Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
2,290
Location
Arlington, VA
National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms'
Posted: December 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

"Policy questions related to gun ownership and proposals for gun control touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics: Should regulations restrict who may possess firearms? Should there be restrictions on the number or types of guns that can be purchased? Should safety locks be required? These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," said Charles F. Wellford, professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland and chairman of the committee that wrote the report.

However, the National Research Council decided even more thorough research on the topic is needed.

Many studies linking guns to suicide and criminal violence produce conflicting conclusions, have statistical flaws and often do not show whether gun ownership results in certain outcomes, the report said.

A serious limit in such analyses is the lack of good data on who owns firearms and on individual encounters with violence, according to the study.

The report noted that many schools have programs intended to prevent gun violence. However, it added, some studies suggest that children's curiosity and teenagers' attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects actually increase the appeal of guns.

Few of these programs, the report concludes, have been adequately evaluated.

The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System to begin collecting data.

The study by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Science, was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

"While more research is always helpful, the notion that we have learned nothing flies in the face of common sense," said John Lott, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a critic of gun-control laws. "The NAS panel should have concluded as the existing research has: Gun control doesn't help."

Meanwhile, a study released by the Justice Department suggesting background checks at gun shows would do little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.

Less than 9 percent were bought at retail outlets and only seven-tenths of 1 percent came from gun shows.

The Justice Department's interviews also showed so-called "assault weapons" are not a major cause of gun violence. Only about 8 percent of the inmates used one of the models covered in the now-expired assault weapons ban, signed into law by the Clinton administration in 1994.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
 
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.

Oh, sure. Easy for them to say. But let me ask you this -- wouldn't the world have been better off and more peaceful if the Vikings, Huns and Mongols didn't have such easy access to assault weapons and handguns? Well?
 
<YAWN!>

Discovering the blindingly obvious, once again -- however:
The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System to begin collecting data.

I love this!!!! Full employment plan! "All evidence to date proves that our pet theory is pure Horse Manure. However, if we spend billions of dollars on MORE research, maybe we can find a pony in here somewhere." :D
 
Quite a turnaround for the CDC. Years ago, during the reign of Bush the Elder, the CDC got smacked down pretty hard for using it's position to do an end run for gun control with some very flawed(false)anti gun information.

IIRC, the President had their funding cut, saying firearms studies were not part of the CDC's agenda, and if it could afford to spend money so frivolously, that maybe they got too much. :D
 
Sweet. I go the Maryland; maybe I can talk to that guy and see how we can use this information to get some of these idiot laws changed.
 
Anyone have a link to another source on this? Maybe the study itself?

Its a great story and all, but frankly you can't expect to get anywhere in a debate if you use World Net Daily as a source. A liberal worth his weight in granola will eat your lunch if you try to use WND as a "legitimate" news source.
 
The CDC was defunded for the purpose of "gun control" (of which they are in favor). So all this report says is, "We have been defunded and want to push our gun control agenda but we can't so if we "conclude" that we're not sure and more study needs to be done then we can push our agenda again. It's for the children don't you know."

:barf:

Wayne
 
Well I'll have to take the time to read the actual report later, because the WorldNUTdaily is far from a reputable news source.
 
DMF,

They've yet to be discredited and will post a recall or make the record straight if they mess up. I've yet to see the major news networks do the same.

You have proof behind your nice little comment or are you just going off half baked?

I've met some of the staff at WND and I don't agree that they are nuts. Maybe I should say some things that I heard on CNN and NPR that proved that they are the real NUTS.

Oh, in case you felt left out, I love you too bud. We don't agree with many (most) things but I still love ya (I don't care if you like it or not).

Wayne
 
DO you know what 3 world leaders in modern history were the biggest proponents of disarming the citizens of their countries?

Mao Tse Tung,

Stalin

and.... did you guess right?

ADOLPH HITLER

Need I say any more?

If that doesn't convince you then check out the crime rates in Australia since the citizens there voluntarily gave up there weapons. Murder, assault and armed robberies all up in double or triple digits depending on what part of the country you are in...When you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns! Bet those aussie's wish they had their guns back to prevent crime!

The study I want to see is what states have least restrictive gun laws and what their capitol crime rates are. Let's start in Vermont and go from there...
 
Gee thanks Wayne, I love you too. Can we all hold hands and sing Kum-bay-yah now?

The love fest aside, the WorldNUTdaily is a bunch of propaganda, where they only present information that supports their agenda, ignoring anything that might suggest their agenda is wrong, or there is another opinion, and they are master's at distorting the truth.

However, I'm not surprised you think they are bunch of fine, objective, truth seekers.

Happy New Year.
 
DMF,

They do have the left wing side of things on the commentary page, ever get that far?

I still ask you to show me where they can be discredited? You show me and I will listen. If you can't show me then please don't try to make the members here think that they are something that they are not.

The ball my friend, is in your court to prove what you say.

And yes, I do love ya my friend. I could have either hated you or loved you and I chose love.

Now, prove me wrong to call you out on this.

Wayne
 
USP45usp, I'd like to thank you and DMF for making my point ... I don't believe that WND are liars or that its even full blown propaganda ... I do believe they have a bias, but everyone has some sort of bias (ironicaly its usually the same bias I have :p ).


My point is that when using WND as a news source, you end up debating WND and not the topic at hand (notice the report and Gun Control are no longer being discussed here).


Anyway, thanks Matt Payne for posting the report.
 
Wayne, there is nothing to prove, it's an OPINION of their so called reporting. I have not claimed that they outright lie, but rather they write editorials, one sided, and with disregard for any information that does not support their agenda, and pass it off as reporting the news. Anyone that looks to WorldNUTdaily as "news" is going through life with blinders on, and only looking to read things that support what they already believe.

All news sources have some bias, but WND does not even make an attempt at being objective.
 
The love fest aside, the WorldNUTdaily is a bunch of propaganda, where they only present information that supports their agenda, ignoring anything that might suggest their agenda is wrong, or there is another opinion, and they are master's at distorting the truth.


On what are you basing your strange opinion of WND?

If you read and look at the sources for the articles you'll find that most of what's presented on that site are links to stories carried by wire services like the leftist AP, and a balanced selection of both right and left newspapers like the WSJ, Washington Times, Scramento Bee, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.

Very few of the news articles are written by WND staff. The opinion pieces are clearly labeled as such.

No, There's absolutely nothing wrong with using WND as a source for an article.


Wayne, there is nothing to prove, it's an OPINION of their so called reporting. I have not claimed that they outright lie, but rather they write editorials, one sided, and with disregard for any information that does not support their agenda, and pass it off as reporting the news.

Give an example.
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using WND as a source for an article.
Unless you're trying to argue with a liberal ... then it doesn't matter what the facts are that are presented in the WND article, the liberal will automatically attack your source, thus shifting the focus from the facts at hand to the validity of WND.


WND is a good place to find a story, then you research and find other sources that liberals are less likely to have a problem with (like Reuters or AP or a government agency) THEN you hit them with THAT information.

Believe me, I've been in these debates before and I could post a WND article stating that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and the liberals will just complain that I used a biased source and won't debate me on the facts (and will usually respond something like "Well if WorldNutDaily days the sun sets in the west then obviously it must set in the east".

I wasn't trying to impugn WND, I just know if I tried to use the information in that WND story to debate with antis and/or liberals that I wouldn't get anywhere with it regardless of the accuracy of the story (not that antis or liberals are capable of arguing based on the facts anyway :p )

I think the length of this thread and the direction in which it has drifted proves my point :evil:
 
they write editorials, one sided, and with disregard for any information that does not support their agenda, and pass it off as reporting the news.

Doesn't that describle most so called "News" outlets. Sure sounds like it to me . I always consider "News" these days as more propaganda, advertising , and sensationalism , than informative substance.

By the way - anybody know how all these, independant of each other, News organizations always seem to come up with the same stories to cover every single day ?

Anyway - Good original post , a pleasure to have that info - thanks !
 
the source providing the study(website), along with the study itself, no matter how correct they are, are all irrelevant, given the fact its the bill of rights, not the bill of statistics to prove that guns do or don't cause crime. :banghead:
 
Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies
That's not what the studies conclude at all. Rather, they find that previous studies have failed to establish the correlation/causation -- that's a far cry from concluding that the correlation/causation does not exist.

Lack of proof is not proof of the lack of proof.

Disclaimer: I oppose gun control as strongly as any of you. I'm just making sure we're being accurate. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top