josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/08/85)
It's just as silly, probably even sillier, to quote from Pete Shields' (HCI) hate-drenched propaganda as from the Rifleman (the NRA publication). The level of the emotional logic represented in "Guns don't Die" is adequately illustrated by the fact that (a) the book relies heavily on "case histories", ie lurid stories of murders and accidents; and (b) things like a poster/chart comparing murders in the US with England, Japan, etc... giving *raw numbers* (ie without regard to the populations of the countries). The fact that the gun controllers response is emotional is of consideral importance. This is why gun control is touted as a panacea--if they don't get it for one reason there are lots of other reasons they can trot out. In private conversations with such people it becomes immediately apparent that their basic motive is a dislike of guns. I have even had net correspondents admit it outright--perhaps Jeff Shallit is honest enough to do so here. If the emotional overtones to the crusade were not there, it would be simply a matter of looking at the record and seeing what the effect of gun control has been in practice. In 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Act (a handgun permit law). Murder rates went up 18% over the following year. Legislators concluded the law was too weak; it was amended 68 times in the following 70 years. The city's murder rate has persisted in rising at twice the national average. In Boston in April 1975, murder rates were on the way down (35% from the previous year). So after Boston's new firearm law was passed, they continued-- forming the basis of the Pierce-Bowers study quoted by some of the gun haters on the net (I assume that's the one, since they usually only refer to "studies show", that ubiquitous authority). The authors, by the way, admitted that "we lack the empirical evidence to estimate" the validity of the conclusions--they were all "qualitative". The widely-heralded "success" of Boston's law led to its emulation in New York (the Koch-Carey law). New York proceeded to move from fourth most violent major city to second--right behind Boston. (This was in 1980.) In 1981, it broke its all-time record for homocides. In 82, the New York Times reported, "Crimes committed with handguns have risen at an alarming rate, according to city police figures that compared 1981, the first full year the law was in effect, with 1979, the last full year before the gun law. Slayings committed with handguns increased 25%, robberies rose 56%, and assaults with handguns rose 20%." In 1966 New Jersey adopted what proponents called "the most stringent gun law" in the nation. Two years later our (I'm in NJ) murder rate was up 46% and armed robbery had doubled. Hawaii, an isolated area which might be thought a good test case, adopted statute similar to NJ's the following year. At that time, its murder rate was 2.4 (per 100,000). After four years of tough controls, it was 5.3. They imposed a *two*-year mandatory sentence for unlicensed pistols. (NYC and Boston are of course one-year.) Four years of this and the rate was 7.7. Ahhh, we're cooking now, they must have said, and imposed a ban on Saturday Night Specials. Today Hawaii's murder rate is 8.7. In 1976 the District of Columbia banned all civilian handgun sales, and required licensing for all other guns. In the two years prior to the law, murder rates in DC went *down* 30%; in the two years *after* it, they went *up* 18%. This rise was not merely part of a general one, by the way; in nearby Baltimore rates were going down. (The gun-haters will tell you the law worked, by two tricks: (a) averaging the years before and the years after to get a single "before" and a single "after" figure; and (b) quoting raw number-of-murders without mentioning that the total population of DC was declining in the years after the law even faster than the murder rate was rising.) The gun-control advocates are eager to point to England and its gun-control laws and low murder rate--but slow to point out that England had an even lower murder rate *before* the laws. In fact, the murder rate in England has increased *100 times* over its pre- gun-control levels (yes, thats 100-fold, 10000%). They neglect to mention that English police solve 81% of violent crimes, and American police 45% (and New York's Finest, 1%!!!!). There have been several studies to compare the jurisdictions of the US in terms of crime rates and gun laws. Murray of U. Wisc in 75, comparing seven kinds of handgun laws, found no correlation. DeZee, of Florida State U, a handgun prohibition advocate, pointed out several shortcomings in the study (as social scientists are wont) and reran it with his own formulations. His conclusion: "Gun laws do not appear to affect gun crime." Maggadino of Cal St. U of Long Beach formulated an econometric model that not only took into account laws and social variables, but the deterrent impact of the probabilities of arrest and imprisonment. He found (1) probability of arrest has a strong affect on violent crime rates; (2) probability of imprisonment has a strong effect on homocide but a lesser effect on assault rates; (3) the only firearm restriction not already a part of federal law that had any effect on crime was a ban on carrying loaded firearms in vehicles, and all that could be said here was that it appeared to have "some level of deterrence" for robbery but not for homocide. In 1976, Bordua and Lizotte published a comprehensive comparison of gun ownership rates vs violent crime rates for all the counties of Illinois. Considered in isolation, gun ownership had an almost perfect *negative* correlation with violent crime. When social variables, mostly urbanization, are corrected for, there was no correlation. An interesting discovery of this study was that the segment of the population most likely to own a handgun for self-defense is single black women living in high-crime urban areas (the myth of the rootin-tootin redneck exploded...). The evidence hasn't made a dent in the gun-haters--they will go on crying in anguished voices for prohibitions, licenses, waiting periods, suspension of the fifth amendment in searches for guns, and all the other paraphernalia of the totalitarian state. Any pretext will do. No matter that the 0.02% of handguns that actually kill anyone are the very last to be touched by any of this. No matter that the impact of the myriads of gun legislation now on the books, federal and state, mostly keeps guns from average people (for whom it's not worth it to put up with the fingerprinting and red tape), leaving them for the gun nuts (who will put up with it) and the criminals (who avoid it altogether). No matter that there is a perfect example of a full federal weapons ban that has kept the weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but left the criminal use of them higher than before (fully automatic weapons). They don't care. The reason for the crusade is that they hate guns; it doesn't bother them that there is no connection between the laws they push and the murder rates (or any other death rate); they want to "get the gun nuts", and they don't care if the murder rate doubles--or increases 100-fold. --JoSH
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/10/85)
In article <> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: > >In 1976 the District of Columbia banned all civilian handgun sales, >and required licensing for all other guns. In the two years prior >to the law, murder rates in DC went *down* 30%; in the two years >*after* it, they went *up* 18%. This rise was not merely part of >a general one, by the way; in nearby Baltimore rates were going down. This is false--you can look it up in the official DC report. Sounds to me like you're getting your stuff from Don Kates. Too bad--since Kates is notorious for altering statistics. Hall also mentions Illinois. That's interesting--since handgun murders DROPPED in Chicago dramatically after the April 9, 1982 handgun law went into effect. For other examples of the positive effects of handgun laws, you might try reading "Handgun Control...Issues and Alternatives". Jeff Shallit University of Chicago
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (01/11/85)
Jeff Shallit writes about the decline in handgun-related deaths after passage of a handgun control law in Chicago in 1982. I don't know what that law provided for, but it is interesting to look at an alarming figure dealing with gang violence in Chicago. In 1984, there were over 300 gang-related killings, many, if not most committ- ed with handguns. This represents a huge increase over 1983, and is an all- time "high" figure. What is even more amazing is that this figure represents over one third of all gang-related killings in the entire country. Despite Chicago's laws, there are a lot of kids with guns, who are showing no compunction about using them on other gang members, and complete strangers. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611