NRA: 70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime [Archive]

BrettStah

01-04-2007, 09:13 PM

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2445

70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

Friday, September 22, 2006

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high. Rates of the individual categories of violent crime were also much lower in 2005 than in 1991. Murder was 43% lower, rape 25% lower, robbery 48% lower, and aggravated assault 33% lower. The FBI’s report came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey that found that violent crime was lower in 2005 than anytime in the survey’s 32-year history.

Defying the anti-gunners’ claim that more guns means more crime, from 1991-2005 the number of privately owned guns increased by more than 70 million.

The news media often characterize violent crime as a primarily gun-oriented problem, but the FBI’s report showed that only one in every four violent crimes in 2005 was committed with a gun. In 2005, as in previous years, most violent crimes were robberies and aggravated assaults, most of which were committed with knives or bare hands.

Recently, anti-gun politicians and activists have intensified their rhetoric over the “lack” of bans on handguns, so-called “assault weapons”, and .50-caliber rifles; gun registration, gun owner licensing, and mandatory background checks on sales of guns between friends and family members; and limits on the frequency of gun purchases, all of which they say are necessary to reduce the nation’s murder rate. But for the last seven years, the murder rate has been steady¾in the 5.5-5.7 per 100,000 population range¾at all times lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. In 2005, for example, the murder rate was 5.6.

Naturally, anti-gunners will downplay the downward trend in violent crime since 1991, and focus on the fact that the FBI’s report showed a 1% increase in total violent crime, and a 2% increase in murder in 2005, compared to 2004. But those changes are miniscule, compared to the huge decrease in crime over the last 14 years.

The FBI’s report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.

As usual, Washington, D.C., which leads the nation in anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder, with a rate six times higher than the rest of the country. Neighboring Maryland, where gun control advocates have been particularly active recently, once again had the highest robbery rate among the states, but also tied for the unenviable distinction of “first place” in murder among the states. However, despite Maryland’s high crime counts, CeaseFire Maryland, the local Brady Campaign affiliate that recently released a paper demanding an “assault weapon” ban, was unable to point to any crimes in the state involving such a gun.

The FBI’s report must have displeased New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (R). Despite the mayor’s recent posturing on the gun issue, and his self-laudatory comments about fighting crime, the Big Apple’s murder rate was more than double that of the rest of the state. Similarly, in Philadelphia, where anti-gun politicians are calling for a statewide one-gun-a-month law, the murder rate was more than seven times higher than the rest of Pennsylvania.

Adding to the reasons why voters should “Dump Doyle” in Wisconsin’s upcoming gubernatorial election, their state had the greatest total violent crime rate increase (15.1%) between 2004-2005. Murder was up 25.2%; robbery up 11.2%; and aggravated assault up 20.2%. Wisconsin is one of only two states that prohibits Right-to-Carry entirely, but in 2005, 11 of the 12 states that had the greatest decreases in total violent crime, and 12 of the 14 states with the greatest decreases in murder were Right-to-Carry states. The seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates in 2005, and 11 of the 12 states that had the lowest murder rates, were Right-to-Carry states.

Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and “Castle Doctrine” movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida’s 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state’s landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.

Copyright 2006, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

RegBarc

01-04-2007, 09:44 PM

retrodog

01-04-2007, 09:53 PM

God bless the NRA. Never regretted my life membership.

Is there a linked correlation between gun ownership and a lowering violent crime rate? The two numbers in and of themselves prove nothing. But it certainly doesn't help the pro-gun control crowd.
That's not the correct term ;)

There are some of the numbers you ask for in states that have began concealed handgun permits. Too lazy to look it up right now but I've seen it published. I think Florida was one of these that I'd seen reported on.

RegBarc

01-04-2007, 09:56 PM

That's not the correct term ;)

There are some of the numbers you ask for in states that have began concealed handgun permits. Too lazy to look it up right now but I've seen it published. I think Florida was one of these that I'd seen reported on.
The book by John Lott, while having some natural enemies himself, elaborates on the numbers in great detail and makes a believable correlation. I'm more inclined to believe him than the writers of Freakonomics, however. ;)

Makita

01-04-2007, 10:07 PM

I recall a Georgia or Florida town that had Crime drop once Gun-laws were changed (allowing more/easier access to them).

However, with this article, I would have to ask/wonder: Could the War in Iraq causing some of this lower crime rate? I seem to remember in 'Times of Crisis' crime rates drop. (most current example would be 9-11, I beleive).

retrodog

01-04-2007, 10:08 PM

The book by John Lott, while having some natural enemies himself, elaborates on the numbers in great detail and makes a believable correlation. I'm more inclined to believe him than the writers of Freakonomics, however. ;)
Apprehension in the mind of a criminal is a good thing. Armed citizens increases apprehension in the minds of criminals. I don't really need numbers:coolsmiley: to tell me that. But they're good to hear anyway.

pseudonym

01-05-2007, 06:24 AM

Wow. So if we find a way to get about 200 million more guns out there, violent crime should disappear entirely. Sweet.

Mikkel_Knight

01-05-2007, 07:29 AM

It's somewhat misleading.

Figure out how many more illegal guns are around and correlate that with the crime figures and crime would be up.

This is one of those studies that functionally supports what it was set out to do.

Yeah, registered guns (and owners) is up, but that's not the problem - never has been. It's all the nutjobs with unregistered/stolen/illegal guns that generate the majority of gun-related crimes...

01-05-2007, 07:44 AM

Correlation isn't causation. Average temperatures are up too since 1991, so maybe the cause of the decrease in violent crime is global warming?

And of course there's the previously existing theory, advanced most recently in the Freakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Revised-Expanded-Economist-Everything/dp/0061234001/sr=8-1/qid=1168000997/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3497948-1835354?ie=UTF8&s=books) book, that the decrease in crime is due to the greater availability of abortion post-Roe and thus fewer unwanted children are growing up in bad situations and turning to crime and violence as they become adolescents.

retrodog

01-05-2007, 10:03 AM

aindik

01-05-2007, 10:29 AM

01-05-2007, 12:06 PM

retrodog

01-05-2007, 01:11 PM

Actually no, it isn't. More guns might still be having an increasing effect on violent crime - simply not enough of one to offset other factors that are bringing it down.
You never really get a straight story from either side.

Martin Tupper

01-05-2007, 01:47 PM

Otto

01-05-2007, 01:52 PM

It might not be causation. But it's pretty good evidence that there isn't causation in the other direction.
Actually no, it isn't. More guns might still be having an increasing effect on violent crime - simply not enough of one to offset other factors that are bringing it down.

I dunno about that. 70 million more but 38% down is still a huge whopper of a difference. There's only about 260 million or so privately owned guns in the country right now (estimates vary, of course), so a 70 million increase is nothing to scoff at. And consider the other statistics:
-There's more gun owners now than ever before. The number I read a lot is half of households.
-Since the late 80's, the number of states that passed right to carry laws increased to 40 from like 10.
-Gun control laws are less restrictive now. The pointless assault weapon ban expired in 2004 and has not been renewed (nor will it be, since it was useless from the beginning). The Brady Act's federally mandated waiting period is 10 years dead now and they have Instant Checks instead in most places.

Basically, guns have risen across the board since the time right around 1990, and gun control has also declined across the board, with more gun related rights being given to the people. And yet crime has fallen by major amounts.

While it's true other factors could decrease crime more than these factors could increase it, it's a safer statistical bet that these factors either do not contribute at all or also contribute to the decrease. The gap is much too wide, and you'd probably have to postulate some seriously major factor to outweigh the level of change in gun-related stats that has occurred since that time period.

Otto

01-05-2007, 01:57 PM

As long as we are drawing causational correlations, according to the U.S.D.O.J. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm), gun related crime peaked in 1993 and has declined sharply since then.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif

Does anyone happen to remember what year the Brady Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) was signed into law?
Before you attribute the decline from 1993-1998 on the Brady Bill (which, admittedly, did mandate the waiting period during those years), I'd really prefer an explanation of the increase in gun crime during the previous five year period. Because gun crime is basically back at pre-88 levels according to that chart, so that makes me wonder what happened in '88 to cause the sudden increase, instead of wondering what caused the decrease starting in '93. It looks more like something happened from 88-93 that was eliminated in 93, causing a reversion to the previous state.

01-05-2007, 02:02 PM

Before you attribute the decline from 1993-1998 on the Brady Bill (which, admittedly, did mandate the waiting period during those years), I'd really prefer an explanation of the increase in gun crime during the previous five year period. Because gun crime is basically back at pre-88 levels according to that chart, so that makes me wonder what happened in '88 to cause the sudden increase, instead of wondering what caused the decrease starting in '93.The increasing prevalence of crack cocaine and the gang-warfare epidemic that came with it. That's one thing I've seen discussed in papers on the subject.

01-05-2007, 02:22 PM

I dunno about that. 70 million more but 38% down is still a huge whopper of a difference. There's only about 260 million or so privately owned guns in the country right now (estimates vary, of course), so a 70 million increase is nothing to scoff at. Whether the increase in ownership is a large or small percentage doesn't effect the logic (that it is an unsupported claim to say that because violence did not go up, more guns do not contribute to more violence).

I think what you've got there is an underlying assumption that if gun ownership contributes to any increase in violence at all, a large change in ownership must therefore create a large enough change in violence to easily overcome all other factors. But we don't provably know what relationship there is between gun ownership and violent crime, either to increase it or to decrease it or to have little or no effect, so assuming a large change in one must mean a large change in the other simply isn't valid. It's "begging the question".

And consider the other statistics:
-There's more gun owners now than ever before. The number I read a lot is half of households.
-Since the late 80's, the number of states that passed right to carry laws increased to 40 from like 10.
-Gun control laws are less restrictive now. The pointless assault weapon ban expired in 2004 and has not been renewed (nor will it be, since it was useless from the beginning). The Brady Act's federally mandated waiting period is 10 years dead now and they have Instant Checks instead in most places.

Basically, guns have risen across the board since the time right around 1990, and gun control has also declined across the board, with more gun related rights being given to the people. And yet crime has fallen by major amounts.The two trends do correlate, yes. But no one is arguing that they don't. The argument is whether or not the data supports the claim that more guns means less violent crime. As I pointed out earlier, the trend in world average temperature since 1991 probably also follows the decline in violent crime. As does the amount of daily average internet usage, or any number of other things. I have to see something more than "this went up and that went down, so this must have caused that".

Mikkel_Knight

01-05-2007, 02:27 PM

Again, the amount of legal guns around isn't the reason why violence has gone down. I'd speculate that there is just a larger percentage now of legal vs. illegal arms.

I'd also speculate that the amount of crimes committed with registered firearms is miniscule compared to ones that are illegal.

Like I said earlier, this is the NRA's specific study designed to show their point of view. Another (anti-gun) organization could just as easily "skew" the numbers to show their point of view just as effectively (I'd imagine)

BrettStah

01-05-2007, 02:40 PM

Again, the amount of legal guns around isn't the reason why violence has gone down. I'd speculate that there is just a larger percentage now of legal vs. illegal arms.

I'd also speculate that the amount of crimes committed with registered firearms is miniscule compared to ones that are illegal.The report that is quoted doesn't list just crimes committed with legal guns - it lists all gun crimes.

Like I said earlier, this is the NRA's specific study
Data released by the FBI

aindik

01-05-2007, 02:42 PM

As long as we are drawing causational correlations, according to the U.S.D.O.J. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm), gun related crime peaked in 1993 and declined sharply until 1998.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif

Does anyone happen to remember what year the Brady Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) was signed into law and when it expired?

Could you explain why "gun related crime" is an important number to look at? Who cares if a crime is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or an airplane flying into a building?

The important number is "violent" crime. Or "homicides." Not "gun-related" crime.

01-05-2007, 02:56 PM

Could you explain why "gun related crime" is an important number to look at? Who cares if a crime is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or an airplane flying into a building?

The important number is "violent" crime. Or "homicides." Not "gun-related" crime.If you're talking about the health and safety of our society "gun related" may indeed be an unimportant distinction. But when the discussion revolves around whether the presence of guns means more or less crime - as it does - whether a gun was involved does very much indeed matter.

Makita

01-05-2007, 02:59 PM

Could you explain why "gun related crime" is an important number to look at? Who cares if a crime is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or an airplane flying into a building?

The important number is "violent" crime. Or "homicides." Not "gun-related" crime.
Because the NRA is more concerned about Guns, in general and how they are used (in this instance)

It would be interesting to see how many guns were destroyed in 2005 and earlier with the various trade-in programs.

Also, post 9-11, how many more Police were on the streets in the larger cities? (Use this because the more police added to a higher-density poppulation would likely make the biggest impact on Crime)

Otto

01-05-2007, 03:15 PM

Whether the increase in ownership is a large or small percentage doesn't effect the logic (that it is an unsupported claim to say that because violence did not go up, more guns do not contribute to more violence).
Not at all. There is such a thing as statistical significance. A 38% drop in crime at the same time as a 27% increase in guns is statistically significant.

I think what you've got there is an underlying assumption that if gun ownership contributes to any increase in violence at all, a large change in ownership must therefore create a large enough change in violence to easily overcome all other factors.
Again, not at all. What I am saying is that if it does not overcome other factors, given such a large change in both trends, then there must be some other factor or combination thereof that is larger than it is. And given the difference, it would have to be significantly larger.

But we don't provably know what relationship there is between gun ownership and violent crime, either to increase it or to decrease it or to have little or no effect
True. However the pro-gun-control crowd argue that gun ownership and gun availability does have a large impact on crime. If they are correct, then there must exist some other factor which we do not see. You can prove a thing is true by assuming the opposite and finding a contradiction.
-Assume there is a major relationship between gun ownership and crime, and that it is not an inverse relationship.
-Given a large increase in gun ownership, you should see a large increase in crime.
-Given that we see the opposite, there must be a larger factor contributing to decrease crime.
-Given that we know of no such factor and can't easily postulate one, it suggests that our assumption is faulty.

The two trends do correlate, yes. But no one is arguing that they don't. The argument is whether or not the data supports the claim that more guns means less violent crime.
That's not the argument I was making at all. I was saying that the counter-argument of "more guns causes more violent crime" is statistically unlikely, regardless of additional factors that contribute to crime.

I agree that the data does not necessary indicate a causative effect. However, it certainly does indicate that the counter-argument is probably false.

Basically, if more guns causes more violent crime, then there must be some major countering factor to cause the actual observed data. The difference is simply too large for that countering factor to be a small one.

BrettStah

01-05-2007, 03:15 PM

Martin Tupper

01-05-2007, 03:30 PM

01-05-2007, 03:55 PM

Not at all. There is such a thing as statistical significance. A 38% drop in crime at the same time as a 27% increase in guns is statistically significant.The numbers both being large doesn't imply the two things are at all related. Internet usage has gone up several 100's of percent since 1991, at the same time violent crime has gone down. This is a large number too. Is this statistically significant? Does it show there's any relation between crime and internet usage? No, right?

What I am saying is that if it does not overcome other factors, given such a large change in both trends, then there must be some other factor or combination thereof that is larger than it is. And given the difference, it would have to be significantly larger.If the multiplying factor for gun ownership to crime (either to increase it or decrease it) is small, the effect on crime can still be small even if the change in ownership is large. Meanwhile, there are other factors than can add up to mask whatever effect gun ownership (again, up or down) is having. Fewer unwanted children turning into felons, more people working instead of on welfare, more police, the switch from crack cocaine to meth labs in the drug situation. Hell, more cellphones for people to report crimes in progress to act as a deterrent. With what we have presented, there's just no supportable way to look at the numbers and claim that because both are large there's a provable relationship and that we know what direction (up or down) it is.

However the pro-gun-control crowd argue that gun ownership and gun availability does have a large impact on crime. If they are correct, then there must exist some other factor which we do not see. You can prove a thing is true by assuming the opposite and finding a contradiction.Simply because they're wrong about gun ownership being such a huge negative factor that it would necessarily overwhelm any other factors in the other direction (which, btw, I have never heard claimed - just that there IS an effect, not necessarily an enormous overwhelming one), that doesn't mean there isn't a negative effect. If everything else adds up to 50% less gun crime and an ownership increase adds up to a 12% increase, you get a 38% decrease. I don't know what the factors and their numbers are, but neither does anyone here. Not being able to imagine what the factors might be doesn't mean they don't exist. And thus one cannot supportably say as aindik did that given the figures gun ownership can have no effect on increasing crime.

That's not the argument I was making at all. I was saying that the counter-argument of "more guns causes more violent crime" is statistically unlikely, regardless of additional factors that contribute to crime.Only if you assume a large multiplicative factor for guns to crime, and assume other factors cannot be large ones. Say every 10 million more guns increases violent crime by 1%. I have no idea whether it does, or has the opposite effect, but could we necessarily pick that out of the data, or could it be swamped by other effects?

I agree that the data does not necessary indicate a causative effect. However, it certainly does indicate that the counter-argument is probably false.I don't see how it indicates either for or against a gun-ownership/crime effect, myself. It suggests the negative effect is not a large one if it exists, but that's as far as I can go with logic.

Basically, if more guns causes more violent crime, then there must be some major countering factor to cause the actual observed data. The difference is simply too large for that countering factor to be a small one.On this we agree.

aindik

01-05-2007, 04:20 PM

If you're talking about the health and safety of our society "gun related" may indeed be an unimportant distinction. But when the discussion revolves around whether the presence of guns means more or less crime - as it does - whether a gun was involved does very much indeed matter.

No, it doesn't. When the discussion revolves around whether there is more or less crime, the question is whether there is more or less crime. Not more or less "gun" crime.

Also, I'm pretty sure selling weed while carrying a gun is considered a "gun crime." And "carrying a concealed weapon" in violation of a law that makes that illegal is also a "gun crime." Neither thing, in my opinion, hurts anyone and I don't much care about those numbers and whether they've gone up or down. What I care about is violence.

But thanks, Martin Tupper, for posting a more relevant chart.

Otto

01-05-2007, 04:33 PM

Simply because they're wrong about gun ownership being such a huge negative factor that it would necessarily overwhelm any other factors in the other direction (which, btw, I have never heard claimed - just that there IS an effect, not necessarily an enormous overwhelming one)...
Umm.. You're reading more than I'm typing here, because I never claimed that they claimed that. That pretty much goes for all your response, you seem to think I'm saying something other than what I'm actually saying, because your responses don't seem to actually address anything I posted. Either that, or I'm just not following your train of thought...

Only if you assume a large multiplicative factor for guns to crime, and assume other factors cannot be large ones.
I don't think that that is a necessary assumption at all, and don't quite follow why you think it would necessarily be one.

On this we agree.
Considering I said the exact same thing 4 different ways and you disagreed with some of it and agreed with some of it... well, I'm confused. Maybe we're just separated by differing language or something. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you posted, but it doesn't address anything I posted either. :)

Basically, you seem to be arguing that it's not possible to draw any conclusions from the data. Which is fair enough, but I wasn't drawing any conclusions, I was showing that the data does indicate trends that are significant. Not conclusive, but significant enough to be able to form negative opinions about the "more guns = more crime" idea.

01-05-2007, 08:07 PM

No, it doesn't. When the discussion revolves around whether there is more or less crime, the question is whether there is more or less crime. Not more or less "gun" crime.The point the NRA claim is trying to refute is that more guns means more crime. Obviously that would be crimes involving guns, so looking at statistics of crimes involving guns is not immaterial.

Also, I'm pretty sure selling weed while carrying a gun is considered a "gun crime." And "carrying a concealed weapon" in violation of a law that makes that illegal is also a "gun crime." Neither thing, in my opinion, hurts anyone and I don't much care about those numbers and whether they've gone up or down. What I care about is violence.If it's true such things are included that would indeed skew the data. I'm not certain what criteria was used for selection.

But thanks, Martin Tupper, for posting a more relevant chart.Back off, you, I saw him first. :)

01-05-2007, 08:16 PM

Umm.. You're reading more than I'm typing here, because I never claimed that they claimed that. That pretty much goes for all your response, you seem to think I'm saying something other than what I'm actually saying, because your responses don't seem to actually address anything I posted. Either that, or I'm just not following your train of thought...I don't understand how you can connect the dots you appeared to have connected. Which, from my POV, is that the increase in gun ownership was large and the drop in violent crime was large, so therefore (from what I'm reading) there cannot be any way more guns can mean more crime.

You said "There is such a thing as statistical significance. A 38% drop in crime at the same time as a 27% increase in guns is statistically significant." To me statistically significant means a relationship between the two has been demonstrated. Did I misremember something from my ancient stats class, which admittedly was a long time ago?

Basically, you seem to be arguing that it's not possible to draw any conclusions from the data. It's not possible to draw any firm conclusions, no. All it suggests is hypotheses to investigate.

AntiPC

01-05-2007, 10:55 PM

And of course there's the previously existing theory, advanced most recently in the Freakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Revised-Expanded-Economist-Everything/dp/0061234001/sr=8-1/qid=1168000997/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3497948-1835354?ie=UTF8&s=books) book, that the decrease in crime is due to the greater availability of abortion post-Roe and thus fewer unwanted children are growing up in bad situations and turning to crime and violence as they become adolescents.This is the real reason the crime rates started going down in 1991 exactly 18 years after voe v wade.

My personal belief is that firearm ownership's effect on crime is roughly a statistical wash: For every drunk jerk that shoots his wife since he has a gun, there's a guy who defends himself since he has a gun.

Another personal belief of mine is that violent crimes are committed by certain individuals, usually males who are typically between the ages of 18-35 years old. Sentencing a 19 year old to 7 years for murder is wrong. Sentencing him to life may be useless. The death penalty is a bad joke too.

Mikkel_Knight

01-06-2007, 07:22 AM

Sentencing a 19 year old to 7 years for murder is wrong. Sentencing him to life may be useless. The death penalty is a bad joke too.
There are some people who cannot be rehabilitated. Call them career criminals or repeat offenders. Why (in the most heinous of situations) should we not terminate their useless and worthless lives instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars (likely much much more depending on age) to support them while incarcerated?

May be hypocritical, but it's certainly not a joke.

Honestly, IMO, there are far too many people in for life that ought to have their life ended early because there is no rehabilitation for them whatsoever. It's a HUGE burden on the tax payer to bear.

Like it or not, there are pieces of shit in the prisons who care nothing for anything at all and would relish the opportunity to get out and kill over and over again. Yet, they are fed well, housed well, get better medical care than you probably do (and certainly better medical care than close to half the non-inmates in this country), so on and so forth. All on the taxpayers dime. Worthless humans. Completely worthless with absolutely no redeeming qualities at all whatsoever.

Believe it or not, it's true. Why? How? Because my father just got out of the Federal Prison system after having been there for over 20 years and he's seen it all.

People like to think that everyone has a chance to "go good" or to "get better" or to "understand right from wrong".

Well... people are wrong.

aindik

01-06-2007, 09:02 AM

The point the NRA claim is trying to refute is that more guns means more crime. Obviously that would be crimes involving guns, so looking at statistics of crimes involving guns is not immaterial.

Your first sentence is right. I don't see how you got from there to the second sentence.

The NRA's point is that a violent criminal is a violent criminal, and if he can't get is hands on a gun, he'll use something else. It doesn't matter if a crime was committed with a gun or not. If crime did not increase because of guns, that's good for the anti-gun-control people, even if a higher percentage of crimes are now committed with guns.

Scenario A: 1000 murders, of which 200 are committed with guns
Scenario B: 600 murders, of which 300 are committed with guns

Which would you rather have? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that liberalizing gun posession laws gets us from Scenario A to Scenario B. Wouldn't that be a good thing if it were true?

But gun violence is up! So what. Whether violence is up or down is what matters.

01-06-2007, 09:43 AM

Your first sentence is right. I don't see how you got from there to the second sentence.Because if guns cause violent crime, a gun is very likely going to be involved in the crimes it's causing.

The NRA's point is that a violent criminal is a violent criminal, and if he can't get is hands on a gun, he'll use something else. The claim they're attempting to refute, however, is that more guns cause more crime. Examining the numbers of crimes involving guns is therefore one thing to look at to support or refute that claim. If one was trying only to claim that more guns means less crime than crimes involving guns becomes less material, but the NRA is doing both - making their claim while trying to refute their critics' claim.

Scenario A: 1000 murders, of which 200 are committed with guns
Scenario B: 600 murders, of which 300 are committed with guns

Which would you rather have? If you can show me actual data that shows such a shift (and I realize you've made the numbers up for the purposes of demonstration), fewer murders are better. But you've also got to show me that the increase in guns is a positive effect and not a negative effect that's been swamped by other factors. This was my original objection to that claim of yours ("it's pretty good evidence that there isn't causation in the other direction") - the data doesn't support that claim unless you assume the negative effect to be large and unswampable.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that liberalizing gun posession laws gets us from Scenario A to Scenario B. Wouldn't that be a good thing if it were true?

But gun violence is up! So what. Whether violence is up or down is what matters.Overall, yes. But the relationships are important, because positive and negative factors come and go. If we legalize child pornography and the number of pedophile crimes goes down, was it a good thing to legalize child pornography? Pedophile crimes are down, after all, so that's a good thing, right? But just maybe they're down for some other reasons, and we've made things worse in some other area thinking we've solved a problem in the area we're looking at, and one day the actual lessening factors go away and now we've got both problems -the one we tried to fix that's now come back again, and the one we caused trying to fix the first.

aindik

01-06-2007, 10:55 AM

Because if guns cause violent crime, a gun is very likely going to be involved in the crimes it's causing.

And if guns reduce violent crime, they reduce violent crime regardless of whether the violent criminals that are still around use guns or not.

01-06-2007, 11:31 AM

And if guns reduce violent crime, they reduce violent crime regardless of whether the violent criminals that are still around use guns or not.Yes. The claims (guns make more crime, guns make less crime) are opposites, but the mechanisms theorized for them are not.

In the guns-reduce-crime theory the gun either drives away the criminal or simply the possibility of the victim possessing a gun makes the criminal reconsider. What the criminal intended to use as a weapon, if any, isn't that important.

But in the guns-cause-crime theory, possession of a gun makes the criminal bolder (and the gun is likely to accompany him and may be brandished etc in the commission of his crime) and/or makes violence quicker and easier and thus more likely (as in road rage, homicide in armed robberies, homicide in domestic disputes, homicide in fights outside bars, etc). All of those situations are "gun crime" and statistics on gun crime are not immaterial in examining the theory.

aindik

01-06-2007, 11:35 AM

Yes. The claims (guns make more crime, guns make less crime) are opposites, but the mechanisms theorized for them are not.

In the guns-reduce-crime theory the gun either drives away the criminal or simply the possibility of the victim possessing a gun makes the criminal reconsider. What the criminal intended to use as a weapon, if any, isn't that important.

But in the guns-cause-crime theory, possession of a gun makes the criminal bolder (and the gun is likely to accompany him and may be brandished etc in the commission of his crime) and/or makes violence quicker and easier and thus more likely (as in road rage, homicide in armed robberies, homicide in domestic disputes, homicide in fights outside bars, etc). All of those situations are "gun crime" and statistics on gun crime are not immaterial in examining the theory.

But even if both are true (i.e. one is true for some criminals and the other is true for others), isn't the end result either positive or negative based on whether there is more or less violence? Not more or less gun violence?

01-06-2007, 11:58 AM

But even if both are true (i.e. one is true for some criminals and the other is true for others), isn't the end result either positive or negative based on whether there is more or less violence? Not more or less gun violence?If both are true there's going to be a net drop or a net gain in overall violence, yes. Some effects will cancel, some will cause a shift - it could become less likely that you'll be the victim of an armed robbery but more likely you'll be the victim of a domestic shooting, for example.

There's nothing wrong with looking at overall violence statistics. I was only objecting to your opinion that gun crime statistics aren't material, as they clearly do apply to one of the two opposing theories.

aindik

01-06-2007, 02:38 PM

If both are true there's going to be a net drop or a net gain in overall violence, yes. Some effects will cancel, some will cause a shift - it could become less likely that you'll be the victim of an armed robbery but more likely you'll be the victim of a domestic shooting, for example.

There's nothing wrong with looking at overall violence statistics. I was only objecting to your opinion that gun crime statistics aren't material, as they clearly do apply to one of the two opposing theories.

An increase in gun crime could very simply be a substitution effect. If guns were more controlled, the criminal would still commit the crime, only without the gun. "Gun crimes" going up doesn't necessarily mean any new crime. Just crime with a different weapon. That, to me, isn't a bad thing. New crime is bad. Crime with a gun that would otherwise be committed with a knife is, to me, a wash.

If "gun crimes" go up with more liberal gun laws, that's not necessarily an increase in crime at all. It could just as easily be a substitution.

Otto

01-07-2007, 04:39 AM

To me statistically significant means a relationship between the two has been demonstrated.
Not at all. "Statistically significant" means that it's a difference which is unlikely to have occurred by chance. It does not imply an actual correlation or causation effect, it only suggests such an effect may be present.

I don't understand how you can connect the dots you appeared to have connected. Which, from my POV, is that the increase in gun ownership was large and the drop in violent crime was large, so therefore (from what I'm reading) there cannot be any way more guns can mean more crime.
"Cannot" is a big word and I neither actually said nor intended to imply any such thing.

What I meant was that it seems to be extremely unlikely that, given the data, you could successfully show that more guns = more crime. The difference between the data you would expect to see with that argument and the data that we actually see is large enough to be statistically significant.

smak

01-07-2007, 06:39 AM

01-07-2007, 08:28 AM

Not at all. "Statistically significant" means that it's a difference which is unlikely to have occurred by chance. I don't believe anyone was suggesting chance was the cause. In fact everyone seems to believe there is a cause or set of causes, the argument is over what those causes are.

"Cannot" is a big word and I neither actually said nor intended to imply any such thing. What I meant was that it seems to be extremely unlikely that, given the data, you could successfully show that more guns = more crime. The difference between the data you would expect to see with that argument and the data that we actually see is large enough to be statistically significant.Only if the more guns = more crime effect is large enough not to be swamped by other factors, is that not correct? If more guns equals a bit more crime but other factors add up to a lot less crime, the small crime-increasing effect of more guns would get lost in the tide flowing the other way, yes?

bigpuma

01-08-2007, 12:04 AM

There are some people who cannot be rehabilitated. Call them career criminals or repeat offenders. Why (in the most heinous of situations) should we not terminate their useless and worthless lives instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars (likely much much more depending on age) to support them while incarcerated?

Currently it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life than to put them to death. So I would rather support them while incarcerated since it saves money.

BrettStah

01-08-2007, 12:15 AM

Currently it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life than to put them to death. So I would rather support them while incarcerated since it saves money.
I suspect that Mikkel Knight could come up with a much cheaper method of putting them to death - I know I could. Without commenting on the morality of the death penalty, here's how:

1) Prosecutors decide on whether to seek the death penalty or not, just like now.

2) Jury decides on guilt or innocence, just like now.

3) Jury decides on death penalty, just like now.

4) If sentenced to death, if the convicted person cannot afford it, the government provides funding for death penalty appeal, giving the defense up to 12 months to file an appeal, which must include each and every thing that the defense will appeal.

5) The appeal will be handled in an expedited manner by the appellate courts, including Supreme Court. If the appeals fail, the person is put to death within another 12 months.

This would mean a maximum delay of 24 months post-conviction. Plenty of time for the appeals process.

(I'm leaning against the death penalty personally, for whatever that's worth - too many mistakes that are coming out).

bigpuma

01-08-2007, 12:20 AM

I suspect that Mikkel Knight could come up with a much cheaper method of putting them to death - I know I could. Without commenting on the morality of the death penalty, here's how:

1) Prosecutors decide on whether to seek the death penalty or not, just like now.

2) Jury decides on guilt or innocence, just like now.

3) Jury decides on death penalty, just like now.

4) If sentenced to death, if the convicted person cannot afford it, the government provides funding for death penalty appeal, giving the defense up to 12 months to file an appeal, which must include each and every thing that the defense will appeal.

5) The appeal will be handled in an expedited manner by the appellate courts, including Supreme Court. If the appeals fail, the person is put to death within another 12 months.

This would mean a maximum delay of 24 months post-conviction. Plenty of time for the appeals process.

(I'm leaning against the death penalty personally, for whatever that's worth - too many mistakes that are coming out).

There is no question it would be possible to make the death penalty cheaper by removing a lot of the beauracracy but I doubt we would ever see that happen nor would I want to see that. As it is it currently costs over 2 million dollars more to put someone to death versus keeping them in prison for life.

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 06:28 AM

I suspect that Mikkel Knight could come up with a much cheaper method of putting them to death - I know I could. Without commenting on the morality of the death penalty, here's how:

1) Prosecutors decide on whether to seek the death penalty or not, just like now.

2) Jury decides on guilt or innocence, just like now.

3) Jury decides on death penalty, just like now.

4) If sentenced to death, if the convicted person cannot afford it, the government provides funding for death penalty appeal, giving the defense up to 12 months to file an appeal, which must include each and every thing that the defense will appeal.

5) The appeal will be handled in an expedited manner by the appellate courts, including Supreme Court. If the appeals fail, the person is put to death within another 12 months.

This would mean a maximum delay of 24 months post-conviction. Plenty of time for the appeals process.

(I'm leaning against the death penalty personally, for whatever that's worth - too many mistakes that are coming out).
To look at the fairness of 4 & 5, should those same deadlines apply to the prosecution too? Should the statute of limitations be reduced to 12 months for capital offenses? If a trial is not concluded 12 months after the prosecution files charges, should the accused go free?

If simply stalling would guarantee that all appeals would fail, guess how timely prosecutors would respond to them.

BrettStah

01-08-2007, 07:39 AM

To look at the fairness of 4 & 5, should those same deadlines apply to the prosecution too? Should the statute of limitations be reduced to 12 months for capital offenses? If a trial is not concluded 12 months after the prosecution files charges, should the accused go free?No. Up until the accused is convicted of murder and then sentenced to death, he's considered innocent. I would go for a modified plan that would, if the prosecution declares they're going for the death penalty, the government must pay for an enhanced legal defense team for the accused if he/she is indigent, so that the accused gets a hopefully better defense during the trial phase as well as appeals phase.
If simply stalling would guarantee that all appeals would fail, guess how timely prosecutors would respond to them.The appeals process should include time limits on all motions, responses, counter-filings, counter-counter-filings, etc. If death penalty cases are fast-tracked, and therefore always jump to the front of the line so to speak, then it seems possible to me that the appeals process could happen within 12 months. (And the defense has up to 12 months to work on its appeal, which also should be adequate if that is the primary case that the defense team is working on).

AntiPC

01-08-2007, 08:48 AM

Here's a nice stat to throw in the mix.

There was a rather significant drop in the population of males aged 20-34 in the 90's.

Like 8% 20-34 and 12% 25-34.

Doesn't matter how many guns are out there really if the people most likely to use them aren't there to use them eh?

-smak-You're letting facts get in the way of your emotions.

It feels good when a convicted murderer is put to death, and we feel less vulnerable when we've got a smith and wesson tucked in our belt. Hence, regardless of facts, carrying guns around and sentencing people to death must somehow reduce crime.

In other news, the NRA has determined that correlation actually does prove cause and effect. :rolleyes:

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 08:57 AM

No. Up until the accused is convicted of murder and then sentenced to death, he's considered innocent. I would go for a modified plan that would, if the prosecution declares they're going for the death penalty, the government must pay for an enhanced legal defense team for the accused if he/she is indigent, so that the accused gets a hopefully better defense during the trial phase as well as appeals phase.
So the government gets unlimited time and resources to build a case and put an "innocent" man on trial, but the same man gets a finite amount of time to build and plead his case that his trial was flawed/unfair. That doesn't sound very equitable.

BrettStah

01-08-2007, 09:05 AM

So the government gets unlimited time and resources to build a case and put an "innocent" man on trial, but the same man gets a finite amount of time to build and plead his case that his trial was flawed/unfair. That doesn't sound very equitable.
Your first sentence is not correct. Defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial.

aindik

01-08-2007, 09:13 AM

Your first sentence is not correct. Defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial.

They also have representation at the trial.

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 09:24 AM

Your first sentence is not correct. Defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Sure it is. There is no statute of limitations on a murder. Charges may be brought decades later.

Once a trial begins, it is open-ended. Motions, hearings, and conferences can stretch the proceeding well over 12-months. And mistrials can start the whole process over again.

Judges can endeavor to keep the proceedings moving, but there isn't some arbitrary cut-off date at which point the prosecution loses the right to be heard.

BrettStah

01-08-2007, 09:32 AM

Sure it is. There is no statute of limitations on a murder. Charges may be brought decades later.

Once a trial begins, it is open-ended. Motions, hearings, and conferences can stretch the proceeding well over 12-months. And mistrials can start the whole process over again.The defense is part of the process once (and sometimes before) charges are filed. The defense is present at hearings, conferences, etc. The defense sees all exhibits, evidence, etc. The defense gets to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, call its own witnesses, put on its own defense with the ability to introduce exhibits, etc. But if 12 months is really not a long enough amount of time for a fair appeals process that is given expedited preference through the court system and a dedicated defense team working on it, then make it 24 months.

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 09:43 AM

The defense is part of the process once (and sometimes before) charges are filed. The defense is present at hearings, conferences, etc. The defense sees all exhibits, evidence, etc. The defense gets to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, call its own witnesses, put on its own defense with the ability to introduce exhibits, etc. But if 12 months is really not a long enough amount of time for a fair appeals process that is given expedited preference through the court system and a dedicated defense team working on it, then make it 24 months.
Then you're just replacing one arbitrary deadline with another. The prosecution isn't hamstrung with an arbitrary deadline at trial, why should the defense be during the appeals process?

BrettStah

01-08-2007, 09:49 AM

Then you're just replacing one arbitrary deadline with another. The prosecution isn't hamstrung with an arbitrary deadline at trial, why should the defense be during the appeals process?OK, how about this - the appeals process can take up to the exact amount of time that the trial lasted. Better?

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 10:06 AM

OK, how about this - the appeals process can take up to the exact amount of time that the trial lasted. Better?
Not really, the prosecution still gets as much time as they want, and the defense doesn't.

aindik

01-08-2007, 10:14 AM

Not really, the prosecution still gets as much time as they want, and the defense doesn't.

What about the fact that the defense is always present at the trial and able to take as long as it wants to present its case there?

BrettStah

01-08-2007, 10:34 AM

Not really, the prosecution still gets as much time as they want, and the defense doesn't.
The prosecution does not get as much time as they want, unless you're talking about the theoretically unlimited amount of time that they have to file charges. But once that happens, they have to start giving their evidence to the defense, and the defense is present at all hearings, sees the prosecution's case at trial, presents its own case at trial, etc. So no matter what the prosecution does up until the point that they file charges, they have to turn that over to the defense. For example, let's say the police take 15 years to file murder charges, because DNA testing is finally good enough to extract DNA from some sample taken from the crime scene. The defense will have all notes turned over to them at that point, plus crime lab documents, chain of custody documents, etc. Just because the prosecution took 15 years to file the charges doesn't mean that there is 15 years of defense to be done. The facts should be pretty clear or not, and the part of the defense's job is to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 10:57 AM

What about the fact that the defense is always present at the trial and able to take as long as it wants to present its case there?
The defense's case is to show that the prosecution hasn't made its case (innocent until proven guilty). For them to have all the time they want, they would need to appeal the initial rulings before the jury convened. But the defense cannot stop the criminal trial to appeal a particular procedural ruling to a higher court before moving on. They must accept the initial ruling and appeal later. For them to have all the time they needed, every motion would be escalated right then and there.

There is also the possibility of police and/or prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution has as long as they want to investigate improper conduct of a suspected murderer before bringing charges. Why should the defense have an artificial deadline to finish investigating suspected prosecutorial misconduct?

Martin Tupper

01-08-2007, 11:06 AM

The prosecution does not get as much time as they want, unless you're talking about the theoretically unlimited amount of time that they have to file charges. But once that happens, they have to start giving their evidence to the defense, and the defense is present at all hearings, sees the prosecution's case at trial, presents its own case at trial, etc. So no matter what the prosecution does up until the point that they file charges, they have to turn that over to the defense. For example, let's say the police take 15 years to file murder charges, because DNA testing is finally good enough to extract DNA from some sample taken from the crime scene. The defense will have all notes turned over to them at that point, plus crime lab documents, chain of custody documents, etc. Just because the prosecution took 15 years to file the charges doesn't mean that there is 15 years of defense to be done.There isn't a set limit on the number of motions that can be filed to prolong the initial trial process. There isn't a time limit after which the prosecution can no longer enter motions. They can take as long as they are able to convince the judge(s) to let them take.

The facts should be pretty clear or not, and the part of the defense's job is to poke holes in the prosecution's case.But the appeals process is part of the way the defense pokes holes in the prosecutions case. Not every single argument is allowed to reach its ultimate conclusion during the trial phase. Rulings are made, and accepted with the knowledge that the defense will be given opportunity to appeal them.