Shot Down: gun law study shows no effect

[SkyDekker 1,465]

As I read the article, I found a major disconnect between the title and the body of the article.

She even mentions that they could not find an impact on a pre-existing decline. However, to link it back to the article's title, that there was no effect, she would have to prove that the decline would have continued at the same rate without the gun legislation. I don't see her doing that anywhere.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

As I read the article, I found a major disconnect between the title and the body of the article.

She even mentions that they could not find an impact on a pre-existing decline. However, to link it back to the article's title, that there was no effect, she would have to prove that the decline would have continued at the same rate without the gun legislation. I don't see her doing that anywhere.

Hm, the way I read it there was a pre-existing decline pror to the laws being put in place. The author was pointing out that the decline that continues after the laws could not be then attributed the the new laws.

I will have to read it again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hm, the way I read it there was a pre-existing decline pror to the laws being put in place. The author was pointing out that the decline that continues after the laws could not be then attributed the the new laws.

Nothing can be said about the new laws until you know what would have happened without those same laws. Assuming that the decline would have continued at the same pace is a little rich.

It could be that the decline continued because of the new laws. (obviously it also could be that isn't the case, but she really doesn't touch of any of that). I agree with the article, but the title doesn't make any sense.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

As I read the article, I found a major disconnect between the title and the body of the article.

She even mentions that they could not find an impact on a pre-existing decline. However, to link it back to the article's title, that there was no effect, she would have to prove that the decline would have continued at the same rate without the gun legislation. I don't see her doing that anywhere.

Well, it works something like this: FLorida passed a CCW law and gun crimes decreased, therefore the CCW law caused a reduction in crime. Michigan passed a CCW law and gun crime in Michigan decreased, therefore CCW laws cause a decrease in gun crime. Gun crime decreased EVEN MORE in Chicago during the same period although Chicago didn't have a CCW law. Therefore CCW laws in Florida and Michigan caused gun crime in Chicago to decrease.

Yep, that's the logic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Hm, the way I read it there was a pre-existing decline pror to the laws being put in place. The author was pointing out that the decline that continues after the laws could not be then attributed the the new laws.

Nothing can be said about the new laws until you know what would have happened without those same laws. Assuming that the decline would have continued at the same pace is a little rich.

It could be that the decline continued because of the new laws. (obviously it also could be that isn't the case, but she really doesn't touch of any of that). I agree with the article, but the title doesn't make any sense.

I see your point. i do not know why they chose the title they did

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

As I read the article, I found a major disconnect between the title and the body of the article.

She even mentions that they could not find an impact on a pre-existing decline. However, to link it back to the article's title, that there was no effect, she would have to prove that the decline would have continued at the same rate without the gun legislation. I don't see her doing that anywhere.

Well, it works something like this: FLorida passed a CCW law and gun crimes decreased, therefore the CCW law caused a reduction in crime. Michigan passed a CCW law and gun crime in Michigan decreased, therefore CCW laws cause a decrease in gun crime. Gun crime decreased EVEN MORE in Chicago during the same period although Chicago didn't have a CCW law. Therefore CCW laws in Florida and Michigan caused gun crime in Chicago to decrease.

Yep, that's the logic.

The CDC acknowledged that neither can be proven beyond statistical doubt.

It's becoming clear to me that the age demographics (the size of the population that are young men at any given time) determines more about crime rates than anything else. Fewer punks, less crime. Much of the declines in the 90s are caused by this baby bust that I'm part of. And now we're hitting an increase again.

That said, I'm content to see it's extremely unlikely that the CCW laws passed in those states increased crime. Freedoms should extend as widely as possible when they don't impinge on others, thus making CCW good policy. Laws that reduce freedom without results should be eliminated.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

Well, it works something like this: FLorida passed a CCW law and gun crimes decreased, therefore the CCW law caused a reduction in crime. Michigan passed a CCW law and gun crime in Michigan decreased, therefore CCW laws cause a decrease in gun crime. Gun crime decreased EVEN MORE in Chicago during the same period although Chicago didn't have a CCW law...

Yeah, that gun ban in Chicago is working wonders!

News: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6093374

"Chicago police received dozens of 911 calls about the gun violence around the city this weekend. They acknowledge that 37 shootings is a big number for a three-day period..."

So I suppose that means, in your mind, that the Chicago gun ban is a success?

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

It's becoming clear to me that the age demographics (the size of the population that are young men at any given time) determines more about crime rates than anything else. Fewer punks, less crime.

Congratulations on your enlightenment.

But it's so much easier just to blame guns!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Yeah, that gun ban in Chicago is working wonders!

News: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6093374

"Chicago police received dozens of 911 calls about the gun violence around the city this weekend. They acknowledge that 37 shootings is a big number for a three-day period..."

So I suppose that means, in your mind, that the Chicago gun ban is a success?

There is a position that is always stated:
The idea is that the Chicago ban is working, but there is no ban on nearby states, so that is why Chicago has a shooting problem.

The flaw is two-fold.
First, there will always be weapons available for criminals from somewhere. Guns can be shipped all the way from China if necessary. Remember when Cosco (Chinese Overseas Shipping Company) was leasing the shipyards in Long Beach?
A shipment of 2,000 AK-47s was seized. It was headed for LA street gangs.

I don't know anyone who believes that they cannot get anything for the right price.

Second, the shootings in Chicago are admittedly gang-related. So, as they discovered in LA, if you want to stop the shootings, you need to fight the gangs.
The shootings in Chicago are not "honest citizens" who possess a gun and go wild. They are criminals.

In Canada, they have the same problem with biker gangs in rural areas and ethnic gangs in the cities.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

So although I am all for gun ownership - and just a general increase in knowledge on the part of the general public, I don't think it's a clear cut issue.

If it was meant to be a collective right, they'd have written that - ("the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

It might be misunderstood, but it is very clear.

[Trent 0]

Just want to point out that, in the past, many of the "militia" were armed with their own personal weapons. Since that seemed to be the way it was done back then... it stands to reason that the right is for the individual to keep and bear arms.

But that's just my 2nd amendment loving, non-lawyer way of seeing it.

Oh, hello again!

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

If it was meant to be a collective right, they'd have written that - ("the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

It might be misunderstood, but it is very clear.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People is a collective term. Had they wanted to say it is an individual's right, it would say "individual."

The purpose of the individuals keeping the weapons was for the purpose of being able to maintain a 'State' militia when needed - individuals keeping the arms for the collective purpose.

This was a right for each State - as opposed to the federal government. The idea was to limit the power of the federal government. (Constitution gave the federal government power, the Bill of Rights limited the federal government's power)

In England, they gave the individuals guns in order to fight, but then at the end of the battle/war, collected those weapons and put them into the armory. The king didn't want the people to have the weapons any other time.

So, in the new world, it was important for the individual to have the weapons and not send them back to the armory. But, it was for the purpose of each State to be able to defend itself against the federal government if necessary.

The founding fathers didn't want the federal government to maintain the weapons, because that would be just like the king's armory. That was what they were trying to prevent.

[kelpdiver 2]

why go through verbal gymnastics when the Federalist Papers were written to answer obvious questions like these?

When you got yourself defining the people as a collective, non individual matter, you've lost yourself in a forest of wishful thinking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If it was meant to be a collective right, they'd have written that - ("the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

It might be misunderstood, but it is very clear.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People is a collective term. Had they wanted to say it is an individual's right, it would say "individual."

The purpose of the individuals keeping the weapons was for the purpose of being able to maintain a 'State' militia when needed - individuals keeping the arms for the collective purpose.

This was a right for each State - as opposed to the federal government. The idea was to limit the power of the federal government. (Constitution gave the federal government power, the Bill of Rights limited the federal government's power)

In England, they gave the individuals guns in order to fight, but then at the end of the battle/war, collected those weapons and put them into the armory. The king didn't want the people to have the weapons any other time.

So, in the new world, it was important for the individual to have the weapons and not send them back to the armory. But, it was for the purpose of each State to be able to defend itself against the federal government if necessary.

The founding fathers didn't want the federal government to maintain the weapons, because that would be just like the king's armory. That was what they were trying to prevent.

First off you are wrong. Most legal scholars, even those opposed to the 2nd Amendment disagree with you, second, if you were correct, then you must look again at all the other amendments as they are all seen as individual rights and use the same terms.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln