Gun Regulation Statistics

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by jakem617, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ok, currently I am on the fence with this issue, leaning toward higher regulations as far as guns go. Here is something that will strongly convince me to concede many of my arguments for more gun laws. I want to see proof (statistics) showing that tightening gun ownership actually increases violent crime. In order to do this, I will need to see violent crime statistics before and after regulations were tightened, and it would be even better if the statistics were taken from regions in the United States. I've heard a LOT of conservatives talk about these supposed "statistics" on TV several times, and it makes intuitive sense when the intelligent ones actually explain it, but I still want to see the evidence. To further strengthen your case, it would REALLY help if the tighter gun regulations that caused violent crime to go up pertained to an AR ban or a ban on larger magazines (since these are the guns I always argue should be banned). Anyways, post any statistics that you find that you think are relevant and I will review them and hopefully reach a conclusion on this issue. Thanks.

    Also, if you have statistics to counter this argument, I would love to see those too. I like to get the whole picture when making a conclusion on my views of a particularly delicate issue such as gun rights.
     
  2. illun

    illun New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have not found conclusive evidence either way honestly. The majority of stats tend to make me feel like they do support lenient laws just based on the fact that stricter one(so far) don't work. Anti-gunners will argue that homicide by guns has gone down in japan, england, and australia. Pro-gunners say that violent crime has increased with the banning of guns in these countries, and point out that large cities in Texas have lower homicide rates than the northeast. The most compelling statistics that I've seen is in this thread I started yesterday. The person claimed that they were from FBI and government websites. http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/287648-great-breakdown-statistics.html

    Here are two sites that are very pro-gun, but they have lots of stats to look at.http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf
    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
     
  3. FrankCapua

    FrankCapua Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Read "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott...Third edition.
     
  4. oldrwizr

    oldrwizr New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Largely discredited by mainstream thinkers.
     
  5. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look at the following graph:

    No 2Screen shot 2010-12-04 at 11_32_12 AM.png

    http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12/50-year-trends-in-violent-crime-in-us.html

    Insert all the major guns control laws into the picture:
    Gun Control Act of 1968--crime climed higher
    FOPA (Assault ban) 1986---crime up
    Gun Free School Zones Stupidity Act 1990---crime up
    Brady Bill 1993---no effect
    Assault Weapons Ban 1994-2004---no attribuatal decline because:

    ...Three Stikes and other get tough on crime laws were coming out that were the real reason crime started going down.

    The liberalization of the criminal justice system in the early to mid-1960's WAS a main reason for crime to increase.


    That enough?
     
  6. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    First off, I can barely see those graphs, but from what I do see, it looks like those bill didn't have any effect on the rising rate of violent crime. I do agree that it doesn't appear to help gun crime (in most cases), but it doesn't seem to spike much in those years, they seem to be tending upward in general. Therefore, saying that violent crime increases after gun laws are passed is factual, but saying that violent crime increases BECAUSE of gun laws isn't correct (post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). I want to see some very obvious and glaring facts (as conservatives have said that they have), that if we put a ban on assault rifles, it will increase the violent crime rate. Percentage changes in violent crime is good (with obvious differences before and after a particular gun law), as well as the changes in violent crime rate several years before the gun ban (that way you don't run into the same problem with statistics like yours, which suggest that there is simply a very strong correlation between time and violent crime, i.e. violent crime increases over time. This says absolutely nothing about the effect of gun laws on violent crime itself).
     
  7. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My privitive computing abilities don't allow me enlarge pictures, but I gave you the link.

    I never said that crime was going to go up because of limiting certain levels of magazine capacity or maybe a few types of guns. Where you are going to have an increase BECAUSE of a bad law can be seen in Washington DC and Chicago. Chicago bans all handguns, and DC bans all firearms for usable defence (being challenged).

    Crime is most influenced by the people themselves in a given area, their culture and moral values, how well they enforce their laws and the degree to which they punish criminals.
     
  8. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law-enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense.
    The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
    These words are from a former prosecutor in DC, here is the Wall Street Journal article.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...60300469292.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

    Before passing legislation that infringes on our 2nd amendment, and limits the ability for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, and possible gives criminals the upperhand, shouldn't we be trying to "prove" that these regulations work. In our presidents own words he said that "there is no legislation that will guarantee that another Sandy Hook won't happen". After all legislation will only effect the law abiding gun owner. And he is right, with over 300 million guns in America, a determined criminal will get a gun and do as he wants. We just want to protect ourselves when that happens.
    Make gun crimes a federal offense, prosecute at least mandantory 10 year sentences, stop the revolving door justice system, stop letting these guys off because of technicallities, and gun crime will subside and people won't feel the need to arm themselves for protection.
     
  9. nimdabew

    nimdabew Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You know, I think we are doing this all wrong. I want to put the burden of proof on you. Is there a correlation of gun control affecting crime? Did the crime statistics concerning rifles go up, down, or stay neutral after the '94 assault weapon ban? If it was the same or went up, is there a case for not allowing another assault weapon ban? How about other gun control measures? Is there a correlation between enacting a new gun control measure and having an appreciable effect on crime?

    Anti self-defense people want to do all of these things because it is a feeling that they have, not evidence. Is there evidence to support a gun banning a specific type of weapon that shows an appreciable crime reduction in the United States?
     
  10. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Touche...Well, I went looking around a little and here is what I found.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/in-c...y-people-get-shot-to-death-in-america-2012-12
    This link will show you the relatively strong positive correlation (.7<r<1) between gun ownership and gun violence. While there are obviously many factors that come into play besides merely gun ownership, this should say something about gun ownership as it relates to gun violence.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
    This text goes to talk about how gun laws in Australia have actually decreased the amount of homicides by around 5%.

    I am not trying to argue that restricting conceal and carry will lower crime rate (the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and hard to ignore from both an intuitive and statistical standpoint). My problem is people using the conceal and carry laws to strengthen their argument that restricting gun ownership will only increase violent crime. The fact is, there is absolutely NO evidence that supports the idea that restricting AR gun ownership will increase gun violence. This is both statistical and intuitive. I don't understand how restricting AR guns (and high capacity magazine guns) alone are going to increase crime rate as republicans are constantly preaching. From an intuitive standpoint, restricting AR guns will do very little, but i GUARANTEE that restricting AR guns will NOT increase violent crime. I am all for conceal and carry laws, in fact, it makes me feel safer knowing some Americans may be packin a gun to protect me should I need the protection. However, ARs serve little to no self defensive purpose and there is virtually no evidence supporting that they do. There is, however, evidence saying that ARs are weapons of war and can cause an immense amount of damage.

    If somebody can disprove me on any of these facts, I will gladly concede and agree that an AR ban isn't going to help anything, but until then, I am sticking to my guns (lol I'm so punny) on this one.
     
  11. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I apologize, my Austrailian statistic is incorrect, I read the wrong statistic (it's that gun ownership decreased by about 5%). Regardless though, you can see in the graph that these gun laws had virtually no effect on homicides, and eventually had a slightly positive effect in that the number of homicides did eventually begin decreasing.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't use raw data to prove anything! An empirical specification is required that, via econometric methods, enables gun effects to be isolated. And Australia? Its one country where significant effects from gun regulation are found; e.g. the buy-back system, via a study Leigh and Neill (2010, Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data, American Law & Economics Review, Vol. 12, pp 462-508 ), was found to significantly reduce homicides and suicides.
     
  13. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    look bro, there are 2 ways to prove something in social science. One is logically and one is statistically. People that argue that an AR ban will increase violent crime rate have NO logical or statistical evidence that suggests this is true, therefore, as I conclude, it is false. If you would like to prove me wrong with either logic or statistics you are more than welcome to. Saying that I am wrong though and that my raw data didn't prove anything may be true, but it did DISPROVE the idea that "more gun laws = more violent crime". In mathematics (which is my field), that is sufficient for me.

    Again, feel free to refute me with either logic or statistics, or both. If you say something that I find to be true/interesting/logical, then I'll listen to you.
     
  14. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Spouting more rediculousness I see. The gun buy back in 96 DID NOT lower the crime rate or overall murders, I'm surprised your little study did not reveal that to you.
     
  15. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    lol I'm confused, that guy was trying to defend your cause...did you mean to quote me instead?? If so, I am still trying to find a law that involves banning ARs that actually increases crime rate. If you can find one, please let me know =)
     
  16. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Also, please do me a favor and include sources of your information, otherwise what you are saying is less than worthless (I would actually pay to have people stop spouting BS to the public)...
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not possible to utilise raw data as there are multiple variables at play, ensuring spurious conclusion is certain. If you understood how data is used in social science, you'd know that a regression methodology is typically used which allows for robust testing of hypothesis (in economic analysis terms, isolating 'gun effects' by enabling 'other things remaining equal')

    Without an empirical specification that isolates gun effects, you have nothing. However, we do know that the econometric evidence cannot reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. We also know that the evidence, focusing on the impact of gun control, does show significant reductions in homicide and suicides.

    Rude? Crikey, aren't you a flower! I referred to basic sense. Don't like it? Find someone else to give you a hug
     
  18. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, he tries, as always to spout his nonsense about studies and how they are some kind of solid proof that gun control actually reduces crime and homicide, which it doesn't.
     
  19. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You seem relatively smart, but what qualifies you to answer things like that? Do you have a degree (or are you pursuing a degree) in statistics or social science? I don't mean to be rude, I'm just curious.

    As far as your raw data goes, you have a point (albeit a poorly constructed one). Since raw data is what republicans are using for their arguments against more gun laws, I think it is perfectly fair to use raw data to prove the opposite. That is what I did, and again, all I am asking for is a single piece of statistical evidence to show that banning high capacity guns and ARs will increase violent crime.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't said anything earth-shattering. The multiple factors that impact on crime rates are well known, ensuring that an empirical methodology is required and crowing about trends in raw data is darn useless.

    None of your business.

    And you don't. Abusing raw data, be it in favour/against or fence sitting, is an exercise in pointlessness.

    Because ignorant people do something, you should join them? A terrible argument!

    You should be asking for a single 'empirical study'. Get the basics right!
     
  21. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    fig012.png
    Gun buyback happened in 96. Here shows a rise in homicides by 99. I am not claiming this is a rise due to gun control, I do however point out it's ineffectiveness.
    accgundths.gif
    Didn't quite work out well in the accident department either.
    fig016.png
    Violent Crime rate seems unnafected as well.

    My main point here is that regardless of what your studies are showing, the crime is still there, you CANNOT deny that. It shows that guns are not the problem. I am not a republican, democrat, liberal or any other political party affiliate, I am a realist. NOT ONE study conducted on this planet can change these stats.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't got a point. You'd only have a point if I said "all other crime-impacting variables are constants". I of course didn't say anything so ludicrous. That you're so unaware of the empirical process only shows your irrelevant position for genuine debate
     
  23. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Thanks for these statistics. They are really good, and I will definitely take them into consideration. That being said, I completely understand your argument. My only problem with all these people I see arguing that banning ARs is only going to create gun violence, which is obviously not true. Banning ARs probably won't do much of anything to crime. The reason I think that ARs should be banned is simply because I don't see any real useful purpose besides killing people.
     
  24. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yeeea, based on this response I have come to the conclusion that you don't have any grounds for what you are saying (no offense), so you should just go to another forum to argue. I can't possibly respect a person who says something that is purely based on faith with absolutely no logic or evidence behind it (and even worst, no credibility for what he is saying). At least the people who argue against me have the guts to post statistics and construct logical arguments, rather than simply talking out of their ass.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're arguing against basic sense. You can only use raw statistics if one variable impacts on crime. That would be a pathetic claim.

    This is inanity. You've been directed towards proper comment. That assuredly must refer to the econometric studies that isolate gun effects. Time to grow dear boy, rather than go for playground prattle
     

Share This Page