In Support of Gun Rights

[scrambler]

Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

 

Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

 

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

 

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

 

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

 

--excerpts from linked source

[catbirdseat]

Before you get too excited, consider the source. The Frasier institute is a business supported neoconservative "think tank" which is the Canadian equivalent of the Cato Institute in the US.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to find that US arms manufacturers are major contributors to Fraser Institute. They don't publicize where they get their funding on their website because they don't want you to know.

[scrambler]

Is the raw data of crime statistics faked? If the data is accurately recorded then what does it matter who financially supports the study? Does the data through time show a pattern?

 

[minx]

scrambler said:

Is the raw data of crime statistics faked? If the data is accurately recorded then what does it matter who financially supports the study? Does the data through time show a pattern?

 

yes

 

accurately recorded is one thing, interpretation and reporting is another.

 

it's amazing what you can do data and statistics depending on your motivation.

[catbirdseat]

The piece does not cite any sources whatsoever, so it is not easy to determine the veracity of any of the statistics quoted in the article. I want to point out that the article is very careful to cite the statistic "violent crime", and not violent crime deaths. If you compare the two between the US and Canada you will find that violent crime deaths, especially by gun, are many times higher in the US than in Canada.

 

 

The author:

 

"Gary Mauser

Professor, Simon Fraser University

 

Gary A. Mauser is a Professor at the Faculty of Business Administration and the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Professor Mauser earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Irvine. He has dual American and Canadian citizenship. He and his wife, Ede Wong, have five children and live in Coquitlam.

 

His interest in firearms and “gun control” grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, Political Marketing, and Manipulating Public Opinion and more than 20 articles. For the past 15 years, Professor Mauser has conducted research on the politics of gun control, the effectiveness of gun control laws, and the use of firearms in self defense. He purchased his first firearm after moving to Canada and conducting research into firearm legislation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the President of Barnet Rifle Club. "

 

[willstrickland]

Little story:

 

In Kennesaw, GA local laws require every homeowner to own a firearm. This law was put into place in the mid to late 80s if I remember correctly. Do you know what happened? Crime rates dropped like a rock. Home burglaries wen from average to almost non-existent.

 

I'm all for background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of weapons. But, I'm also very against sweeping laws restricting firearms. The old cliche rings pretty true "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns". I'd prefer to be able to fire back, or wax the tweaker who decided to break into my house at night and try to rob me and rape my wife. Of course that assumes that one day I'll be married...pretty big assumption, that one YMMV.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2003 by willstrickland

[scrambler]

catbirdseat said:

The piece does not cite any sources whatsoever, so it is not easy to determine the veracity of any of the statistics quoted in the article. I want to point out that the article is very careful to cite the statistic "violent crime", and not violent crime deaths. If you compare the two between the US and Canada you will find that violent crime deaths, especially by gun, are many times higher in the US than in Canada.

 

I didn't dig into this study but assume that the data is sound and that the statistics generated from the data are representative. Isn't the pattern exhibited more significant than the total number of crime incidents with respect to interpreting the effectiveness of gun restriction on crime?

[scrambler]

willstrickland said:

Little story:

 

In Kennesaw, GA local laws require every homeowner to own a firearm. This law was put into place in the mid to late 80s if I remember correctly. Do you know what happened? Crime rates dropped like a rock. Home burglaries wen from average to almost non-existent.

 

I'm all for background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of weapons. But, I'm also very against sweeping laws restricting firearms. The old cliche rings pretty true "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns". I'd prefer to be able to fire back, or wax the tweaker who decided to break into my house at night and try to rob me and rape my wife. Of course that assumes that one day I'll be married...pretty big assumption, that one YMMV.

 

 

Here's a recent incident where the presence of a gun prevented a violent burglary: St Louis Post Dispatch . Yeah, this sounds just like an endorsement straight out of the Armed Citizen page of NRA's American Rifleman.

 

An intruder, 26, broke into the home through a basement window and tore down a curtain to tie over his face as a mask. The woman encountered him in the basement and he forced her up the stairs to confront her husband.

 

Police said the husband, 73, was watching the movie on TV when the stranger approached, demanding money and holding 4-inch shears to the throat of the woman, also 73.

 

The homeowner told the intruder he had to get his wallet from the bedroom, but he got a handgun instead. When he emerged, she pulled away and he opened fire.

 

The robber grabbed the wife again and pulled her through the front door with him, but then let her go and ran. He collapsed across the street, where he was pronounced dead.

 

[Dru]

So if gun control laws do not afect crime then can't we assume that presence or absence of gun is NOT a deterrent?

[Fairweather]

Scrambler,

 

You have stepped outside the bounds of the liberal/Democratic/Green Party playbook. Please review your marching orders once more:

 

Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves....

 

 

One thing I find amusing is that liberals can't explain why crime hasn't gone back up these past three years with the economic downturn we have experienced. Could it be that crime is not[/i] driven entirely by economic factors?! Maybe crime is down because we finally got tough on criminals and locked up over two million of them the past ten years!

 

Good post though, Scrambler.

[scrambler]

Dru said:

So if gun control laws do not afect crime then can't we assume that presence or absence of gun is NOT a deterrent?

 

Yeah, the example I gave was anecdotal but it supports the deterrent effect of the presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. The anecdotal evidence could be used to argue against restricting the right to firearms.

 

If I remember correctly, gun control laws would be the independent variable and the reduction of crime would be the dependent variable. There are many other variables that may have an effect on crime reduction. For instance, one hypothesis I heard was that as the population ages, one should see a decrease in crime coincident with the majority of the baby boomers moving beyond the age of impulse. There could be other factors such as the nature of our police enforcement, etc.

 

I think the bottom line is that support for gun control as a crime deterrent fails to measure up.

 

[catbirdseat]

Fairweather, I am exhorting people to be critical of what they read on the Internet and to dig deeper to find the truth. No more, no less. Critical thinking is something which many people lack these days. You demonstrate more than any one person on this site, the inability to think critically and to respect the views of others. The following is a shining example of how you misconstrue the opinions of others:

 

"Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves...."

[Fairweather]

catbirdseat said:

Fairweather, I am exhorting people to be critical of what they read on the Internet and to dig deeper to find the truth. No more, no less. Critical thinking is something which many people lack these days. You demonstrate more than any one person on this site, the inability to think critically and to respect the views of others. The following is a shining example of how you misconstrue the opinions of others:

 

"Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves...."

 

It's called S-P-R-A-Y, Catbird. Are you gonna' cry now?

[Fairweather]

catbirdseat said:

Fairweather, I am exhorting people to be critical of what they read on the Internet and to dig deeper to find the truth. No more, no less. Critical thinking is something which many people lack these days. You demonstrate more than any one person on this site, the inability to think critically and to respect the views of others. The following is a shining example of how you misconstrue the opinions of others:

 

"Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves...."

 

Looks to me like you just used the classic "attack the source" tactic, and only speculated about its validity without any critical thinking of your own. Don't you think a more reasoned challenge to Scrambler's post would have involved some real investigation? Ahh, but then you're a scientist as you continually remind us all.....

[scrambler]

catbirdseat said:

Fairweather, I am exhorting people to be critical of what they read on the Internet and to dig deeper to find the truth. No more, no less. Critical thinking is something which many people lack these days. You demonstrate more than any one person on this site, the inability to think critically and to respect the views of others. :

 

Catbirdseat, maybe you should look at your own mind. You wouldn't recognize the depth of your own indoctrination because you're too busy thinking for others. What if the data and its interpretation are true? Would you look beyond your own preconceptions?

 

I almost believe that the political parties are designed so that you don't have to think. All you have to do is identify a few core beliefs that the party supports and "Bam!", instant affliation.

[murraysovereign]

Having been subjected to a constant bombardment from this outfit for as long as I can remember, I've learned to take anything from the Fraser Institute with huge doses of salt. These guys have come out with "studies" and "reports" that would have made Hitler blush. Some of their stuff is pretty straight-up and objective, but when they get their ideological teeth into something (and guns is one of their favourites, along with tax cuts for the rich, and the elimination of social supports to pay for those tax cuts) the results are pretty predictable. They're experts at taking the most vague, inconclusive statistics and finding Armageddon hidden in the numbers. I tend to discount most of their reports just because their one-sided bleating and ranting is getting so tiresome.

[Fairweather]

Here is a copy of the recent CDC report regarding firearms. It pretty much states that no cause/effect exists between tougher gun laws and reducing violent crime....But I'm sure some folks here will be able to drag one or two peices of text out of bed and use them to fit their current beliefs system...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab

[scott_harpell]

Fairweather said:

Here is a copy of the recent CDC report regarding firearms. It pretty much states that no cause/effect exists between tougher gun laws and reducing violent crime....But I'm sure some folks here will be able to drag one or two peices of text out of bed and use them to fit their current beliefs system...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab

 

bull shit! right-wing fucking conspiracy! cdc... i take everything they say with a grain of salt cause it always makes my points look weak and tends to go against my parties 'core beliefs.' right wing fasctists!

[Fairweather]

[Dru]

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

But hey when did the Fraser Inst ever let facts get in the way of a ideology-driven diatribe? I remember a few years ago they argued no one in Canada lived in poverty by comparing how much a low income person made in Canada to a rich person in sub-Saharan Africa or some such "statistic". Send the poor to Africa, what a convenient solution!

[scott_harpell]

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!

[Dru]

yeah but it's harder to kill a roomful of people with a knife than with an assault rifle.

 

happy no-turkey to you too scott

[AlpineK]

scott_harpell said:

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!

 

You've gotta be much more psycho to kill someone with a knife.

[murraysovereign]

scott_harpell said:

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!

 

It's more a reflection of a much lower incidence of murder-by-firearm. Since a lower proportion of murders are committed using guns, it's inevitable that the proportion involving "other" weapons will be higher, be they knives or baseball bats or poison-tipped arrows or whatever else was handy at the time. But I think you'll also find that Canadians are far less likely to kill one another overall than are Americans, regardless of method used. I don't have a ready explanation for that one, but I expect the Fraser Institute can find a way to portray our lower murder rates as further proof of the inferiority of our criminal justice system and the moral corruption of our political structures. Either that, or they'll ignore it altogether because it doesn't further their agenda.

[scott_harpell]

murraysovereign said:

scott_harpell said:

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!

 

It's more a reflection of a much lower incidence of murder-by-firearm. Since a lower proportion of murders are committed using guns, it's inevitable that the proportion involving "other" weapons will be higher, be they knives or baseball bats or poison-tipped arrows or whatever else was handy at the time. But I think you'll also find that Canadians are far less likely to kill one another overall than are Americans, regardless of method used. I don't have a ready explanation for that one, but I expect the Fraser Institute can find a way to portray our lower murder rates as further proof of the inferiority of our criminal justice system and the moral corruption of our political structures. Either that, or they'll ignore it altogether because it doesn't further their agenda.

 

but if the violence is the same with or without... then it doesn't really matter does it? seems like anyone who kills someone else is pretty much psycho and will do it with a knife or a spoon if they have to.