Explaining The Obvious To The NRA: Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides

This “study” is ridiculously biased IMO. Will post a “Reply” to point some stuff out on this article that is so thin one could breathe wrong and rip a hole right through such a “paper” article….

THIS IS THE ARTICLE referred to in this WordPress Blog

Gun Control Now USA

Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides

“About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership.”

Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

Previous research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime has been impeded by a lack of reliable…

View original post 482 more words

One comment

  1. Here is the link for the actual article referenced by this blogger: http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html

    (ARTICLE) — “Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.”

    (ME) “…according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan…”

    What is NBER? National Bureau of Economic Research

    (ME) Now an economist is chiming in on gun ownership as it relates to homicides with firearms? Mark Duggan must be some sort of scholarly fellow. This piece of writing has some really weak research backing the opinion that “Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime. Article says “Previous research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime has been impeded by a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No. 7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership — state and county-level sales rates for the nation’s largest handgun magazine — to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity”

    (ME) “IMPEDED by a lack of reliable data…” AND “….uses a new proxy for gun ownership–state and county-level sales rates for the nation’s largest handgun magazine — to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.”

    (ME) HANDGUN (PAPER) MAGAZINE SALES RATES?? THIS IS AN INDICATOR THAT IS ACCURATE? THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS BASED ON A FEW CRIME STATISTICS, AND AGAIN, PAPER-MAGAZINE SALES (not magazines like we insert into our firearms lol).

    (ARTICLE) “..to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity..”

    (ME)–> This is proved by magazine sales data? We better outlaw Playboy and any other sex/nudity based magazine because I’m betting those areas in which they are sold the most have the highest rates of sex crimes?

    This is the type of logic applied to gun ownership in this particular case. The logic is flawed, and a gazillion responsible, safe, citizen gun owners will agree with me on that.

    (ARTICLE) “Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime.”

    (ARTICLE) “In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead, guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim’s death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.”

    (ME) “..In theory..” Theory? THEORY. An unproven hypothesis to date…and one particular hypothesis/theory that will NEVER be proven simply because it can NOT be proven under the scrutiny of a well established scientific method.

    (ARTICLE) “..the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous.”

    *******************************************

    Just so we are all clear, Merriam-Webster’s definition
    (go to Merriam Webster Site ) of “ambiguous” is:

    adjective \am-ˈbi-gyə-wəs\

    : able to be understood in more than one way
    : having more than one possible meaning
    : not expressed or understood clearly

    *******************************************

    The effect of gun ownership on crime is “not expressed or understood clearly.” OR, it is “able to be understood in more than one way,” OR, “it has more than one possible meaning.”

    (ME) THEREFORE, this article says that the effect of gun ownership on crime is “not expressed or understood clearly,” yet there is no problem drawing conclusions based on this “ambiguous” effect.

    Poor research, or perhaps a poor choice of words? I think someone knew there was a huge pile of crap in that sentence’s meaning.

    (ARTICLE) “If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity.”

    (ME) “MAY lead to a reduction of criminal activity”?

    There is no “may” about it.

    Criminals pick the easiest targets they can find. PERIOD. If a criminal thinks they will be met with lethal force, I believe that criminal will look for an easier target. That’s just logic and common sense.

    (ARTICLE) “If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim’s death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.”

    (ME) “If instead guns increase the payoff…?” Are we talking about armed or unarmed victims? Seems to me that an armed victim would DECREASE the payoff, as in ZERO payoff, with the potential hazard of lethal force applied to the criminal.

    As a CCW holder, I assure you that if I saw someone in my ever vigilant view wielding a gun and heading towards me, I would first take evasive action and try to avoid ANY “bad situation,” while drawing my firearm. If the criminal’s firearm is about to be, or is pointed at me, I will fire to the center of their body mass until they are, at a minimu, incapacitated, and then call 9-1-1. I would then attempt to provide first-aid to the criminal who was about to use lethal force ON ME.

    What do you think about that? You have to realize, most of us CCW holders have absolutely no desire to even show our weapon, much less use it, and even less than that, to take another human’s life.

    (ARTICLE)–> “…or simply increase the likelihood that…confrontation will result in a victim’s death, then an increase in gun ownership will TEND to increase the crime rate.”

    (ME) This is talking about the death of VICTIMS of criminals, not criminals’ death as a result of a victim shooting them legally in self-defense. Hence, this statement is actually self-contradictory. It is NOT a crime to defend one’s self with lethal force against attempted use of lethal force, or even the threat thereof. It is a crime for an attacker/criminal to perpetrate such an attack in the first place. Because of that, the crime rate would either stay the same or decrease as a result of a CCW holder being able to respond adequately to direct or threatened lethal assault. When this article says “gun ownership,” it appears that it is talking about CRIMINALS WITH GUNS VS. law abiding citizens.

    So this article is implying that a reduction in gun sales will decrease the mortality rate of criminal assaults against citizens, whereas the CCW holders having the ability to fight back with the same level of lethality as their attacker will have NO effect on the crime statistics concerning gun ownership? I would simply ask, “What is the problem with CCW at that point?”

    If a CCW holder commits NO crime with their gun, then it follows that illegally spawned death rates will not go up. However, a criminal with a gun can potentially change the (magazine subscription type) crime statistics. Based on this sort of trending data the article would have our government willfully restrict our constitutional rights to: keep and bear, pursue life, liberty and happiness, and probably my freedom of speech?

    (ARTICLE) “Proving one theory over the other has been difficult because of the lack of adequate data on gun ownership measured across geographic areas over time. But as evidence of the accuracy of the gun magazine subscription data, Duggan shows that sales rates are significantly higher in counties whose average demographic characteristics are similar to those of the typical gun owner according to national surveys. Furthermore, he shows that the death rate from gun accidents and the number of gun shows per capita are positively related to the magazine sales. While Duggan admits that relatively few readers may be criminals, he points out that the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase.”

    ARTICLE: “Proving one theory over the other has been difficult.” ??

    (ME)– I’m not the least bit surprised this theory is difficult to prove… This is indeed about the worst case against (legal) gun ownership that I’ve seen to date. Sorry. I’m sure that it was written by a concerned and caring person, who just wants the government, who is supposed to stay out of my life, to decide and to do what is best for me.

    While I do believe in our government, and trust them with many things, my personal life is definitely not their’s to legislate.

    ARTICLE: “..lack of adequate data…”

    (ME)– I wonder why this article did not just demand that we all register our guns, have our ammo purchases tracked, and force us to account for every round fired, just so the “more intelligent than citizenry” government can get statistical data for more articles like this by restricting Amendment rights not only to keep and bear, but the right to privacy. The right to free speech will be next in such a world.

    ARTICLE: “…evidence of the accuracy of the gun magazine subscription data, Duggan shows that sales rates are significantly higher in counties whose average demographic characteristics are similar to those of the typical gun owner according to national surveys.”

    (ME)–> Magazine sales? This is valid statistical data? What is typical in this case? Are we gun owners being profiled?

    Which magazine is it? I would like to submit MY subscription in order to help with this so called data?

    “…national surveys…”? WHAT SURVEYS? I seem to detect an inability to produce a quote of these “surveys.” How many people took them? What were the demographics of the sampling? Was an actual study performed? Or did the surveys just ask questions to anyone and everyone found on a given day? Was there some sort of control group in this study. Did the data collection go with only a survey which has no results shown in this article?

    (ME) (paraphrase)– “gun shows are related to magazine subscriptions…”? A magazine about handguns is popular with owners and/or collectors of handguns, who go to “gun” shows? Does that seem in the least bit odd? Or is it a secret ploy of the magazine company to increase violent crime, ban guns, and destroy their own profits altogether?

    (ARTICLE) “Furthermore, he shows that the death rate from gun accidents and the number of gun shows per capita are positively related to the magazine sales. While Duggan admits that relatively few readers may be criminals, he points out that the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase.”

    (ME) BAD magazines. Bad, bad, bad. Outlaw them now!

    “…burglaries or ..secondhand market…”

    (ME) So it would seem there is a firearms storage issue with some gun owners…and it is only fair that people who have guns stolen from their residence typically have no one to blame but themselves, because I think it is safe to assume that a burglar would take “loose” firearms well before they would attempt to crack, blow up, or “un-lag from a concrete floor” a steel gun safe or cabinet. As firearms owners, we WITHOUT DOUBT NEED TO ENSURE SAFE STORAGE OF OUR FIREARMS SO THAT NEITHER BURGLARS, NOR KIDS, NOR ANYONE BUT THE OWNER CAN GET TO THEM!. I’ll readily point that out to any gun owner and do so with not one iota of reservation.

    (ME) Article says that homicide rates go up with overall gun ownership, yet the author concedes that it is the criminals who obtain their guns from “burglaries and the secondhand market.”

    I have no problem with there being a background check requirement for personal sales AT GUN SHOWS…personal estate transfers are another thing in my mind…but that is not relevant to this article, so we will talk about that in a different post perhaps.

    (ARTICLE) “…increases in gun ownership are positively related to future increases in the gun homicide rate, but bear no corresponding relationship to non-gun homicides…”

    (ME) — increases of gun ownership by whom? “Future increases in the gun homicide rate” ? The article says the author proves this, but that author gives no supporting data…is it another magazine subscription causing it?

    (ARTICLE) “…findings reveal that the relationship with other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.”

    (ME) “findings”? Support that finding with some hard numbers please. I do not see such a conclusion supported in this particular article at all.

    “Guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.”

    (ME) Well golly gee whiz. That is a brainiac observation. Guns are more effective in committing homicides than most other weapons. THIS is why background checks and proper storage are so important for us legal gun owners. WE do not want criminals walking into a gun dealer’s shop and purchasing a gun without having a background check any more than does anyone else. And we certainly do not want to arm the criminals who burglarize our homes while we are on vacation.

    What we as gun owners need to do in response to this type of accusation is simply to ensure we store our firearms safely and properly secured. That alone would decrease accidental deaths, suicides, and the arming of criminals with OUR own guns.

    (ARTICLE) — “…other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.”

    (ME) FINE. How about someone researches the use of household cutlery and/or pocket knives in domestic violence homicides? How about the crazed loon that cuts the throat of another in a domestic spat? Or even the totally wigged out psychotic that kills everyone and then heads out to find other innocent victims amongst our populace?

    Maybe we can ban cutlery sets we use to cut, slice, and chop our food items. Heck, let’s require a background check and license for ANY sharp object, including scissors? Makes about as much sense to me as doing away with guns. It is such a slippery slope — this anti-gun stuff. It is something that has the potential to open a Pandora’s box full of civil rights violations by our government, and as long as they think they will garner votes from doing ANYTHING, it is my personal opinion that many politicians will do what will get them re-elected and ensure their political careers are not interrupted…

    (ME — FINAL STATEMENTS)

    The anti-gun crowd has the same right to free speech as do I. I am a veteran and during war and peace I did my duty as best I could, with honor and integrity, so that everyone in America could keep their rights, including the free speech of those with whom I disagree.

    What gets me the worst about this whole thing is that, in my personal and somewhat limited experience with people on the anti-gun side of this entire debate, the anti-gun people do not want to have an open dialogue with gun owners, nor do most gun owners want to have an open dialogue with them.

    THAT is a HUGE problem! There is entirely too much mud-slinging rhetoric being slung in this debate on both sides of the fence.

    We, as citizens of this proud country…OUR United States of America, need to exercise all of our freedoms with the responsibility that is attached to them.

    We should not utilize our rights in such a way as to harm another person, whether it be with words or at the end of the muzzle.

    Our Founding Fathers, so many long years ago, were the kind of gentlemen that had mutually respectful conversations with each other, and even exchanged personal correspondence with those with opposing views. They eventually hashed out the Constitution that we ALL hold so dear in such a manner. What makes US any better than them?

    We need to discuss this issue with each other. I have personally been trying to do my own part with this site and blog, but sadly have yet to find someone with a site or blog who has an opposing view who will let me post to their site/blog without my post being deleted before it is ever seen by anyone but them, and at this point I doubt that even they read the entire posts. That is why I reblog stuff I disagree with on MY blog — so I can reply to it without being silenced by the original poster.

    I will just keep plugging along and talking to whomever will listen online about what wonderful sports shooting and hunting are, and what a proud heritage we have in such things. I will discuss. I will not moderate out posts just because they oppose my personal views. I will not sink to that level.

    This is America. I love Our country, and am willing still to die in service to it. Let’s all keep it going for another 200+ years, with our current rights and then some, as a legacy to our children and to theirs as well. As Americans, we can do whatever we set our minds to do. Why do you think so many people want to immigrate??

    Come on ya all, let’s play nice 🙂

    Peace and Blessings be Unto You ALL!

    ~S~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s