Strict Handgun Laws Lower Gun-Murder Rates in Cities

[SZonian]

Uhm, ok.  My questions about this "study" would fill a volume of encyclopedias.  9 dead in Chicago with dozens more wounded this past weekend.  Please tell me again how that correlates with the purported results of this study?  I would suspect that those "legally" carrying without the onerous "suggestions" posited in this article are killing thugs, robbers, etc. and not just shooting up their neighborhoods ala ChiIraq.  A study that doesn't provide relevant information on the shooting situations/facts, is, in my opinion, completely worthless.  Just more anti-2nd Amendment drum beating.

https://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2018-06-11/strict-handgun-laws-lower-gun-murder-rates-in-cities

[Bigun]

Findings reached and study created to validate findings.  That's the way they always do it!

[WingNot]

Findings reached and study created to validate findings.  That's the way they always do it!

State a hypothesis.  Then create a study to prove the hypothesis.  Reject any and all data to the contrary.  Publish findings.

[driftdiver]

Gun crime down in England.  It worked on gun crime.

Overall crime went up over 80%

[rustynail]

Only 14%?

[skeeter]

If this is true for cities it ought to hold for states. In 2013 Wyoming led the nation in per capita firearm ownership; 195.7 per 1,000 people.

District of Columbia came in a second; 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people.

If this study is correct then Wyoming should have a murder rate over double that of Washington DC.

[Smokin Joe]

They found that counties in states that adopted stand-your-ground laws saw a 7 percent increase in gun homicides, and counties in states with right-to-carry laws saw a 4 percent increase in firearm deaths.

I think they are counting shot criminals as "homicides", just from reading that, which would inflate the number of "victims".

[SZonian]

I think they are counting shot criminals as "homicides", just from reading that, which would inflate the number of "victims".

@Smokin Joe   

Most agreed...this "study" is just more anti-2nd Amendment pap as I alluded to in my original statement.  Liars figure and figures lie...

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe   

Most agreed...this "study" is just more anti-2nd Amendment pap as I alluded to in my original statement.  Liars figure and figures lie...

I have found (examining motorcycle safety studies) that when rates and percentages are mixed with raw numbers, the purpose is to either inflate or otherwise distort what is going on. The other trick is to arcanely delineate the topic so the criteria select the study grouping, the statistical equivalent of gerrymandering. That way a small sample can be presented as universal in the title or conclusions, even though broader data do not support that presentation. 

[thackney]

Gun crime down in England.  It worked on gun crime.

Overall crime went up over 80%

Exactly, using statistics to ignore overall rates while claiming victory by only looking at a piece of the total situation.

[Restored]

If you outlaw cars, deaths involving cars will decrease.

[Jazzhead]

This isn't about outlawing guns.  It is about licensure, a time tested means for identifying a legal gun and its owner.   It doesn't surprise me, even given the ease at which guns travel from state to state, that a city that requires licensure of its residents will, all other things being equal, tend to have less gun crime than a city that does not.   At the very least,  cops have the ability to cite an individual for having an unlicensed gun, and to remove that gun from circulation.   

What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious.  No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.       

[driftdiver]

The trouble we have is ignorance and a very short attention span for the average person.

People see a crime, someone says its because of guns, and the emotions from the crime bleed over to the firearm.   Most people won't take long enough to research the issue.  Statistics are great but unless  you can engage someone at an emotional level you'll eventually lose.

The ads showing defensive use of firearms do a lot to engage people at an emotional level, especially women.

[driftdiver]

This isn't about outlawing guns.  It is about licensure, a time tested means for identifying a legal gun and its owner.   It doesn't surprise me, even given the ease at which guns travel from state to state, that a city that requires licensure of its residents will, all other things being equal, tend to have less gun crime than a city that does not.   At the very least,  cops have the ability to cite an individual for having an unlicensed gun, and to remove that gun from circulation.   

What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious.  No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.     

@Jazzhead
So in every other country they've virtually banned guns.  In many places in the US they have virtually banned firearms.  They've openly stated on numerous occasions they want to ban private ownership of firearms.

But its not about banning firearms?

[thackney]

This isn't about outlawing guns.  It is about licensure, a time tested means for identifying a legal gun and its owner.   It doesn't surprise me, even given the ease at which guns travel from state to state, that a city that requires licensure of its residents will, all other things being equal, tend to have less gun crime than a city that does not.   At the very least,  cops have the ability to cite an individual for having an unlicensed gun, and to remove that gun from circulation.   

What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious.  No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.     

The concept of only wanting to reduce gun crime, while total crime including homicides goes up, is insane.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
So in every other country they've virtually banned guns.  In many places in the US they have virtually banned firearms.  They've openly stated on numerous occasions they want to ban private ownership of firearms.

But its not about banning firearms?

No, the study is about the impact of licensure.  The study suggests that licensure works to reduce gun crime.   Hysteria about banning guns is a straw man.   

[Cyber Liberty]

The concept of only wanting to reduce gun crime, while total crime including homicides goes up, is insane.

It's insane if the goal is to reduce crime.  It makes perfect sense if the goal is to confiscate guns and control the population.  But never, never, never tip your hand and let the people know that's what you want.

[Elderberry]

I think they are counting shot criminals as "homicides", just from reading that, which would inflate the number of "victims".

[driftdiver]

No, the study is about the impact of licensure.  The study suggests that licensure works to reduce gun crime.   Hysteria about banning guns is a straw man.

@Jazzhead
Lies like that seriously degrade your message.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Lies like that seriously degrade your message.

What lie?  I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns.   THAT is the big lie.   

I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.   

[thackney]

What lie?  I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns.   THAT is the big lie.   

I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.

It doesn't reduce gun crime, it takes legal activity and redefines it as gun crime.

Criminals are not impacted by laws they already chose to break.  More laws only puts the law abiding at risk.

[dfwgator]

What lie?  I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns.   THAT is the big lie.   

 

It may not be the original purpose,  but you can bet down the line that list will be used for confiscation.

[driftdiver]

What lie?  I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns.   THAT is the big lie.   

I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.

@Jazzhead
hey I only look at what has happened every single time someone has gone the licensure/registration route.  Every single time

Whats really curious is why are you so focused on gun crime to the exclusion of other crime?  Guns were banned in England but the crime rate went up.  More rapes, more robberies, more murders and less safety.

Why the tunnel vision?

Unless of course its not about the guns, but about the control.  Which of course matches your other policy stances.

[Free Vulcan]

What lie?  I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns.   THAT is the big lie.   

I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.

If they know who has the guns and where they are, they can be confiscated.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why the tunnel vision?

Unless of course its not about the guns, but about the control.  Which of course matches your other policy stances.

Have a cigar, @driftdiver