Understanding why gun control successes aren't necessarily observed

Crime is multifaceted. That is obvious. This only tells us that policy should also be multifaceted. Gun control is naturally part of that

 

I think people are too fixated on the gun control aspect. I mention the drug trade because we have seen huge increases in drug production in places where the US military has been used to "fix" things. S. America and Afghanistan. Gov. is compelling people to engage in conflict, rather than dedicating resources to conflict resolution. The problem here is NOT guns in society, so much as it is an agenda that mandates the use of guns.

 

There is no fixation on one policy. There is merely realisation that guns, given negative spillover 'crime' effects, are indeed one problem

 

What's your aim here? You're barking up a tree that is filled with enough wild cats to devour you. Guns are NOT going away. The negative effects of radiation from the sun are not going away. Are you going to rail against the sun, and dream up ways to get rid of it?
While it's true that criminals can use guns, we need to address the problems in our society that result in the presence of so many criminals.
Far more dangerous to people are deaths caused by transportation. We can't even move up and down stairs without inflicting more death than those caused by firearms. Let's make it a felony to move around. Then the criminals can't get to their victims, and no-one can fall down.

 

Already said: evidence-based policy.

And that might not be optimal, given the personal benefits secured from gun ownership.

There is no 'neither or' here. It is merely rational to acknowledge the negative externalities generated through our personal preferences.

 

Wow! As something that contributes to a better understanding of solving anything, or even dealing with it, that's a thousand times more opaque than mud!

 

For more detail see previous comments. Its pretty clear cut: gun prevalence leads to additional crime costs. To ignore those costs is not a credible response

 

Again, what are you driving at? In a post NWO scenario, I suppose that your position would have some bearing on the policies of the regime. Otherwise, the cost in lives of the citizens who would be disarmed and thereby vulnerable to criminals far outweighs any analysis you present. Do you live on this planet?

 

The hypothesis 'more guns=more crime' is not rejected, informing us that as gun owners we do not face the true cost from our preferences. Its a basic example of market failure, where social costs generate a deadweight loss on well-being

 

Rubbish.

 

The empirical evidence shows the link with crime. That additional crime is indeed a coercive cost that destroys well-being, making it irrational to ignore.

 

Rubbish. Take the trash out.

 

I do think its a little clear that those against evidence-based policy aren't friendly to rational comment

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/648703/posts

The Effects of Concealed Carry, and the Research of
John Lott and Others -- A Look At Both Sides

Last revised: March 17, 2002. I am confident that every major research work on the topic of right-to-carry laws has been covered in this article. Still, I may revise the article further in the future, either by adding future works, or by doing more analysis. If you have a print version, you may wish to check at http://www.gunlies.com/gl/lott.htm to be sure you have the very latest update.

The purpose of this article is to give a thorough, honest, accurate overview of the debate (and consensus) among researchers concerning the effects of laws that license citizens to carry concealed firearms. Legislators and others considering the passage of license-to-carry provisions in Missouri and in other States will find an accurate understanding of the potential effects of such legislation to be both relevant and important. This paper summarizes 32 academic studies representing hundreds of pages of research.

An "Anti-Lott" view: "As for [John] Lott's frequently cited study that concluded crime rates fell 8 percent to 15 percent [sic] when changes in laws allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons, it was 'debunked as fatally flawed by literally hundreds of academics,' said [David] Bernstein [spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign / Million Mom March]." -- from "Pro-gun women go by the numbers," August 29, 2000, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A "Pro-Lott" view: "[John] Lott's study is so far ahead of all previous studies that it makes them all worthless." -- David Kopel, who authored a smaller study on the same issue that found allowing legal concealed carry either has no significant effect on crime or noticeably lowers it.

What's all the controversy about?

In 1996, Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago (and later, Yale Law School), together with David Mustard, published a research paper claiming that concealed carry laws have led to a reduction in violent crime in those States that have passed them. Lott and Mustard, based on what has been called the largest and most comprehensive study ever undertaken on the subject of guns and crime, found that concealed carry laws, far from causing "blood in the streets," reduce murder, on average, by 8.5%, rape by 5%, and severe assault by 7%. The reason, Lott believes, is (quite simply) that criminals are hesitant to directly attack law-abiding victims who just may be armed. These findings were further explained in Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime.

Controversy has raged ever since.

Do concealed-carry laws actually have at least a small effect on preventing crime? Or is John Lott a gun-biased wacko, as he has been portrayed by at least one prominent gun control advocacy group? 1

Below is a summary of the research in this area. Please note the following, which should help you get a true picture:

It's not easy to get an idea of how many "credible people with opinions" favor one side of an argument or the other. Probably a better measure of consensus is to examine the views of those who have actually published research on a particular subject. The papers below are believed to represent all major research on the effects of concealed-carry laws.

The length of the list of reviewers (not papers) may be a bit biased on the Lott side, because I received some additional information directly from him, and none from his critics. However, I can't say for certain whether this is the case, since critics are probably more vocal (perhaps much more so) than those who find themselves in agreement with a researcher's findings.

Conservatively speaking, without any additional information from Lott, based solely on my research via the Internet, the count of consensus of reviewers (mostly but not necessarily academic researchers) runs 28 to 29 to 3. That is, 28 generally credible people (mostly academic researchers) agreed with John Lott: laws legalizing concealed carry do significantly reduce crime and/ or save lives. 29 others disagreed with his research, claiming that, in reality, the benefits are unproven, or concealed carry laws have little or no effect (positive or negative) on crime. 3 other reviewers disagreed strongly, claiming that concealed carry is clearly dangerous; it increases crime and / or costs lives. (The count of consensus including a bit of additional info from John Lott himself is 36 to 30 to 3).

While an opinion count such as this can give us some clues, it's obviously not as good as sifting through all of the actual research and arguments for yourself, assuming, of course, that you have the time and the research-interpreting skills to identify flawed arguments on both sides.

The sheer number of articles in each category of the articles listing is 13 to 15 to 1. This counts Lott's book and the earlier study it's based on together as 1 paper -- which is probably rather unfair since the book's 320 pages of fine print almost certainly exceeds the length and detail of all the articles that criticize it combined. The number of articles can also give us some clues, but it isn't necessarily going to reveal the full truth either, for two reasons:

First, a few of these articles and studies simply restate points made elsewhere in the debate.
Secondly, the sheer number of articles published on either side doesn't necessarily say anything about how solid their arguments are. As we will see, a few of these articles are far more questionable than Lott's.

Overall, I show 20 authors contributing to the debate on the Lott side, 20 authors on the no-effect side, and 2 authors on the concealed-carry-is-dangerous side. One of these is the Brady Campaign. The other is Hashem Dezhbaksh. His co-researcher apparently feels there’s little or no effect (and that’s also what I perceive from reading their joint paper); however, Dezhbaksh seems to feel that concealed carry laws are detrimental overall. He obviously feels that they increase robberies with only a slight apparent decrease in murders (and that this is a bad thing); so I have placed him in the "concealed carry is detrimental" category.

There are at least 12 other academic studies (Lott says 13) that have confirmed the basic findings of John R. Lott and David Mustard -- that concealed carry laws seem to bring at least some positive benefits to society. These benefits include reductions in murder, rape, and severe assault. There is conflicting information on whether these potential benefits also include a reduction in robbery (which was a basis for critics to question the Lott/ Mustard results). However, since most robberies tend to occur as convenience store holdups with few customers present, rather than as street crime, there may be no compelling reason why they should.
One of the normal standards for quality is peer review. Lott's research has certainly received that; almost certainly more so than any other paper in the field. Although some researchers don't release their actual research data, and a few explicitly refuse to do so (including at least a few of those whose research tends to drive pro gun-control public policy), John Lott seems to have promptly released the actual data behind his published research to academic researchers at 42 different universities. In terms of the scope of their studies, Lott and Mustard examined data from all 3,054 counties in the United States, from 1977 to 1994.
Lott has issued responses to almost all of the criticisms raised by others. These are best viewed in the latest edition of his book. A certain amount of the "anti-Lott" information being put forth publicly simply ignores defenses of his research that Lott has already made.2

At least two researchers (Plassman & Tideman) used somewhat different methods from Lott and Mustard to look at homicide rates – and found an even stronger effect on murders than Lott & Mustard did. They generally concluded that the average State that passed a concealed carry law might expect an 11% reduction in the homicide rate.
The information below could be improved by a much deeper analysis. Nonetheless, it contains information on all substantive studies of which I am aware (and a couple that probably aren't substantive). Overall, it does give one an excellent general idea of what the debate is all about, and of what scholars are thinking concerning whether laws allowing concealed carry may actually reduce crime. For more analysis, I recommend John Lott's book (2nd edition) and the papers referenced below that criticize the research his book is based on.
The bottom line is this: concealed carry may reduce crime and save lives; scholars are not in agreement as to whether it does. However, virtually every academic researcher in the field (even those who are avowedly in favor of increased gun control) appears to agree that there is no known statistically significant evidence that concealed carry legislation on the whole produces any significant detrimental effect on homicides, rape or robbery.

Obviously, results will vary according to cities, States, situations and quality of legislation -- but there is no obvious indication at all that a well-crafted piece of legislation in any reasonably typical State should bring any significant cause for concern. If any significant detrimental effect on violent crime had clearly existed in the massive nationwide body of data analyzed by Lott and Mustard, surely some of the dozens of researchers to go back through and review their work would have found it. But virtually all academic researchers -- even avowedly pro-gun-control ones -- failed to find any such effect at all.

The very few who claimed they did find a detrimental effect either found effects so small they weren't sure they existed, or potential benefits as well, or their studies don't stand up to anywhere near the level of scrutiny leveled at the research by Lott and Mustard.

After weeks of searching, I was only able to find one academic paper that uses sophisticated statistical analysis and makes a clear claim that concealed carry laws actually increase crime. 13 studies found a reduction. I did also find 2 or 3 studies where the researchers thought concealed carry might increase some crimes. The 1995 Wiersema Loftin McDowall study was one; however, this study also notes a slight benefit for homicides

- - - Updated - - -

Not in this country......................

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/648703/posts

- - - Updated - - -

And since I live in the US, that would be the standard used.

 

Increase of gun prevalence where? In the inner city or in areas where crime is negligible?

- - - Updated - - -

'We'? You mean the UK?

- - - Updated - - -

What 'costs' are imposed? I have had a gun for years. Your point?

 

Looks like the UK has a crime epidemic. You need to focus at home...............


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/uk-violent-crime-rate-eight-times-higher-than-the-us/

←
UK Violent Crime Rate Eight Times Higher Than The US
Posted on September 11, 2013 by stevengoddard
According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011. FBI — Violent Crime

According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf

There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK – 314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.

Brits are eight times more likely to be victims of violent crime than Americans. For some reason, Piers Morgan doesn’t talk about this.

 

a gun study done by an economist you got to be joking right?
couldn't they find some one related to the field like lets say a criminologist
no they couldn't want to know why? because every study done by a professional in the field of crime you know the experts the ones who know what the hell they are talking about come to the same conclusion lacked gun restrictions lower crime rates

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/uk-violent-crime-rate-eight-times-higher-than-the-us/

 

This is irrelevant on two counts. First, its not possible to use official data for international comparison. There is no consistency in definition. Second, there is no reference to gun effects. For example, Britain banned handguns but ownership rates were always low. The focus was on spree killing events which, by definition, cannot be statistically tested

- - - Updated - - -

For this type of analysis econometric methods are required. Who do you think understand econometrics best?

 

It is completely relevant. Violent crime by any means is violent crime. It makes no difference how it is committed unless you are agenda driven.

Refute the data or accept it. Pick one.

 

Already refuted it. It is not possible to use official data for international comparison. Can you find academic analysis that shows otherwise? I can answer the question already: no.

It continues to be an irrelevant comparison as you have not given anything that isolates gun effects. Handguns were never an important element in British culture. Of course there are specific aspects associated with Britain that ensures higher violent crime: from alcohol abuse to the impact of extreme inequalities. However, that is all irrelevant to the thread (except in stating the obvious: an empirical methodology is required which controls for these effects)

 

No you haven't. Simply saying 'not true' absent evidence means nothing. Unless you are saying that only gun crime is real crime. Is that your position?

 

I have. No one uses the official figures for international comparison. There is no homogeneity in definition (e.g. Britain has a history of including 'fake calls' in its data). Also you haven't provided any gun specific analysis (you didn't even manage to refer to an objective study). Does Britain have problems with certain types of crime? Certainly! I'd expect a country with high underemployment and severe inequalities of opportunity to have problems. That has nothing to do with handguns.

I'll set you a task: can you refer to one empirical study that finds a structural break in the violent crime data created through the handgun ban?

 

You mean those that wish to deny the facts. Understood. Face it. The UK has more violence. Show me otherwise. You do not care about women who are raped and anyone who is the victim of violent crime unless a gun is used. In your mind, murder by any other means than a gun is irrelevant.

I also noticed how you dodged my Lott statistics.

 

Facts? You've merely referred to a secondary source that makes an inappropriate comparison and fails to make a gun-specific argument.

Dodge? That would be you, wouldn't it? Where is this analysis into a structural break in British crime data?

With regards Lott, his analysis has been shown to be empirically flawed. For example, his original analysis made inappropriate use of dummy variable analysis. And what happens when that bias is eliminated? His analysis falls apart.