Understanding why gun control successes aren't necessarily observed

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Reiver, Apr 13, 2014.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Consider the article Lanza (2014, The Effect of Firearm Restrictions on Gun-Related Homicides Across US States, Applied Economic Letters). Here's the abstract:

    "The Newtown massacre has raised the issue of gun violence to a fever pitch. While several states have responded with tough new controls on firearms, most states have loosened restrictions. This study explores what effect such changes might have on gun-related homicides in the United States. The results, based on panel data for the 50 states over the 2007–2010 period and estimated under several alternative model specifications, suggest that looser restrictions will likely do little to lessen the incidence of gun deaths but that tighter restrictions may produce a modest reduction in firearm fatalities."

    The author is open about the limitations of his methodology. Given the focus on local laws, it ignores how they can be circumvented by crossing state borders. Once you eliminate this deficiency, the success of gun control would be shown in all its full glory.
     
  2. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ahem! Ownership of firearms has drastically increased, just since Newtown, and violent crime has... decreased.
    My peer reviewed conclusion is that an armed society is a polite society.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've merely made a spurious conclusion, given you haven't controlled for the numerous factors that impact on crime rates. As shown by the evidence presented, once this is done, positive effects are found.
     
  4. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    more double talk from one who is terrified of guns 4000 miles away
     
  5. arc_angel

    arc_angel New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm getting really tired of this. Is that all we are worried about is firearm related fatalities. This is getting stupid people. I want to see a study that says if we remove guns violent crime resulting in death will go down. Common we all know that getting rid of guns will get rid of gun deaths but this idea that if we get rid of guns we also get rid of violent crime and deaths due to violent crime is just dumb. I am not aware of a single nation on the planet that has gotten rid of violent crime and deaths associated to violent crime because it has banned weapons. In England people are still killed even without guns. Gun control only cares about fatalities if a gun is involved otherwise it is unimportant. If I were to show you a study that says if we control access to knives we could reduce knife fatalities (I probably could simply by focusing on the wording "knife fatalities") I wonder what you would say. Then what if I went on to say I want to save Innocent lives by preventing knife deaths? These arguments are retarded. You are basically saying that gun control equals less gun deaths. How would you argue this though...gun control equals less fatalities? Makes it much harder to argue that doesn't it because you don't get to cherry pick but have to look at the entire spectrum. This study is so biased by it's simple focus and cherry picking of reducing "gun deaths." I hope no self respecting university published it.
     
  6. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IMHO, number of guns and amount of crime are not related. Yes, guns are used in crime, but other instruments would be used if guns aren't available, and guns do offer a chance for those less physically fit to defend themselves as those who are much more physically fit. There is no need to further restrict guns.
     
  7. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...some real common sense, finally. Thanks for pointing out the obvious to those terrified of guns. Much as I have tried to convince them that my firearms are no danger to them, say, 4000 miles away, they remain paralyzed by the vague and innocuous.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The empirical evidence shows that guns do not have perfect substitutes. Cook and Ludwig (2006, The social costs of gun ownership, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 90, pp. 379-391) sum it up: "an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community". Thus, its quite standard to focus on gun-related deaths.
     
  9. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, it's only natural that limiting guns lowers use of those guns. Do people deny that? I guess some do.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What we have is reductions in gun prevalence translating into lower lethality of crime, ensuring significant reductions in social costs. This doesn't translate into bans. It translates into realising that, if you want to own a gun, you should face the true cost from your preferences. Its a standard application of negative externalities
     
  11. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Regulations, licenses, background checks, safe storage, etc - these things all enhance the safety of the society. When you reduce the power of people to do undesirable (*)(*)(*)(*) it turns out less undesirable (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. Regulations such as those in my country of Australia concerning storage undoubtedly increase the safety of the gun owner's family. If you have to have your firearm unloaded and locked in one safe, with the ammo in a separate safe in a separate zone of the house, you accidentally shoot your kid less. Your kid accidentally shoots himself less. This is all very natural and obvious.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But its more than that. Essentially gun ownership imposes costs on general society. A form of deadweight loss no less.
     
  13. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, definitely true. Every time a person shoots another there are healthcare and law enforcement costs, and that person's future contribution to society is lost. In addition, society has to judge and punish the offender.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its more of a spillover effect. The individual is not necessarily at fault, but the market fails as it cannot ensure appropriate prices
     
  15. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    agreed, punish the offender, NOT the rest of the country
     
  16. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe we should mount a study to investigate why England has such an alarming number of cricket bat related crimes when compared to the U.S.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Happy to consider any empirical evidence on 'England & Wales' crime. I look forward to your choice
     
  18. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to make a suggestion to you and your peers in Economics. Now you know and I know that the having more gun control and gun restrictions is the agenda. This "guilt by association" ploy using guns and crime in studies is how you and your Liberal friends unfairly try to influence opinion. So, show me a study where your people have measured the effects of violent street gangs in a given city or neighborhood on crime.

    My hypothesis: Having areas with high percentages of homes with honest gun owners will not cause more crimes (suicides excluded because they are not classified as crimes). However, having high numbers of violent street or prison gang members in a given city, neighborhood or county WILL cause more crime. There will be an almost 1:1 correlation. Please don't try to use statewide comparisons as they will create spurious data.

    Tell me why your beloved Economists will not perform these studies, or more importantly, publish them when the facts counter the agenda?
     
    stjames1_53 and (deleted member) like this.
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Econometric study, by definition, includes multiple control variables in order to isolate gun effects (including of course numerous socio-economic variables). No one assumes that crime is determined by one factor.
     
  20. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    truth never pushes the Lib agenda............They lie so damned much, they wouldn't know honor if it slapped them in the face, three times
     
  21. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why the focus on guns instead of gangs?

    Please show any/all peer reviewed studies in any of your quoted journals that try to isolate gang effects in the same way that guns are isolated.

    If gang activity is clearly more relevant to crime than gun availability, then why the obsessive focus on guns?

    I find it clear that you want the public to assume that guns are the primary factor in crime trends.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the hypothesis test employed is focused on the importance of guns.

    What hypothesis do you want them to test? That gang culture leads to crime?

    If gang activity is clearly more relevant to crime than gun availability, then why the obsessive focus on guns?

    Nobody has said that guns are the primary factor. I certainly would refer to key economic issues, such as inequality and unemployment. However, to ignore gun effects would simply be irrational.
     
  23. Small Town Guy

    Small Town Guy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    4,294
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I got one word for you....SOCCER
    http://oddculture.com/historys-top-15-worst-soccer-disasters/
    http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04...-stadium-soccer-stadium-british-soccer-deaths
    http://www.theguardian.com/football...ootball-england-abuse-death-threats-withering
    I mean dang...shouldn't England worry about the violence of the soccer enthusiasts first? That is one violent fan base eh
     
  24. FireofLiberty

    FireofLiberty New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would argue that the success stories and benefits of GUN OWNERSHIP aren't often observed. Everyone sees the tragedy on the TV the media uses to get ratings and spins and creates crazy graphics and slogans for... Few people see or hear about the guy who didn't get robbed or killed because he had a gun. You never hear about the house that wasn't broken into because the owner had a gun.

    Etc, etc., etc.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis is easily tested. It is simply rejected
     

Share This Page