handgun debate need your help! (references)


PDA






brentn
October 30, 2008, 11:10 PM
Me and my buddy were discussing handgun bans in major cities in which whether or not it lowers crime, particularily firearm offences.

I have seen many statistics before that cities like chicago, washington D.C., new york, etc with extremley strict gun control have a higher murder rate/crime rate than that of neighboring cities with very little control or no control at all.

I need to prove this, and I need a credible source such as from a national census or the FBI etc.

Again, the debate is if handgun bans prevent crime, my buddy says that its extremley effective in banning crime and I say that it increases crime, the exact opposite.

I could really use your help here cause he's a hardcore liberal and if I can statistically prove this to him without a doubt, it will change his whole line or irrational thinking on guns, the gun community and how gun ownership ties into many of our rights.

I really appreciate your help!

If you enjoyed reading about "handgun debate need your help! (references)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RevDerb
October 30, 2008, 11:13 PM
I KNOW that you are correct and I also know that many here will provide you with more statistics than you can really use. But like shooting, you can never have too much ammo.

brentn
October 30, 2008, 11:16 PM
This could be a good sticky thread if it contains rock solid non-biased references. I suppose that's not truly possible but having a reference from a government entity that fights crime is a defenite winner.

Big45
October 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-28-hudson_N.htm?csp=34

CHICAGO he shooting deaths of three relatives of actress Jennifer Hudson are stirring debate about the reasons this city is the USA's homicide capital and adding urgency to efforts to stop the killing.

Chicago handgun ban=USA's homicide capital.

CASE CLOSED.

brentn
October 30, 2008, 11:28 PM
not yet, where is this pulled from, who said that chicago is USA's homicide capitol, I need it in writing. sorry, just all the better to settle this between my buddy once and for all.

We've been arguing for years over this crap and he still doesn't get it.


Comparisons in crime is probably the best way to approach this, a city with a ban on handguns versus a city of equal population that has no ban on handguns.

mnrivrat
October 30, 2008, 11:30 PM
I'm too tired at the moment to dig up a bunch of records so will let others partake - I will just give you a quote from a senate juditiary committee study regarding the second amendment - This document is available from the US printing office and is 88-618 0 and should be read by all , but here is a pertinant statement from the document :

"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."

PS: where is his documentation ??

wep45
October 30, 2008, 11:35 PM
you want proof about chicago................ listen to the chicago morning news on fox like i do every day or read the chi town newspapers. chicago has a ban on guns. chicago also has a shooting victim every day. no bull...only the facts. you want more sources....ok, contact the cook county hospital or the cook county morgue. they can give you a count on the bullet holes.:eek:

Big45
October 30, 2008, 11:40 PM
who said that chicago is USA's homicide capitol, I need it in writing. sorry,

Did you see that link at the very beginning of my post? The one with the underlining and different color font? Do you know how those things work? Did you see how I quoted something? Did you think I was making that up? I see you're Canadian.

brentn
October 30, 2008, 11:50 PM
heh.. lets not get mad at the poster here :D I'm trying to do us all a favor to counter the ignorant and their flawed arguments.
mnrivat, thanks, thats a pretty good fact. Because if gun control really did work then there would be facts all over the place and no one would be allowed to own a firearm.

Yes of course he has not presented any facts of his own, but I was hoping to compile an email for him tonight via this thread's facts to counter his argument. At that time I'd ask him to present his facts, and if he does analyze them and then maybe totally call him on his BS as his facts don't add up. It would be a nice way of finishing 3 years of arguing :D

brentn
October 30, 2008, 11:56 PM
Quote:
who said that chicago is USA's homicide capitol, I need it in writing. sorry,
Did you see that link at the very beginning of my post? The one with the underlining and different color font? Do you know how those things work? Did you see how I quoted something? Did you think I was making that up? I see you're Canadian.
__________________


Alright there's no reason to be a jerk about this. So far, according to your link the only references I have that they are the murder capitol is "USA TODAY" newspaper and a pastor, thats not good enough. I'm not saying that its not true, I'm just trying to find the source for this quote, so just relax.
And please don't insult my heritage, or try to assume that because I'm canadian I'm an idiot or anti gun. Canada has a large amount of sport shooters and millions of hunters that help keep YOU and ME free still.

Grump
October 31, 2008, 12:00 AM
Step one: firmly restrict the debate to gun CRIME. Suicides are a different dynamic and do not belong in the battle of the body counts. Get your opponent to draft the definition FIRST, so he or she cannot credibly back away from it.

Consult the FBI's "Crime in the USA", aka the "Uniform Crime Reports" (not really the name, IIRC, and it might not be called CITUSA any more either).

AND get the predecessor data for NYC back to 1900. "Sullivan Law" in 1911, IIRC, made it almost impossible for peasants to buy or own handguns without following strict licensing protocols. Greater and greater restrictions on rifles followed over successive decades.

Trend lines.

Add to trend lines "major" pieces of legislation, such as GCA '68 (national), which did away with "mail order guns", federalized through the Commerce Clause and the FFL system and imposed a 21-YO minimum to buy an evil handgun, but kept the "adult" definition of 18-YO to buy a long-arm from an FFL. Technically applies to guns that have traveled in interstate commerce, and in most states has had a private party "loophole" of local law rules.

Try Washington, DC, "freezing" existing handguns in 1976 (a great bicentennial gesture, eh?) and requiring all existing ones kept in homes to be disassembled. "Model" gun control laws per the gun-grabbers. "Murder Capital" of the nation through most of the '80s and '90s and still is no slouch on the body count to this day.

Pinpoint years that each successively stricter handgun law was enacted in Chicago/Cook County/Illinois (the latest under Barack Obama's watch). Show where the trendline goes after each law.

Pinpoint "Operation Exile" in Virginia, one of the so-called source states for DC's "illegal" handgun supply. By targeting existing "prohibited persons" who had already been committing petty crimes, the victimization of the law-abiding by them dropped. No new laws, just FEDERAL initiative to enforce Federal laws that some of us consider marginally stupid. However, incarceration worked by incapacitating the minor violent people before they killed or injured us, and keeping those who had killed or robbed already out of circulation during whatever sentences they got.

Nationally, pinpoint the sudden wide availability of standard-capacity handgun magazines for non-LEOs beginning September 13 four years ago and how much crime "jumped" in the years since.

When your liberal mush-head blames the violent-culture carnage of our biggest cities and their strict laws on neighboring states with "weak" laws, point to Jamaica as an example of the national approach. They banned handguns AND ammo in 1976, set up special gun courts with severely restricted civil rights and liberties, and they had successes in reducing gun murder, gun robbery, and gun trafficking rivaled only by the crime-reduction successes of Detroit. It's so bad now, the UN is looking at some special initiatives to reduce crime there, which focus as much on social factors as on their pie-in-the-sky efforts to reduce the "illicit trade of small arms". Clue--the illicit trade is fed by a violent, scofflaw culture that does not value life like most of in the US do.

There may even be some study somewhere that showed the total number of handguns in Windsor, Ontario across the bridge from Detroit is similar to the number of handguns legally in Detroit... Number of crimes committed per gun in Windsor is a lot smaller than the number of crimes committed per gun in Detroit.

But be warned: I have encountered few starry-eyed liberals who were willing to let facts get in the way of their pipe dreams. Remember, these are often (not always) the same bunch of doughheads who cannot see the similarities between white supremacist groups and Muslim supremacist groups. Sadly, they cannot/will not see the differences between the skinhead hate groups and the raghead hate groups, either--and the resist recognizing the similarities and differences far more stubbornly than any anti-Arab bigot I've ever encountered, BTW.

Finally, look into the TOTAL murder rates, and robbery and all violent crime for Japanese-culture US citizens, and compare them with TOTAL murder rate, robbery rate, and violent crime rate in Japan. Japan has been largely disarmed of effective personal weapons (starting with its racist oppression of Okinawa and spreading into their own land) for more than five centuries. Fewer guns there than in Canada.

You will find that crime is fed by:
1. Cultural and societal factors first.
2. The percentage of overall population which consists of males age 16-26.
3. Unreliably, education and economic opportunity
4. MORE reliably, city size and population density (there was a great stats study of California in the Rifleman maybe 10 years ago)
5. and LEAST reliably, the "availability and access to" weapons.

Then look at England and Australia and you will find that their own measurements of overall crime were helped the first 1-3 years after each oppressive gun law, then resumed their steady climbs, fed by the first 4 factors listed above.

Suggested approach to "cherry-pick" the cities to look at: identify the states and cities which get the "best" gun law ratings from the Brady Bunch. Hit that hard.

Be prepared to be baffled by your opponent giving up the debate and returning to fluff which questions anyone's "reasons" to own killing devices, and which revolves around the ideas "should" and "should not".

Then show that film clip of John Wayne's sheriff character in True Grit grousing about certain people who "need killing", and use all that "should" logic with "pro-choice" logic to just close with the idea that some of us understand that some evils in the world cannot be solved with community group counseling, and we claim the human right of self-preservation, especially when the rule-breakers attempt to harm us or other innocents--because when the bad people need killing, it's more fair and sensible to have them shot before they can harm the innocent, rather than shot by cops as they are fleeing the bloody crime scene. GET THE CONCESSION THAT NOT EVERY "GUN DEATH" IS A BAD THING. ESCHEW THE "VIOLENCE IS NEVER A SOLUTION FALLACY.

Finally, quote all the hysterics of "old west" style shootings that were going to make blood "run in the streets" of Florida when it started the trend of "shall-issue" CCW. THEN point to Florida's spike in crime perpetrated against tourists driving rental cars, because the gang-bangers KNEW their victims were not locals and could NOT CCW.

Announce your conclusions about your opponent's intelligence only after all this is done. Plan for 90 frustrating minutes.

Dr. Fresh
October 31, 2008, 12:11 AM
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Grump
October 31, 2008, 12:12 AM
Go to the FBI's website and look it up from them. But make sure you include The Brady Campaign's favorite US cities in the list of gun control "utopias".

Recommended reading: Aggro: the Illusion of Violence By Peter E. Marsh
Published by J. M. Dent, 1978
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized Jun 14, 2006
ISBN 0460120263, 9780460120265
165 pages

I think that's the one I ready about 1982 or so, which was not only a good and fairly easy read, but full of real-life observations and rational explanations of human behavior.

Bottom line: cultural factors and social mores limiting violence to the establishment of superiority over one's opponent prevent football riots in England from being fatal very often, but the fragmentation of society in large US cities is among the factors that contribute to fights in the US NOT having a fatal endpoint far more often here...and even MORE often in Latin America (where some the the highest national murder rates--absent civil wars--have been recorded over the past 50 or so years).

Big45
October 31, 2008, 12:15 AM
Alright there's no reason to be a jerk about this. So far, according to your link the only references I have that they are the murder capitol is "USA TODAY" newspaper and a pastor, thats not good enough. I'm not saying that its not true, I'm just trying to find the source for this quote, so just relax.
And please don't insult my heritage, or try to assume that because I'm canadian I'm an idiot or anti gun. Canada has a large amount of sport shooters and millions of hunters that help keep YOU and ME free still.

Do you think USA TODAY made it up? Here's a suggestion. Do your own research. I'm sure if you press enough keys, you will find the same info USATODAY used when they wrote that piece.

And you and your hunting buddies are doing exactly ZERO to keep me free. Maybe your 2nd Amendment pertains only to hunting.

mnrivrat
October 31, 2008, 01:40 AM
Another tidbit of info : WASHINGTON - While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

ericyp
October 31, 2008, 02:14 AM
I am sorry all you have found is anecdotal evidence and one liners. I have also tried to find the same data for a poly sci class, but the truth is that reliable statistics are hard to come by. Even given statistics, they are usually only half there, without numbers like standard deviation or chi squared values for which the authors used to accept or reject their conclusions. This one may help: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa, check their sources for the numbers. A lot of them are fairly old, but they come from reliable sources like government stat reports.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita this website has murders per capita by nation.

From what I have found, there is a weak positive correlation between guns and murder rates per country. Keep in mind that correlation does not indicate causation. Even if you find what you're looking for, it may be other factors besides guns affecting the murder rates so any conclusion you try to draw will be muddy at best. The economic status of the city, the population demographic, lots of stuff can be the actual culprit. There's far more drownings in states where people eat more ice cream, and far less drownings in states where people eat little ice cream, but that's not because eating ice cream causes people to drown...

gbran
October 31, 2008, 12:06 PM
Google will bring any stats you want. Take for example D.C. which has a population of approx. 600,000. In 2006, they had about 170 murders.

Boise Idaho also has about 600,000, but only had 6 murders for the same period.

RPCVYemen
October 31, 2008, 01:12 PM
The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

Be careful here - read the actual report, as opposed to reading PR about the report.

The NAS report didn't find and significant correlations between any gun legislation and rates of various crimes. How is that different from what mnrivrat quoted?

There was no significant correlation between "gun control" legislation or "pro gun" legislation (CCW or "shall carry" and crime rates. So the quote mnrivat provided only tells half the story. One of the appendices discusses the flaws in John Lott's studies (and I think included a response from him, and maybe a counter response.

The CDC replicated this finding.

I suspect that this lack of correlation is due to the reasons cited by Grump. The major factors influencing the are probably societal and/or economic. I think those factors swamp any legislative affect.

Be careful about using NYC as an example. If you search for "The Defiant One" on THR (the Jodie Foster movie), you will find that we kicked around the claim that "New York is the safest large city in the country" - and was mostly true. In fact, it's much safer than some smaller cities with wide open gun laws (mostly in the South West as I recall).

Mike

Lonest@r
October 31, 2008, 01:28 PM
Do you think USA TODAY made it up?

The media makes up a lot of stuff. Just because I agree with it does not make it true, or disagreeing does not make it false. This is the same reason certain media sources are accused of being bias.

I think what he is looking for is something from like the Federal Bureau if Justice Statistics, but doesn't know where to find it. I remember a book I used for a paper that would list yearly statistics for US, and broke it down into cities on such thing as death: and catagorized as murder, suicide, accident, and then broke it down even further into type: auto, gun, knife, stick, fall. Unfortunately I do not remember what statistical book it was.

RPCVYemen
October 31, 2008, 01:32 PM
By the way, the NAS report is available on line:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

Here is what they found with regard to pro-carry legislation:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, ...

Mike

Mr White
October 31, 2008, 01:39 PM
... my buddy says that its extremley effective in banning crime ...

I could really use your help here cause he's a hardcore liberal ... I think you need to find better friends.

Beatnik
October 31, 2008, 02:17 PM
I second fbi.gov - last year I did some serious picking through the data they supplied through 2005 with state breakdowns of population and murders, along with murder weapon (handgun, rifle, knife, etc). The only problem with the fbi data is that it shows what you'd expect in certain strict gun control states like Maryland, but doesn't show as big a correlation in other gun-unfriendly places like Connecticut.

Leading to the prior observation...

You will find that crime is fed by:
1. Cultural and societal factors first.
2. The percentage of overall population which consists of males age 16-26.
3. Unreliably, education and economic opportunity
4. MORE reliably, city size and population density (there was a great stats study of California in the Rifleman maybe 10 years ago)
5. and LEAST reliably, the "availability and access to" weapons.

Except that where I live, northern Virginia, seems to contradict this claim. In several places you literally have to cross a bridge to get from a relatively safe Virginia urban area to a relatively unsafe Maryland or DC urban area.

Watch the news from here and you'll hear nightly reports of murders, robberies, and even unrelated stuff like hit-and-runs and infanticide - all coming from the other side of the river.

The most interesting thing about the DC Sniper case was that they were killing people in Virginia. I'm not saying that never happens. I am saying that the Potomac is basically the old proverbial train tracks in this area, I'm on the gun owning side of the tracks, and the madhouse is on the gun banning side of the tracks.

No Fear
October 31, 2008, 02:27 PM
Me and my buddy were discussing handgun bans in major cities in which whether or not it lowers crime, particularily firearm offences.

I have seen many statistics before that cities like chicago, washington D.C., new york, etc with extremley strict gun control have a higher murder rate/crime rate than that of neighboring cities with very little control or no control at all.

I need to prove this, and I need a credible source such as from a national census or the FBI etc.

Again, the debate is if handgun bans prevent crime, my buddy says that its extremley effective in banning crime and I say that it increases crime, the exact opposite.

I could really use your help here cause he's a hardcore liberal and if I can statistically prove this to him without a doubt, it will change his whole line or irrational thinking on guns, the gun community and how gun ownership ties into many of our rights.

I really appreciate your help!Clearly your buddy is a tool. Quit arguing with him like he's your girlfriend or something. He's a GUY who should be acting like one but isn't. Just take his mindless, media talking points repeating azz to the range. Guys teach by having FUN, not by arguing like the ladies on the view who argue nonstop but never come to a knowledge of the truth.

You need to PERSONALIZE the gun issue with this spineless tool instead of arguing with him and coming here for help with your pointless argument with mr metrosexual. If he refuses to even go to the range then buy him some hand cream for christmas because clearly that is what he would prefer.

RPCVYemen
October 31, 2008, 02:46 PM
Except that where I live, northern Virginia, seems to contradict this claim. In several places you literally have to cross a bridge to get from a relatively safe Virginia urban area to a relatively unsafe Maryland or DC urban area.

It's been a long time since I lived in that area - but there were pretty massive socio/economic differences - particularly with regard to race and economic class - between DC and it's suburbs. Is that no longer the case?

The last time I flew into DC, the guy running the Taxi stand told my cab I was going to "North West" - w/o even asking me. That confirms (slightly) my notion that gun legislation is not the only difference between DC and its suburbs in Md and Va.

Mike

Librarian
October 31, 2008, 08:10 PM
You're essentially asking the question addressed by John Lott in "More Guns, Less Crime (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225497827&sr=1-1)."

And this is correct: RPCVYemen By the way, the NAS report is available on line:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

Here is what they found with regard to pro-carry legislation:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, ...
Mike
Neither of you can PROVE your assertions. There's just not enough data, and statistics do not prove anything - they suggest a relationship between A and B, but cannot demonstrate whether one causes the other, or whether a third 'X' may cause one or both.

And even if you had wonderful data and unassailable statistical analysis, you probably could not convince anyone. See "More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions (http://culturalcognition.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=90)"

Sage of Seattle
October 31, 2008, 10:49 PM
And even if you had wonderful data and unassailable statistical analysis, you probably could not convince anyone. See "More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions"

No pdf on that link. File not found.

Librarian
November 1, 2008, 02:08 AM
Well, that's silly.

Yale usually doesn't mess that up. The "More Statistics, Less Persuasion" paper is also at one of the authors' web pages here (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/circulation5.pdf).

Why it's named "circulation5.pdf" is a mystery to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "handgun debate need your help! (references)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!