, but first they'd politely knock and announce themselves for 5 minutes then take their shoes off before coming in.

The same goes for the U.S. It's not a *** issue it's a cultural one.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Stricter laws doesn't work ?
Then, explain these intentional homicide rate/100.000 people

Japan : 0.4
Germany : 0.8
Italy : 0.9
France : 1.1
UK : 1.2
US : 4.8
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls

And match it with these statistics about *** ownership (number of guns per 100 people)
US : 89
France : 31
Germany : 30
Italy : 12
UK : 6
Japan 0.6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...l-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Less guns, less crimes

Total bullshit. All of those countries together, don't equal the size, and population of United States
 
Total bullshit. All of those countries together, don't equal the size, and population of United States
That's why these kind of statistics use ratios.

Example : In the US, there are 89 guns every 100.000 people. In the UK, there 6 guns every 100.000 people
In the US, there 4.8 interntional homicide every 100.000 people. The the UK, there 1.2 interntional homicide every 100.000 people.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
That's why these kind of statistics use ratios.

Example : In the US, there are 89 guns every 100.000 people. In the UK, there 6 guns every 100.000 people
In the US, there 4.8 interntional homicide every 100.000 people. The the UK, there 1.2 interntional homicide every 100.000 people.

Okay. Fair enough. I couldn't open the first link, and the other 2 simply show what is obvious anyway....a FREE country, has FREEDOM. We have a lot of guns, so what....lets see the TOTAL ****** rate. How many people are stabbed, bludgeoned, or *********, in countries without *** rights?

You never seem to realize, or post the number of times a person has been able to save his own life, or protect his ******, because he has a firearm.

You can't seem to see the plan fact, that, every time a state enacts a CCW law, crime eventually goes down. You can't seem to understand that large cities like Chicago, or Los Angelas, that have very strict *** control, have VERY high rates of *** ********.

You really are that special kind of stupid, that just can't seem to understand, you aren't always right. You want to prove your point? Go out there into the big interweb, and find some REAL, unbiased stats. Something from the F.B.I. maybe. You, know very well statistics from ANY source can be manipulated, but the only people more likely then the pro *** side, is the anti *** side. Why? Because you're all a bunch of whiny, sore losers. You consistently fail at winning your arguments, because they aren't valid, and you consistently fail at achieving your cause, because it's not what the people want. So what do you do? You manipulate, and in many cases, out right lie to deceive the masses, in an effort to garner support. You always seem to fail to mention how, MANY people from England, and MANY Australians, are unhappy with their rights being taken away.

You live in a Country that has *** control, I'm guessing your little utopia is 100% *** free....so stay there, don't ever leave, and you'll be safe. No one ever gets stabbed, or shot, 0% crime rate? Good for you.
 
How about this logic?

If a law is ****** where the magazine of a *** can only hold seven rounds, what is going to stop a person from buying seven of the same guns which then gives him 56 readily available rounds to fire as soon as each *** runs empty?

Or, what will prevent him or her from purchasing twenty magazines that will hold 7 rounds each? A magazine can be switched out in mere seconds.

:rolleyes:
 
Found a pretty balanced article on the issue. It is neither pro-*** nor or pro-*** control.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/***-rhetoric-vs-***-facts/
 
I live in the UK and believe guns should be controlled very tightly, and our system seems to work.

However, over in the USA it is a much more difficult situation, as firearms have been a massive part of your culture for centuries and implementing stricter *** laws will be much a much harder task.
 

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Found a pretty balanced article on the issue. It is neither pro-*** nor or pro-*** control.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/***-rhetoric-vs-***-facts/
I highly recommend reading this.

This part is of particular importance to us argumentative-types here:
Susan B. Sorenson, a professor of Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, is convinced the Lott data is weak (for example, she said, if you take the outlier Florida out of the mix, the results change remarkably). But more important, she said, is that there is simply a dearth of good data.

“We really don’t have answers to a lot of the questions that we should have answers to,” Sorenson.

In part, she said, that’s because the gold standard for scientists — a randomly assigned study in which you gave one group of people guns, and another none — is simply not possible.

There is work the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could and should be doing, she said, but has not since the late 1990s. CDC has been wary of studying *** issues after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for *** control.

What kind of study is CDC not doing? “The kind of information we need at the policy-making tables,” Sorenson said.
Which is to say, you can go back and forth all you like with one weak example or another, but the bottom line is that there isn't conclusive data to solidly support one side or the other. revidffum's example about CCW laws? Bunk - crime 'eventually' goes down everywhere, with or without them (since the early '90's - my favorite explanation for that still remains that given in Freakonomics). Johan's comparison to the UK? Misleading - statistics from the Home Office and the FBI show the UK has a much higher violent crime rate (though one could argue that the reason there are fewer ******* and more violent crime is that it harder to **** someone without a *** than with one...but I'm not going to).

Ultimately, it boils down to this question which we simply don't have data to answer (from the article):
Why can’t a statistical relationship prove a causal one? There are many other factors besides the presence of guns. Adam Lanza, the shooter in the elementary school killings in Newtown, “had lots of things going on in his life and one of them was access to multiple weapons,” says Wellford, himself a *** owner. “It’s hard to parse out what the effect is of having the ***, but there’s no question there’s some effect.” But is it 2 percent, 10 percent, 100 percent of the causal model? “We don’t know.”
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
I live in the UK and believe guns should be controlled very tightly, and our system seems to work.

However, over in the USA it is a much more difficult situation, as firearms have been a massive part of your culture for centuries and implementing stricter *** laws will be much a much harder task.







:clap:
 
Top