Homicide rate drops after assault weapons ban expires

[jersey_guy]

Lets see if mzungu and other liberals can put 2 and 2 together or will they try to somehow spin it into a "guns are bad" argument:

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200506/CUL20050608a.shtml


Nine months after the Clinton-era "assault weapons ban" expired, the FBI has released crime statistics showing a drop in homicides in 2004 -- the first such drop since 1999. The FBI report said all types of violent crime declined last year, and cities with more than a million people showed the largest drops in violent crime.

[exjersey1]

Your numbers would have more meaning had you left off your last sentence. Overall rate of violent crimes have been dropping steadily since 1999.

Good news is that homicides are down; but rapes are way up.

[gesser]

Not sure what this proves.

My question is, do you really see any justification in allowing assault weapons in the first place?

[exjersey1]

Hmm, time to buy pepper spray.


That can't be a bad idea.

Interesting, though that according to the FBI's 6-month preliminary data link (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf) it seems that rapes are up the most in the places where murder is down the most; in the South and in the largest metropolitan cities.

[TrackDaddy]

Your numbers would have more meaning had you left off your last sentence. Overall rate of violent crimes have been dropping steadily since 1999.True.

But his last sentence tells the whole story.

As you indicated, the banning/unbanning of the weapons have little or nothing to do with the crime rate.

[Sulus]

I would have to bet that the pressure of the assualt weapons ban on any sort of crime rate was about zilch.

[Jwaksman]

I would have to bet that the pressure of the assualt weapons ban on any sort of crime rate was about zilch.



Of course, which is why it was so silly that people made a big fuss when the ban went away. There were so few weapons that were banned - basically they were just banning some accessories. Besides, assault weapons already made up less than 1% of violent crime, so the numbers that we're dealing with are negligible. And besides the fact, again, that if you want to kill someone, you will find a weapon. Stopping demand is the way to deal with a problem, not trying to limit supply.

[leighpeas]

I wouldn't attribute the decrease in homicide to the expiration of the Assault Weapons ban just because it's too recent. But I too believe in the legality of guns, and that banning them only perpetuates the violence and leaves the innocent vulnerable.

Besides, not many homicides are happening with semi-automatics. A handgun would do the job.

i agree; it has certainly been too recent. i can't figure out why rape cases are going up, though. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf don't laugh, but the only thing that pops into my head is the fact that we're being exposed to more xenohormones as air pollution increases. been studying too much of that environmental science, i just now realize. but that's definitely pushing it. so what's with the rape?

(and, i only bring this up because i've read a couple people say this somewhere as well, but a handgun is generally a semiautomatic. all that means is that a cartridge is loaded into the chamber after a round is fired, but the trigger must again be pulled to fire again.)

ps-- did anyone else notice the conservative match dating service to the right of the article?

[exjersey1]

(and, i only bring this up because i've read a couple people say this somewhere as well, but a handgun is generally a semiautomatic. all that means is that a cartridge is loaded into the chamber after a round is fired, but the trigger must again be pulled to fire again.)



I've never heard of a revolver being referred to as a semi-automatic in the same vein that .380 or 9mm is. Also, although rarer now, some revolvers are double-action, which certainly wouldn't qualify.

[Sebrle]

A revolver is not semi automatic because after you fire once there is no round in the chamber of the barrel, it requires the manual action of pulling the trigger to chamber the round and c0ck the hammer, similar but much less involved to manually cycling a bolt action rifle or loading a black powder.

[leighpeas]

I've never heard of a revolver being referred to as a semi-automatic in the same vein that .380 or 9mm is. Also, although rarer now, some revolvers are double-action, which certainly wouldn't qualify.
okay. a pistol = semi-automatic

[Zat0pek]

I've never heard of a revolver being referred to as a semi-automatic in the same vein that .380 or 9mm is. Also, although rarer now, some revolvers are double-action, which certainly wouldn't qualify.

A double action revolver produces the same result as semi-auto; one trigger pull, one round; without any other movement by the shooter. "Double action" simply means you can fire it two ways. The first is by first pulling the hammer back, then squeezing the trigger. This gives a shorter trigger pull and can be a little more accurate, but takes longer. The second is to simply pull the trigger; a longer trigger pull than when firing after pulling the hammer back, but its faster. Your reference above is actually to a single action, not a double action, revolver. In a single action revolver, the hammer MUST be pulled back before it can be fired.

In fact, at one time, the world record for fastest number of rounds from a handgun was from a revolver; I think that is still true. A semi-auto takes longer to cycle than a revolver does. And .357 or .44 (which you can legally hunt deer with in some states) have far more force than a 9mm, which actually has slightly worse ballistics than a .38+P. That's why most law enforcement, including the FBI, now carries .40 semi-autos. The advantages of a semi auto are (1) shot capacity (15-18 rounds for some 9mm's with a pre-Brady Bill clip) and (2) you can reload without disabling the weapon, something that can't be done with a revolver.

Here endeth today's firearms lesson.

[exjersey1]

A double action revolver produces the same result as semi-auto; one trigger pull, one round; without any other movement by the shooter. "Double action" simply means you can fire it two ways. The first is by first pulling the hammer back, then squeezing the trigger. This gives a shorter trigger pull and can be a little more accurate, but takes longer. The second is to simply pull the trigger; a longer trigger pull than when firing after pulling the hammer back, but its faster. Your reference above is actually to a single action, not a double action, revolver. In a single action revolver, the hammer MUST be pulled back before it can be fired.



You are right, Zat. I had it backwards. Must be a carry-over from the way this week has been going so far.

[BeamonStreet]

OK, I need some help. A little background; I'm pro gun, I own a shot gun (but that's it, I'm not a nut with a collection of 29 guns, 9 of which are illegal). But I'm mainly pro gun b/c I'd like to see us retain our ability to make individual choices, which is shrinking faster than the Brazilian rain forests. I'm having an argument with a friend; I say that over 99% of gun owners use their guns legally and responsibly. She says that no way is this possible, that the number is much lower. I don't want stats from the NRA or PETA, I'd like some middle ground here, which may be difficult when it comes to guns. Anyone have any numbers? I say the huge number of gun owners who make up the middle of this country and use their guns responsibly more than outnumber the urban crime issue and the scattered wacko's out there. What are your thoughts?

[TrackDaddy]

I think responsible gun owners FAR out number the knuckleheads.

BY FAR.

The thing is, the urban criminals and the rural wackos provide just enough instability to continue to revisit the issue undefinitely.

The perception is that some sort of control hurts those that are responsible and has no effect on the criminal element.

I disagree.

Criminals don't usually walk into WalMart and buy their guns....they steal them from those that abide by the law.

[leighpeas]

Hey! Collectors aren't nuts!
What if you have 29 guns that are pre-1900?
That's not crazy. That's history. And history is coo, foo!

[Zat0pek]

OK, I need some help. A little background; I'm pro gun, I own a shot gun (but that's it, I'm not a nut with a collection of 29 guns, 9 of which are illegal). But I'm mainly pro gun b/c I'd like to see us retain our ability to make individual choices, which is shrinking faster than the Brazilian rain forests. I'm having an argument with a friend; I say that over 99% of gun owners use their guns legally and responsibly. She says that no way is this possible, that the number is much lower. I don't want stats from the NRA or PETA, I'd like some middle ground here, which may be difficult when it comes to guns. Anyone have any numbers? I say the huge number of gun owners who make up the middle of this country and use their guns responsibly more than outnumber the urban crime issue and the scattered wacko's out there. What are your thoughts?

Your best bet would be to start with John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493636/ref=pd_sxp_f/103-4506161-3551035?v=glance&s=books

The ban-all-guns crowd hates this book, and I'll be the first to admit it's far from perfect. But it probably remains the most exhaustive study of the subject done yet. Here's two competing reviews from the link:

Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate or 225-page books for laypeople. But John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing that concealed-carry weapons permits reduced the crime rate set off a firestorm. The updated study, together with illustrative anecdotes and a short description of the political and academic response to the study, as well as responses to the responses, makes up Lott's informative More Guns, Less Crime.


In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786881046/103-4506161-3551035), noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: "Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."

But Lott's actual quantification of this, in the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date, a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; it's almost touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims. Lott loses a little focus when he leaves his firm quantitative base; as an economist, he should know that the low number of rejected background checks under the Brady Bill doesn't demonstrate anything by itself, because some people may have been deterred from even undergoing the background check in the first place, but he attacks the bill on this ground anyway. But the conclusions that are backed by evidence--that concealed-weapons permits reduce crime, and do so at a lower cost to society than increasing the number of police or prisons--are important ones that should be considered by policymakers. --Ted Frank

And an excerpt from the other:




The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles. For example, he uses no variables on gangs, drug consumption, or community policing. As a result, many of Lott's findings make no sense. He finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws.

Not surprisingly, Lott's model fails several statistical specification tests designed to determine its accuracy, and other models lead to very different results. For example, Jens Ludwig, an economist at Georgetown University, uses a different statistical approach and finds that the movement to shall-issue laws has, if anything, caused homicide rates to increase.

One would have expected that, given the problems with Lott's model, it would have gone back to the drawing board. Instead, Lott decided to go public, writing this book, holding press conferences, and presenting his results as if they proved that permissive gun-carrying laws actually save lives.

Sometimes it is not the model that Lott uses but the data that are just plain wrong. For example, in the one analysis not involving carrying laws, Lott takes data on gun ownership from 1988 and 1996 voter exit polls and purports to show that higher levels of gun ownership mean less crime. According to the polling source, Voter News Service, these data cannot be used as Lott has used them -- either to determine state-level gun ownership or changes in gun ownership. For example, the data from the exit polls indicate that gun ownership rates in the United States increased an incredible 50 percent during those eight years, yet all other surveys show either no change or a decrease in the percentage of Americans who personally own firearms.

Overall, Lott deserves high marks for attempting to study an important and difficult issue and for assembling and sharing his data; he deserves failing marks for pressing policy makers to use his results despite the substantial questions that have been raised about his research. Permissive gun-carrying laws may increase or decrease crime, and knowing the effect is critical for determining appropriate policy. Unfortunately, Lott's results do not provide credible evidence one way or the other.

Lott's book is pro-gun, with an academic flavor; indeed, some training in econometrics is essential to assess his statistical approach. By contrast, Making a Killing, by Tom Diaz, an analyst at the pro-control Violence Policy Center, is more journalistic and can be evaluated more easily by a lay audience.

Making a Killing focuses on gun manufacturers and argues that in the past two decades, in an attempt to increase their sales and profits, these companies have deliberately increased the lethality of firearms. The case is made with quotations drawn from the industry itself. The problem for the industry has been that, given reasonable care, guns don't wear out. With fewer young people growing up into the markets for traditional hunting and sport shooting, convincing people that they need more guns has required innovation and fear-nurturing advertising.

[Zat0pek]

Hey! Collectors aren't nuts!
What if you have 29 guns that are pre-1900?
That's not crazy. That's history. And history is coo, foo!

Doesn't even have to be pre-1900.

How about a German P38 9mm sidearm, complete with leather holster, taken off of a captured Nazi SS guard by an American GI during the liberation of a concentration camp in WWII, and presented as a gift by the widow of that GI in gratitude for helping her settle his estate after his death?

I've only shot it a couple of times at the range. As much as I'm honored to have it, it gives me the willies to think about where it has been, who had it, and what it may have been used for in the past.

[leighpeas]

Doesn't even have to be pre-1900.

How about a German P38 9mm sidearm, complete with leather holster, taken off of a captured Nazi SS guard by an American GI during the liberation of a concentration camp in WWII, and presented as a gift by the widow of that GI in gratitude for helping her settle his estate after his death?

I've only shot it a couple of times at the range. As much as I'm honored to have it, it gives me the willies to think about where it has been, who had it, and what it may have been used for in the past.
oooh, now that would be interesting. i used to watch "tales of the gun" with my dad.