40 years of homicide rate data

[Indy Lurker]

All data is homicides per 100,000 people.


As you can see in the first graph, the US has always had a higher homicide rate that Canada, Australia, and the UK.

The second graph shows the two largest cities in the US that have banned handguns.

[Joe Steel]

1. What's your point?

As you can see in the first graph, the US has always had a higher homicide rate that Canada, Australia, and the UK.

The second graph shows the two largest cities in the US that have banned handguns.

What's your point?

[guntard]

2. The point seems pretty clear to me

Gun control legislation has no effect on the homicide rate.

The only graph that might suggest a correlation is the decline in US homicides following the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. This would be exciting and relevant if, in fact, rifles of the sort addressed by the law were used to any great extent in homicides. But, sadly, since rifles are used in less than 5% of homicides, the 1994 law will have had little or no effect on the homicide rate.

So clearly the decline in homicide rates is attributable to some other factor or combination of factors. I guess it would be pretty shocking and dismaying to many of the folks hereabouts to learn that relative crime rates could be dictated by broad and complex societal aspects instead of Romper Room simplicity like legal access to firearms.

Public policy is hard.

[Joe Steel]

3. But wild guessing isn't

Gun control legislation has no effect on the homicide rate.

The only graph that might suggest a correlation is the decline in US homicides following the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. This would be exciting and relevant if, in fact, rifles of the sort addressed by the law were used to any great extent in homicides. But, sadly, since rifles are used in less than 5% of homicides, the 1994 law will have had little or no effect on the homicide rate.

So clearly the decline in homicide rates is attributable to some other factor or combination of factors. I guess it would be pretty shocking and dismaying to many of the folks hereabouts to learn that relative crime rates could be dictated by broad and complex societal aspects instead of Romper Room simplicity like legal access to firearms.

Public policy is hard.

But wild guessing isn't.

That's all you've done. Unless you haven't posted all your research...or did the dog eat it? I think John Lott said something like that when he was asked to support his infamous "more guns, less crime" babbling.

Wait a minute.

You're not John Lott, are you?

I know he likes to assume false internet identities so I have to ask.

[guntard]

4. Hey, I'm just referring to the graphs

That's all the hard data we have in this thread (plus my "less than 5%" figure for rifle homicides).

And more hard data than I have seen in all of your posts here, combined.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guntard]

9. If you got something different I'm all ears

Let's see it.

[SteveM]

61. Gosh, fellow, getting a little steamy under the silk? (nt)

[gorfle]

10. Absolutely correct.

So clearly the decline in homicide rates is attributable to some other factor or combination of factors.

I would be willing to be that the number-one indicator to crime levels is economic prosperity. When the economy is up, people are at work, earning a living, and taking on mortgages and car payments and other debts that likewise keep them busy at work.

When the economy is down, people end up out of work and desperate and crime appears to be a viable alternative.

I'd love to see this data overlayed with some kind of economic health metric.

[Statistical]

12. Sadly another indicator is longer term sentences

The majority of violent crime is committed by repeat offenders.

Any system in which repeat violent offenders are lock up longer will reduce overall crime rate.

The goal is targeting repeat offenders and I believe the war on drug and mandatory sentences for possession and other non-violent crime has dilluted that effect.
As prisons become overcrowded violent offenders tend to serve less time and thus revictimize more often.

I believe a DOJ report concluded that the average repeat violent offender will commit 8 felonies per year.
If that offender is kept in jail 2 years longer for instance that would be 16 felonies that are not comitted.
Multiple that times hundreds of thousands of career criminals and you can see a substantial drop in crime rate.

[iverglas]

21. "Gun control legislation has no effect on the homicide rate."

So you explain the clear correlation between the legislation and the declining rate in Canada ... how?

[pipoman]

24. Do you have the figures

for the decline in Canadian homicides during the same period? I too would like to see the correlation (if any) between the decline (of overall homicides, not just gun homicides) in Canada following gun control legislation and the decline in the US with no new federal gun legislation and increased CCW.

[iverglas]

25. quick pix

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060720/dq060720b-eng.htm




http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/dq080220b-eng.htm


http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm

"Homicides by method" table to 2007 -- easier just to read it there.


The 2005 peak is pretty much entirely the result of urban drug trafficking / gang activity -- note the correlation with the rise in handgun homicides.

[iverglas]

26. note also

that it is extremely difficult to draw any conclusions from comparisons between changes in US and Cdn rates.

The Cdn homicide rate has long been less than 1/2 and almost as low as 1/3 the US rate. When the homicide rate is below 2/100,000, blips loom large.

It would be entirely unrealistic to see similar rates of decline from such disparate starting points.

The declines following the two major firearms control initiatives in Canada, however, are really quite marked.

[dalus]

27. Another correlation

There is also an interesting correlation between the two major firearms control initiatives in Canada and the drop in the US homicide rate. I don't think the US drop has much to do with Canadian gun control, though.

[iverglas]

28. really?

US rates declined 1977-1980?

Looks to me like they rose sharply.

And do let's not forget that Canada had much more stringent regulation of firearms throughout the entire period shown on the graphs.

The most significant difference between Canada and the US in this regard is the relative inaccessibility of handguns in Canada, handguns being the murder weapon of choice in the US.

[dalus]

29. Both graphs show the same trends

Both the US and Canada show the same trajectories for homicide rate. From the 1960's into the 1970's there is a large rise, followed by a fluctuating but consistently high rate from the 1970's to the 1990's, then a fall in the 1990's until after about 2000 the rate settles at a lower level, closer to the 1960's level but still a bit higher.

Any attempt to try to correlate this with Canadian gun control laws passed during the period in question is simply an attempt to make a big deal out of little blips in the graph.

Also, I bet if you go back further in time you will continue to see a correlation between the US and Canadian homicide rates with the Canadian rate being markedly lower. Prohibition is probably the big exception. That's just speculation for now though. I'll try to go find some figures on it.

[dalus]

30. Here's what I found so far

So far I can't find any statistics on Canadian homicide rates going back further than the ones shown here. However, I did find rates for the USA going back to 1900. Here are two different graphs emphasizing two possible causes of the high murder rates:

Showing that high murder rates correlate with periods of alcohol and drug prohibition



Showing that the murder rate has been inversely correlated with the execution rate since about 1960



At the moment I'm not explicitly endorsing either one of these suggested causes of high murder rates, but the correlations that these graphs show are far more impressive than anything I see in the OP's graphs relating to gun control legislation.

[iverglas]

32. ah, correlations

Showing that high murder rates correlate with periods of alcohol and drug prohibition

I wonder whether alcohol and drug prohibition are introduced as measures (ineffective as they may be) to address high crime rates.

I read something interesting about the effects of Prohibition on particular crimes, recently, and I've been trying to find it again. I'll post an update if I do.


Showing that the murder rate has been inversely correlated with the execution rate since about 1960

Since not all states are death penalty states, would that one not have to be broken down just a tad?

[dalus]

43. If you read the bottom of my post

As you've said before, "reading comprehension."

As I said, I'm not explicitly advocating either of these as an explanation of crime rates, although I do think there's something to be said for the Prohibition/drug war argument.

The point making here is that those correlations are far more noteworthy than anything the anti-gun lobby has ever produced in favor of gun control.

If there is a crime surge, it is likely that the rate will come back down after a while. Just because you passed strict anti-crime laws during the surge and then the rate falls doesn't prove that your anti-crime measures were successful. This applies to gun control, and the same argument applies to a lot of the anti-crime laws like mandatory sentencing that have been applied here in the USA.

[iverglas]

31. y'know, it gets wearying

I have, several times, provided a link to a study done for the Cdn Dept of Justice investigating the effect of firearms control measures on things like this.

I've read it. Have you?

Maybe you should find it and read it. I consider the conclusions of authors who are actually competent to do the investigation and analysis, and who have done it, to be far more worthwhile reading than the ramblings of anonymous internet denizens.

[dalus]

35. If they say it, then it must be true

Was it the 1996 study where they refused to release all of the source documents? I'm unable to find any references to any other study besides the 1996 one, either via Google or by searching posts on this site.

A government investigation wouldn't possibly produce a report validating the correctness of its own policies without good reasons, right?

Does the Canadian government have some special numbers that prove that the correlation between US and Canadian murder rates over the span of many decades is illusory and in fact gun control, despite failing to effect a significant decline in murder, has actually been a smashing success?

We could just believe the obvious large-scale trend that's plain as day. While firearms control measures probably have some kind of effect on homicide and other crime rates, there are huge, sweeping trends in these rates that are not explained by them at all. The implication is that gun control does not solve the problem, it is a side-show. While it does not solve the problem of homicide, though, it certainly does create some new problems.

[iverglas]

36. if you say it, it must be true?

Was it the 1996 study where they refused to release all of the source documents?

Maybe it was the 1867 study written in invisible ink on papyrus.

It was the 1996 study. If you know something big and important about it, and have a credible source for what you claim to know, good for you.

There are very few things that the government here may refuse to release. Access to information, y'know.

But if you have a source you'd care to disclose, feel free.


A government investigation wouldn't possibly produce a report validating the correctness of its own policies without good reasons, right?

Yeah. Statistics are lies, and statisticians are liars.

And we all know what fallacies are.


While firearms control measures probably have some kind of effect on homicide and other crime rates, there are huge, sweeping trends in these rates that are not explained by them at all.

What are
- the rate of firearm use in robbery
- the rate of death and injury in the course of robbery
and
- changes in the rates of both
in the US in recent years? There's a pretty major downward trend in Canada for the use of firearms in robberies, and the rates of firearm use in robbery and of death and injury in the course of robbery in Canada are a fraction of what they are in the US. Or maybe that's changed in the last 10 years ...


Does the Canadian government have some special numbers that prove that the correlation between US and Canadian murder rates over the span of many decades is illusory and in fact gun control, despite failing to effect a significant decline in murder, has actually been a smashing success?

Do you have some reason for engaging in the standard diversionary grooming activity that consists of pretending the discussion is all about murder, wholly murder and nothing but murder? The study in question wasn't.


While it does not solve the problem of homicide, though, it certainly does create some new problems.

Yeah? Haven't noticed any, myself.



crap proofreading fixed

[dalus]

39. Our current discussion is about firearms and the murder rate

If you want to talk about the overall violent crime rate then we can talk about that.

I tried to have a discussion with you about violent crime rates in the UK vs. the USA but you walked away from that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=193679&mesg_id=195564

Then again this forum doesn't make it easy to follow an ongoing discussion that lasts more than a few posts in a short time period. Unless there's some nice feature for this that I haven't discovered yet.

You present only evidence that there is a declining use of firearms to commit certain crimes in a country where firearms are severely restricted. It doesn't take a genius to predict that one. How about ARMED robbery overall? Personally I don't much care if I'm robbed at gunpoint or knifepoint, I'm moments away from dying either way. Armed robbery has been falling in Canada, but I still think it's a stretch to say that it's caused by gun control, especially when other crime is dropping also.

[iverglas]

45. well you see

I tried to have a discussion with you about violent crime rates in the UK vs. the USA but you walked away from that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I really didn't know where to start -- starting with the sources of your numbers. You cited publications, but the math appeared to be your own. I really didn't feel like checking your work - in terms of both the math and the classifications. I'm familiar with Home Office crime reports. I also know that very extreme care has to be taken in using them for comparisons with the US, because of the very different breakdown/definition of crimes of violence. Same is true for Canada vs US. In both Canada and the UK, the overwhelming majority of crimes of violence is composed of simple/common assault. Ordinarily, US figures don't even include those offences.

There are also hosts of factors that affect reported crime rates when it comes to minor assaults in particular. Public policy / tolerance is a big factor. Who might be cracking down on happy slapping this year? Is happy slapping really equivalent to any crime at all in the US? How many simple assault charges in the US stem from closing-time fistfights? Does the US have a drunk culture anything like the UK's? Are closing-time fistfights what most people tihnk of when they think of "violent crime"?

Essentially, at that level, I'm quite convinced we would be talking apples and oranges, no matter how closely equivalent the offence appeared to be in formal terms.

The plain fact is that "In the UK you are about twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime" is so simply counter-intuitive that it is ludicrous. And your various "you are about twice as likely to be a victim" assertions are simply not true, unless "you" is in the habit, for instance, of binge drinking and hanging out with binge drinking yobs.

Burglary is more likely to succeed in the USA than it is in the UK. (I'm guessing that this could be explained by the different settlement pattern, with people in the USA more likely to live in large, isolated houses and people in the UK more likely to live in crowded areas and apartments.)

The thing is, it's obvious that you simply have no sense of what you're talking about. Both the US and the UK are heavily urbanized, and both also have many areas of sparse population. I doubt that there is any huge difference in settlement patterns in terms of rates of crowding/isolation.


You present only evidence that there is a declining use of firearms to commit certain crimes in a country where firearms are severely restricted. It doesn't take a genius to predict that one. How about ARMED robbery overall?

There's a trick here. Include statcan in any search, and you will be taken to various editions of The Daily with annual crime stats, homicide stats, firearms crime stats, robbery stats, etc.

For example:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/dq080220b-eng.htm

Police reported nearly 4,000 robberies and almost 2,400 assaults that were committed with a firearm. However, these types of offences were much more likely to be committed by physical force than with a firearm or any other type of weapon.

Homicide and attempted murder, while fewer in number, were far more likely to be committed with a firearm. Guns were used against about one-third of all victims of attempted murders and homicides in 2006, compared with 14% of victims of robbery and 1% of victims of assault.

And once again, the oldie:

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/canus_n_e.asp

A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).

Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.

Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.

Canada had a firearm robbery rate of 26/100,000 during the decade in question -- less than 1/3 the rate in the US. (I would assume that where a robbery resulted in a homicide, it is no longer categorized as a robbery, and thus, if robbery results more often in homicide in the US, the US robbery rate will be artificially lower by that amount.)

A decade later, we have 4,000 firearms robberies -- in a population of 30 million, that's just over 13/100,000. Our firearms robbery rate dropped by half in a decade.

Personally I don't much care if I'm robbed at gunpoint or knifepoint, I'm moments away from dying either way.

Somewhere I also have tucked away something about compared robbery-homicide rates, and maybe I'll find it.

You may not care what the weapon used in a robbery is, but many people would. My 7-11 cashier laughed at the guy with the guy with the penknife. If he ever had to face a guy with a gun, I don't think he'd be lauging. Firearms, let us not forget, are not quite as widely used in street muggings as they are in retail robberies, and there just might be a reason why they are used in those situations. Like, because the robbery would be hard to pull off without the gun, hm?

Robbery lends itself very specially to the use of firearms. Handguns in particular, although long arms are not uncommonly (in relative terms) used in Canada.

The very simple fact is that, in those situations, absent the firearm, no robbery would occur. People really just don't hold up 7-11s with knives and baseball bats.

And that is true of most handgun homicides, as well. Whether any of the assembled masses here want to admit it or not.

[dalus]

47. Response

In both Canada and the UK, the overwhelming majority of crimes of violence is composed of simple/common assault. Ordinarily, US figures don't even include those offences.

It appears that these US figures do include simple assault, that's why there's a category for it. Also, as I mentioned, there are several factors indicating that the UK numbers I used are actually too low and should be adjusted up a bit, or maybe a lot.

The plain fact is that "In the UK you are about twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime" is so simply counter-intuitive that it is ludicrous. And your various "you are about twice as likely to be a victim" assertions are simply not true, unless "you" is in the habit, for instance, of binge drinking and hanging out with binge drinking yobs.

It just so happens that I did a lot of hanging out with binge drinking "yobs" in my college years and for a few years after that. However, fights weren't all that common despite our notorious drunkenness (this is Wisconsin). Group brawls were practically unheard-of. We just have a different culture from the UK in that respect, I agree.

When it comes to guns and gun crime, I have argued before that there cultural aspects at work in those crime problems as well. So, do you think that culture is a huge factor in drinking culture and minor assaults but it's not a significant factor in violent crime?

A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada.

These numbers are old and represent a period of markedly worse crime in both countries, but I'll just assume for now that the present relative levels are more or less the same.

I'll concede that in the area of armed robbery, and particularly in retail robberies, the availability of guns aggravates the problem. Still, even assuming that the rate of firearms use in a robbery would certainly fall to 25% in the USA with Canadian-style gun control, and those robberies would not be committed in another manner, I don't see it as a gain significant enough to warrant abrogating our rights. Especially when we still have a pretty high non-gun robbery rate, and we know that there are many other factors that are more responsible for the problem.

I'm not conceding on handgun homicides, however. There probably is a certain percentage of instances where the gun does cause a fatality where it would not have otherwise occurred, but there is quite a large number of non-gun homicides in this country and no doubt a significant portion of the gun homicides would happen without the use of guns. This is why, as we've seen, gun control doesn't really dent murder rates, at least not in a very significant way. If there were a lot of these murders happening then we'd expect to see gun control correlated with major drops in murders but that pattern just isn't there.

[iverglas]

50. I failed to sleep last night

so this will have to wait.

Maybe, in the meantime, you could take some random clutch of handgun homicides, say 20 or 30, and point to the ones that would have been committed absent the handgun. I've often hoped someone would do that for me.

[dalus]

64. Here's a list all of the homicides in my city last year

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=430148

At least I think this is all, the article doesn't clearly specify but it seems like the right number.

Knife: 4
Beating: 4
Gun: 2

Joel Anthony Marino, 31
Cause of death: Stabbed.
Location: 714 West Shore Drive.
Status: Adam Peterson, 20, confessed to killing Marino during a robbery and pleaded guilty to first-degree intentional homicide. He was sentenced to a mandatory life prison term.

March 8
Tyree Jacobs, 31
Cause of death: Blunt-force trauma — punched twice in the face. Jacobs was assaulted March 8 and died March 11.
Location: 4600 block of Atticus Way.
Status: James L. Anderson, 22, was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to three years in prison.

April 2
Brittany Zimmermann, 21
Cause of death: An autopsy report said Zimmermann died of "complex homicidal violence including multiple stab wounds and strangulation."
Location: Apartment at 517 W. Doty St.
Status: Police are investigating. No suspects in custody.

June 29
Marcus T. Hamilton, 30
Cause of death: Single .44-caliber gunshot to the torso.
Location: 7107 Tempe Drive near McKee Road.
Status: Amir "Buck" Furlow has pleaded no contest to first-degree reckless homicide, which carries a penalty of up to 40 years in prison and 20 years of extended supervision. Promethius "Slim" Brown pleaded no contest to an armed robbery charge and could face up to 25 years in prison and 15 years of extended supervision.

July 15
Cassandra J. Mays, 45
Cause of death: Slash and stab wounds.
Location: 910 W. Badger Road.
Status: Daniel L. Wright, 48, has been charged with first-degree murder.

Sept. 3
Juan J. Bernal, 22
Cause of death: Stabbed twice in the chest.
Murder location: Outside the Plaza Tavern and Grill, 319 N. Henry St.
Status: Justin R. Stout, 31, of Madison, has been charged with first-degree reckless homicide.

Oct. 4
Viviana Tellez-Giron, 33
Cause of death: Blunt force injuries.
Location: 700 block Kottke Drive
Status: Police say Tellez-Giron's husband, Salvador Tellez-Giron, 66, of Madison, beat his wife to death and then hanged himself.

Nov. 3
Mark Gregory Johnson, 37
Cause of death: Beating.
Location: Lake Edge Park, Dempsey Road.
Status: Michael E. Voltz of Madison has been arrested in connection with the killing.

Nov. 18
Kyle Dutter, 12
Cause of death: Shooting.
Location: Vehicle near Haen Family Park in the 7700 block of Tree Lane.
Status: Police say Ryan Dutter, Kyle's father, shot and killed his son in the vehicle then shot and killed himself.

Dec. 8
Eduardo Cademartori, 27
Cause of death: Head injuries.
Location: Near West Johnson and State streets. Cademartori was chased from the Crave Restaurant and Lounge on East Gorham Street after a dispute with Crave employee Ross W. Spang.
Status: Spang, 22; Roynell T. Fuller, 19; and Javonte A. Walters, 20, all of Madison, have been charged with felony murder.

[dalus]

66. Gun laws in effect

For some context, I'll mention the gun laws in effect where I live.

I'm in Wisconsin. The state has preempted local gun laws so they can't be more restrictive than statewide laws. Concealed carry is illegal, but there are lots of gun shops and there are no special laws restricting purchase of non-NFA weapons except for a rifle/shotgun barrel length minimum and a 48-hour wait for handguns. My city briefly had a handgun ban before the state preempted it. (I think the preemption law was a response to our city ban.) We do have a trigger lock law, although I think it's also preempted.

[iverglas]

33. well, it looked easy

Google presented me with all kinds of links (for the html version of various chapters, and the pdf version of the whole thing) ... and every single one was dead.

Google "A Statistical Analasys of the Impacts of the 1977, Firearms" (and yes, that appalling spelling error is in the original, ye bleeding gods), and then select "More results from www.justice.gc.ca". You should be able to looked at cached versions of its various bits.

[dalus]

37. Using the Google cache I've managed to get some pieces

I also found some interesting critiques of the study:

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/7-Does-gun-control-work.html
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Reform/ED1996-1e.txt

Granted, I have no idea about the credibility of these sources and I haven't read anything else on those sites to get an idea of the context in which this information is being presented.

From the first source:

Late in 1996, the Canadian Department of Justice released an "evaluation
document" claiming that 55 lives are saved every year in
Canada by "gun control". The document is based on a roughly 2,000 page
report by Prairie Research Associates (PRA), of which only 9 pages were
released under the Access to Information (AtI) Act. After many protests,
about 1000 pages have been received over many months by Reform MP Garry
Breitkreuz, but much of the text is blacked out.

As far as I can tell, there was a big increase in the North American murder rate in the 1970's and then a gradual decrease over the next few decades. This report tries to give firearms laws practically all the credit for the decrease, even though in fact the murder rate has just been going back to the way it was before. That is, unless something special happened in the 1960's and suddenly gun control became the only way to stop murders.

[iverglas]

38. "interesting critiques"

Yeah, if you find the right-wing pigshit scum of the earth "interesting".

Google Gary Breitkreutz.

Credible? I really think not.

[dalus]

40. As I said, I don't know about the credibility of the sources

I wouldn't just pull an article out of a Google search and believe it unquestioningly.

However, just because someone is "right wing scum" does not automatically invalidate whatever they have to say. I don't think I need to explain to you that this is an archetypal ad hominem.

If those are the only people who have the guts to dissent then sometimes it's worth listening to what they're saying and considering its merits before you discard it. I do make a practice of reading and considering comments by people that I generally disagree with or even find reprehensible. That's the only way to keep grounded in reality, in my opinion.

If it's true that the government refused to release the contents of the real report then that's a problem for the credibility of the report, regardless of who is complaining about it.

[iverglas]

42. "the only people who have the guts to dissent then"

The underlying sentiment there seems to be that dissent is a good thing.

A tad circular, don't you think?

One might say that, oh, Mr. Hitler had the guts to dissent. There's nothing inherently good about "dissent", and the fact that someone dissents is not what makes his/her opinions worthwhile.

You might be able to come up with a reason to devote 5 seconds to those people, but it would really have to be a less question-begging one than that.


If it's true that the government refused to release the contents of the real report then that's a problem for the credibility of the report, regardless of who is complaining about it.

I frankly have no idea.

But what I would not do is take the word of the stinking Gary Breitkreutz (you've figured out who he is now? would you take me seriously if I cited Trent Lott? Rick Santorum?) on the colour of the sky. Not to mention the troglodytes he fronts for, who hang out at that teapot sask alt thing.

[dalus]

44. You're attempting to twist what I said

I didn't say that the act of dissenting makes the statements worthwhile. I said that it's worthwhile to consider the statements before dismissing them out-of-hand just in case it turns out that they did in fact have merit. How can you determine whether a statement has merit before you've taken the time to consider it?

And yes, I would consider something that Trent Lott or Rick Santorum had to say before dismissing it. In fact I regularly read blogs that are worse than those guys. I can't even begin to describe the nonsensical drivel that I've stooped to reading in my efforts to get the other side of the story on various issues. I do think I've profited from it, as once in a while you stumble across a reasonable point.

In fact, I'm often struck by the fact that many right wingers are quite decent human beings, though this may come as a shock to you. It just happens that I think they have a pretty wrong and distorted view of the world. That doesn't make them bad people.

[iverglas]

49. pretty far from the point

And yes, I would consider something that Trent Lott or Rick Santorum had to say before dismissing it.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked how you would feel if I were citing them -- and, of course, talking about "the guts to dissent" in the same breath.

Breitkreutz is as low as them, and probably twice as stupid. That's how you get elected in some parts of Alberta. You crawl on your belly like a worm, and spread excrement as you go. You understood that he is an MP, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=43906&mesg_id=44196

There may be an "other side" to a story, but a Breitkreutz is not the place to be looking for it. There has to be someone with a shred of decency and a stitch of honesty one can look to. As you'll see if you read the linked thread, I have far less problem with genuine conservatives of the Canadian persuasion, who have virtually nothing in common with the Breitkreutz shit ilk -- and prominent examples of whom have in fact left the current Conservative Party and hooked up with us social democrats. Those are conservatives; right-wingers are another matter, and no, decency is not one of their attributes. And honesty is so far down the list of their concerns that I really don't waste my time reading their product, except for a good laugh.

Like that one the other day about how Barrack Obama was buddies with Daniel Ortega, the former head of the Weather Underground. How does somebody get that stupid??

[dalus]

65. That still doesn't touch on whether or not it's truth

Tell you what, you're the one in Canada, why don't you try to obtain a copy of this report? Then tell us how it went for you.

[dalus]

46. And yes, dissent is a good thing

Even when the opinions expressed are worthless, the act of dissent provokes debate and encourages proponents of the dominant viewpoint to continually reassess the validity of their views. If a viewpoint is truly worthless then it should be easy to debunk it, so it should not be troublesome. It's usually the dissenting viewpoints that have at least a kernel of truth in them that get people really upset, because they unsettle people's smug conviction that they have everything figured out. Dissent should not be met with dismissal, it should be met with honest and patient answers.

[Indy Lurker]

5. To provide data for discussion.

I didn't want to put any opinion in the OP, just data.

Before I form an opinion, I need to look at the data, and consider if there are any implication.

[Joe Steel]

7. So what's the point?

That's all the hard data we have in this thread (plus my "less than 5%" figure for rifle homicides).

And more hard data than I have seen in all of your posts here, combined.

Looking at the data is always a good idea. But when it comes to gun control, the data are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst. A single wrongful death attributable to casual gun-carrying, for instance, carries far more weight among gun opponents than gun proponents. As matter of fact, gun nuts usually dismiss such deaths as the victim's fault so they'd ignore them.

So what's the point?

[Indy Lurker]

8. What's your point of view in regards to firearms?

And what lead you to that conclusion?

[gorfle]

11. Interesting though.

Looking at the data is always a good idea. But when it comes to gun control, the data are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst.

It's interesting, though, that despite many people who would love to see it turn out so, none of the data has been damning of the right to keep and bear arms. I believe it was the CDC who could only say that gun control laws had no measurable affect on firearm crime (or injuries? I don't remember) or something to that effect.

A single wrongful death attributable to casual gun-carrying, for instance, carries far more weight among gun opponents than gun proponents. As matter of fact, gun nuts usually dismiss such deaths as the victim's fault so they'd ignore them.

This is because gun opponents' logic seems to be that even one death is sufficient reason to shit-can the entire right to keep and bear arms. Gun proponents realize that a side-effect of having a society where firearm ownership is easy and anonymous means that some firearm deaths and crime are inevitable.

We have the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in our Constitution because our founders believed it was important to have an armed populace as the ultimate defense against tyranny and oppression by the federal government. No doubt they realized the criminal implications of having such an armed populace, yet they endorsed it anwyay.

[iverglas]

34. no, nothing to that effect

I believe it was the CDC who could only say that gun control laws had no measurable affect on firearm crime (or injuries? I don't remember) or something to that effect.

I'm sick and tired of the misrepresentation, and have been for a couple of years now.

I'm also sick and tired of dredging up the truth to rebut the misrepresentation.

You have misrepresented the statement. I'm sure you can find the truth if you put a moment's effort into it.

[gorfle]

41. A direct quote from the study summary.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

So the CDC, who would have jizzed all over themselves had they been able to show otherwise, could not determine the effectiveness of any of the firearm laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

[iverglas]

48. and there ya go

You: I believe it was the CDC who could only say that gun control laws had no measurable affect on firearm crime (or injuries? I don't remember) or something to that effect.

The CDC: The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Tell me that you read what you cut and pasted, now.

And please, please tell me that you understand that it means nothing like what you said.

Over and over, this has been explained here, including by our esteemed moderator.

The Task Force did nto have enough facts to analyze in order to determine effectiveness. Insufficient evidence. NOT no evidence of effectiveness. Insufficient evidence of anything.

The data simply are not collected and recorded. There are not enough reliable complete data to analyze.

Not insufficient evidence of effectiveness. Insufficient evidence TO DETERMINE effectiveness.

That report cannot be cited for ANYTHING other than the need to compile data.

The reason the CDC could not determine effectiveness is NOT that there are no facts that could be used for that purpose.

The reason the CDC could not determine effectiveness is because IT COULD NOT GET THE FACTS, because nobody collects and records them.

If you hire me to make rain, and then you sleep for a week and don't bother looking out the window, you can't walk out the door after the week and say there is no evidence of the effectiveness of my rain-making. The evidence (or absence of evidence) of effectiveness existed -- you simply didn't bother observing and recording it.

If a tree falls in a forest ...

[Tejas]

51. So, CDC has no clue eh?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

52. Unless you've changed your name to CDC ...

Whatever. It's pretty obvious who's clueless here.

That would be the one who purported to interpret what the CDC said as meaning it has no clue.

And that sure as shooting was not me.


Bizarre, y'know? Just bizarre.

[Tejas]

53. So, the CDC is clueless - okay

have nice day, tie a few on for me.

[gorfle]

54. Yup, I understand what it says.

It says that in spite of all the best efforts to the contrary, they still can't say if gun control laws have any effect.

To me, that speaks volumes.

[iverglas]

55. no, it doesn't

It says that in spite of all the best efforts to the contrary, they still can't say if gun control laws have any effect.

If you believe that, it's sad.
If you don't believe it but say it anyway, it's sad.


What it says is that they cannot make "best efforts", because best efforts call for facts, and the facts have not been collected and recorded..

Your efforts continue to be misguided and/or dishonest. I can't tell which.

[X_Digger]

56. Really?

Looks like it's not that the data doesn't exist as you asserted, but that the results are inconsistent.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases.

Restrictions on firearm acquisition. Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases.

Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase.

Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.

"Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible.

Child access prevention laws. Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent.

Only two efforts seem to be short on data..

Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students.

Combinations of firearms laws. On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence.

[gorfle]

57. Precisely.

Tons of data, all inconclusive, according to the CDC.

[iverglas]

58. jesus fucking christ

You copy and paste, and you don't READ?


Only four studies
cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available
available evidence was insufficient to determine


The other bits you quote do NOT establish that the evidence IS available.

The governing statement is still:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

Note:

The body of evidence of effectiveness was characterized as strong, sufficient, or insufficient on the basis of the number of available studies, the suitability of study designs for evaluating effectiveness, the quality of execution of the studies, the consistency of the results, and the median effect size.

The nail in your coffin, the perfect proof of your absolute lack of candour (or reading comprehension; who knows?) is this:

Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.

THAT is what precedes the ENTIRE list of explanations you appear to have cherrypicked bits of, regarding:

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition.
Restrictions on firearm acquisition.
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition.
Firearm registration and licensing of owners.
"Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws.
Child access prevention laws.
Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools.
Combinations of firearms laws.

[X_Digger]

59. Seems like they couldn't conclude anything, so..

Rather than say that, they conclude there's not enough data?

To me that smacks of "I can't find compelling data supporting my position, therefore there's not enough data."

[jmg257]

60. When does "inconsistent data" stop being "insufficient" and start to refer to "ineffective laws"?

How many studies showing "inconsistent evidence of effectiveness" would they need before deciding a law is ineffective?

Are they looking to prove a certain pre-determined hoped-for result?

[SteveM]

62. Anecdotal deaths are a poor basis for good public policy...

"A single wrongful death attributable to casual gun-carrying, for instance, carries far more weight among gun opponents than gun proponents." Weight? For "what point?" If it is to support punitive laws, public policy and tax moneys, then it is a lousy way to to "run" a society. If it is for happy-hour pissing contests over cheap beer, then there are many such arguments that can essentially come down to: "My morals are more moral than your morals."

And that, sir, is pointless.

[Taitertots]

13. Meaningless Graphs

Who made this poorly constructed graph?

1.That graph shows the lowest point of homicides happens when there was no restrictions at all. Machine guns were legal. Sawed off shotguns, recoilless rifles, and cannons. Were all legal and available during the lowest point on the graph.

2.You make no claim that these are specifically firearms related deaths. Is that what this graph is based upon? That is not what it claims to be. Do you know either way?

3.Your graph shows significant increases in homicides right after restrictions on Class III NFA weapons begin.

4.Your graph show increases after the ban on newly manufactured Machine guns takes effect(1986).

5.Any comparison between whole countries and populated cities (second graph) is irrelevant because it compares the incomparable. Compare the level of violent crime against any city of equal density and socioeconomic status for it to be relevant.

6.The lowest points for DC and Chicago are both periods of general access to machine guns.

7.A note on the sharp decrease after 1993 could be considered a result of the NICS supported by many gun owners as a system to keep prohibited people from firearms. Something intentionally absent your graph.

Could it be that any blanket statement either way can't be correct because correlation doesn't equate to causation.

[guntard]

14. What are you talking about?

That graph shows the lowest point of homicides happens when there was no restrictions at all. Machine guns were legal. Sawed off shotguns, recoilless rifles, and cannons. Were all legal and available during the lowest point on the graph.

The graph goes back to 1960. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns were regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns are still legal in most states, with appropriate registration and the $200 stamp.

Your graph shows significant increases in homicides right after restrictions on Class III NFA weapons begin.

What are you talking about, the chart only goes back to 1960!!

[Taitertots]

15. GCA 1968

You can still buy them for $200 and...
Then you have to pay the thousands of dollars to get one because the supply is constrained to the point of de facto ban. Caused by GCA 1968 and post 1986 bans. GCA being the end of importation, and 1986 being the end of locally made class III.

The end of the age of access to legal machine guns saw marked increases in homicide rate. Which is exactly what I said.

Can something really be legal if you can't make or buy one?

[Statistical]

16. However you CAN buy them. Expensive maybe but they are bought and sold everyday (n/t)

[Taitertots]

17. Now you are just arguing semantics

They are illegal to manufacture and import. For all intensive purposes they are illegal. If you don't think they are now, wait another 20 years. Are you still going to be saying that when none exist? It is a de facto ban.

Still the harsh limitations (bans) are both coincident to large increases in homicides. Care to address the obvious failing of the graph to show correlation

Edit:clarification
Failing was spelled correctly

[Statistical]

18. I don't know what you mean by "faling"?

Homicide rate DID rise. Is it a failing because it didn't do what you wanted?

I think gun control doesn't aid a reduction in violent crime. It never had an never will.

However your statement that automatic weapons are illegal is wrong. Period.
Heavily regulated? Yes
Hard to acquire? Yes
Limited Supply? Yes
Illegal? No

Illegal is illegal. There is no kinda illegal.

Personally I think the 86 ban needs to be removed. Keep NFA but allow new weapon purchases. NFA controlled items are virtually never used in crime so there is no reason to ban post 86 items while allowing pre 85 items to be sold/traded.

[Taitertots]

19. Failing

What the graph fails at is to show that gun control laws have any effect on the homicide rate. Increases in gun control are followed by increases in homicides in some cases and decreases in others. Therefore the only conclusion can be there can't be a direct correlation.

So machine guns are legal. Let me order a H&K automatic rifle, oh wait illegal. Let me convert my rifles to automatic, can't illegal as well. Why don't I go to the local gun store and buy one? Can't they have to be Class III dealers subject to onerous limitations. I can't get my local chief of police to sign off on me getting one, illegal.

When all the pre-86 guns are gone, will it still be legal?

[57_TomCat]

20. At last check...

there were a little over a 1/4 million machine guns on the registry. They are not illegal and repairs to registered receivers can be made. In addition the NFA of 1934 controlled short barreled rifles and shotguns as well as sound suppressors. All three of those weapons and devices are still able to be produced currently. In fact Mossberg has a short barreled shotgun with pistol grip on the market that requires the $5 "any other weapon" tax stamp.

The graphs have nothing to do with machine guns. Since the 1934 act only two registered machine guns have been used in criminal enterprise and one or both were registered to local LE departments and issued to officers that went off their rocker. 20 years from now they will be more expensive but I will bet at least 240,000 will still be on the register.

The graphs show a bit of correlation that gun laws do not materially affect the crime statistics. Population density and other factors do.

As a side note... a sporting shotgun can be converted illegally to a sawed off model quickly and easily. Those scare me as a cop far more than machine guns and assault rifles. They are more common and more dangerous in most LE circumstances.

NFA is NOT the problem. Criminal misuse of handguns is the problem and keeping them out of the hands of criminals is the goal. Responsible people want to avoid restricting the rights of the honest to get at the dishonest. There in lies the conflict between most gun control and gun rights people.

[Statistical]

22. That was the point.

The point of the graph in my opinion was to show exactly that. There is NO correlation between gun control and homicide rates.
That isn't fail. If we could get the antis to accept that fact imagine how much LESS gun control there would be.

We will just agree to disagree on the "MG are illegal" point. There are many thing limited in quantity in this world. Nobody calls them illegal. Once again you are preaching to the choir I hope someday the 86 ban is overturned. Since an 85 MG is no less dangerous than an 86 MG someone with the time & money may have a chance in court. To call them illegal is just disingenuous.

[guntard]

23. Well, to be perfectly clear . . .

They are still legal to possess and to transfer, so, no, they have not been outlawed. But otherwise your point is clear.

And, yeah, the graph seems to indicate (for people who like to find causation in all correlations) that restricting machine guns leads to MOAR DEATH.

But of course, machine guns are hardly ever used in crimes (legally owned ones never), and so restricting them is always an attempt to solve a problem that is non-existent. Like all the yammering about the need for firearm proficiency certification when there are fewer than one thousand accidental firearms-relate deaths in the US every year (though I am on the record supporting mandatory firearms safety and marksmanship training in public schools; funny how folks who rant about how dangerous firearms are remained opposed to safety training for children).

[SteveM]

63. Hypothesis: more killings by "machine gun" on T.V. drama than in real life (nt)

[AthiestLeader]

67. Has anyone else noticed...

That when handguns are banned the rate goes up? My hypothesis is that criminals move to other more deadly illegal weapons. So in my opinion there shouldn't be a ban on handguns.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

68. Yes, but I think that

when handguns are banned criminals don't give a shit and still aquire them.
Armed law abiding citizens become disarmed of thier pistols.
This means criminals have handguns leaving law abiding citizens more defenseless.
Banning something rarely removes it from circulation/occurance. Look at illegal drugs...


Although in some cases, societies were able to diminish the supply of firearms through very strict control.
And then knife-crime more than made up for the loss of gun crime. (UK)

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

69. Some more statistical evidence to throw into the bonfire

Here is the Brady scorecard: State Gun Legislation Strength. This scorecard gives a higher rating for states with tighter gun legislation. Using the FBI crime statistics, one should be able to draw a correlation between different types of crimes as related to state's particular gun legislation. One such statistical correlation can be found http://blog.joehuffman.org/content/binary/05tbl20JKHAdditions.xls">HERE. This spreadsheet shows the mathematical correlation between gun legislation (Brady Scorecard) and the 2005 FBI statistical crime reduction (firearm murders, Knife murders, hand/foot murders, and "other" murders).

A mathematical correlation is a number from -1 to 1 that links the strength of a cause/effect relationship. Any number closer to 1 or -1 shows a very strong positive link or very strong inverse link, respectively. Any number close to Zero shows no mathematical relationship. As a data discrepancy note, the FBI appears to claim having limited crime data on Illinois and Florida. While I do not have the FBI data handy at the moment, the 2007 FBI statistical data cross referenced with Gun legislation yields the following summary:

FBI Data Type :: Correlation Coefficient
Violent crime rate per 100K: 0.016
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate per 100K: -0.072
Forcible rape rate per 100K: -0.491
Percent murdered with firearm: 0.056
Percent murdered with knife: 0.287
Percent murdered with weapon other than firearm: 0.028
Percent murdered with hands, fists, feet, etc.: -0.114

Remember:
The correlation coefficient always takes a value between -1 and 1, with 1 or -1 indicating perfect correlation (all points would lie along a straight line in this case). A positive correlation indicates a positive association between the variables (increasing values in one variable correspond to increasing values in the other variable), while a negative correlation indicates a negative association between the variables (increasing values is one variable correspond to decreasing values in the other variable). A correlation value close to 0 indicates no association between the variables.

[spin]

70. Let's see, California has the highest Brady state rating ...

and also the highest number of murders by far.

Go figure.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

71. Why is there a "Changed :D" at the end of all my posts?

I'm pretty sure I didn't change many of my posts that have this. ???