Are Firearms laws Effective?
 

Just read an interesting article about a comprehensive study of the effects of gun laws on violent crime.

Basically, it says that there is insufficient evidence to show that bans of certain guns, waiting periods, etc have any effect on decreasing gun violence/crimes.

Personally, I think that this shows that we need to do more research into what legislation (or pieces of legislation) can affect change in gun crimes, accidental shootings, etc before we implement any more changes.

Logically, it just seems completely backwards to pass laws without any statistically significant supporting evidence as to their impact.

<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm>

Whats the difference, either way you look at it gun laws is just pandering for votes. Although personally I think their stupid, this has become a totally politicized issue.

Some day when someone talks about 'gun control' on the news, I hope they will be talking about their aim.

Just watch "American Shooter". :D

First, and obvious, from the summary of the article:
"Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."

Second, apply logic for a moment. We should know laws are effective before passing them? How could you understand the effectiveness of a law UNLESS IT WAS IN EFFECT?!

Please be aware I never said the article said the laws were ineffective.

Second, should we not have some idea that new legislation will impact the things people claim they will impact before we pass them? Perhaps test them out in certain areas before we pass laws that may never result in progress? Perhaps implement them with clear parameters to study their effectiveness or impact?

Naaahh. You're right, let's continue to use the "logic" of blindly passing laws that may or may not improve things and never verify that they are achieving anything. Makes perfect sense.

Fair enough. My intention was simply to remind people of that fact.

Your first "perhaps" is a nice idea, but I think NIMBY would come into play. Who is going to agree to having extra laws in just their area? The second one isn't any sort of suggestion at all. All laws have clear parameters, though they are deliberately left open to judges' interpretation. All laws are studied to examine their effectiveness or impact. Witness the report you brought to our attention.

Yeah, uh...yeah. Lawmakers never consider the effect of the laws they legislate. Thank god you came along.

Sarcasm begets sarcasm.

Kim du Toit makes a good argument. Did you know Ghandi was pro-gun, and that Hitler was pro gun-control? Fascinating.

http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/gunthing...ing.php?id=P86

I'd like it if this didn't become another argument between people who like guns and people who don't. And the only thing I think is fascinating about your statement is that you boil down two complex points of view to for and against, as if that means anything at all. Hitler didn't want "the subject races" to have guns. That's not gun control, that's racism and you know it.
Also, "Life Among the Liberals" kind of spoils my interest.

Perhaps those who wish to implement gun control laws, think of the population as a whole as undesirables.

Just a comment/statistic for further thought:

The average rate of gun homicides is at its lowest since the 1960's and it has not shown any wild swings when new laws have been enacted.

(yes, I've posted links to this in other threads in this forum).

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp of Texas

The reason most laws are passed is because people no longer trust their fellow man. They don't feel safe knowing other people have guns and don't trust themselves with them, so they believe no one is trustworthy enough for the responsibility.

Gun control laws with the exception of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Contol Act (I believe these laws are motivated by the right reasons and are basically a perfect balance with public safety and personal rights) are nothing but feel good legislation. Please forgive me, but I will use the L-word once. Liberals passed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill. These are prime examples of feel-good legislation. For example, the AWB bans firearms because they look scary. It is always humorous to hear someone howl about manufacturers using "loopholes" to bypass the AWB. When in fact the manufacturers follow the law to the letter. All they need to do to be in compliance is remove two cosmetic characteristics and the firearm is perfectly legal. Tell me, how is this supposed to stop crime?

I mentioned above both the NFA and the GCA. Fellow firearm owners will probably crucify me for this, but I believe both of these laws are good and necessary. The NFA deals with Full-auto weapons (notice this was passed in 1934 the AWB has nothing to do with full-auto weapons) and improvised explosive devices. This act makes owning Automatic weapons possible, but a very time consuming process. Ditto with IED's. So the option is still there, but it is controlled and regulated. The GCA is the law that sets legal age to possess and buy firearms. This is also the law that prevents felons from owning firearms.

[end rant]

I'm going to quit talking, otherwise I will not be able to remain calm and rational. If anyone wishes to debate any points I've brought up, feel free. However, please (and I want to stress this) do not use statistics. Chances are if you use statistics they will be isolated cases. When firearms statistics are placed in context they seem almost insignificant. This is why most gun-control advocates ignore rebutal's about statistics.

The same people who are already implementing gun laws that may or may not be effective should be willing to test them.

All laws have clear parameters? Not a chance. The only reason gun laws are being studied in such a way is that they are a hot topic. Once laws are in the books they are rarely taken out and even more rarely studied with any kind of critical eye. I guess it is a good thing I came along if your description of how legislation is passed and analyzed is common place. Is there even a mechanism in place to gauge effectiveness of legislation? Sure we've got the Supreme Court to interpret the laws and to judge Constitutionality, but who is it that looks into their results?

Okay, well I'll just point out the fact that gun control laws don't work instead.

Also, I don't own any guns per se, I have an old BB gun but I'm far from being labeled a gun nut. That said, it's fairly objective to look at the results of other countries with strict gun control laws, but that's only if you lack the deductive prowess to understand that criminals just don't care if their gun is legally owned or not. They're criminals after all. If that's so (and it is) then we want the good guys to have as many weapons as they want.

They're silly laws. Impotent and unconstitutional.

Hey, Lebell,

We've got a Berkeley professor (Frank Zimring) coming down to teach the CLS (crim, law and society) students for a few terms. I noticed that he assigned Lott's book on the syllabus.

I'm looking forward to speaking with him. I've got a book right now--Crime Is Not the Problem--Lethal Violence in America--that he wrote. I'll let you know what he says about gun control, if you'd like.

From sites like this: http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I suppose he probably thinks that neither gun control nor shall issue laws are of any significance to the gun "problem."

Criminals don't obey gun laws. 'Nuff said.

It seems like the anti-gun people are too busy trying to pile regulations onto law abiding citizens, but it's sad to realize that these restrictions will have absolutely no bearing at all on criminals.

I don't see how you can state "Nuff said." Firearms laws do have an effect on criminals. The question should be the amount.

Criminals who violate gun laws face and are given stricter sentences than those who do not.

Not every criminal obtains illegal guns. This might be attributed to higher costs associated with illegality, lack of motivation to obtain them, or the costs of illegally owning and using them, or some other reason--but the majority of the criminal population does not have or use firearms.

It may be difficult to determine the amount that violent crime is reduced as a result of firearm control and it may be insignificant, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is no effect.

Through careful research we can determine the level of effect such measures have. This research doesn't seem to be able to be done in the highly politicized atmosphere we are currenlty in. To unquestioningly adhere to one of our founding principles without questioning its utility or ramifications is not only folly, it's dangerous.

Once we determine the benefits of gun control, we can weigh that against the costs to our perception of freedom and make an informed decision.

We don't hold other rights as inviolable and this one, a right that literally directly effects the health and lives of so many citizens, shouldn't be left unexamined or unbounded. For example, while we might feel we have the right to bear arms, there certainly isn't anything preventing the government from restricting the type or amount of weaponry that corporations can produce.

Very specific--limit the power of corporations to produce certain types and amounts of weapons, but allow persons to make and own firearms or purchase what is legally produced.

This is the sort of mentality that had nuclear proliferation raging out of control during the cold war. If we're going to talk about lack of deductive prowess, it should be pointed out that the first sentence I quoted doesn't follow any logical pattern. It reads more like "If A, then bananas are tasty and I like them." Further, you should consider that "the good guys" in this country are comprised very adequately by the police, the military, the national guard, etc. I don't think we need neighborhood militias with Streetsweepers calling themselves good guys these days.

Please tell that to the Korean shop owners during the LA riots.

They might disagree with you.

I know what I'm inviting, but it's late and I don't care.
Your single case of anecdotal evidence somehow fails to sway me.

As does this fantasy of life on earth.

<editing my own trolling comments>

-bear

I was all fired up to fight you, and then when I quoted I saw what didn't show up on the page. Truce.

Gun control would work if the population wanted it to, however there are so many paranoid people in the States that any political force attempting to do as such would probably get shot.

I gave up trying to convince you of anything a long time ago.

So, this was...what? A pointless jab?

Not exactly, more for other people than for you.

Your statement was "[Would you] please tell that to Korean shop owners. They might disagree with you." Please explain how this was not for me.

All I ask is that we not play games. I agree we had our battle a while back, and since have returned to our corners like good pugilists. But I won't brook rabbit punches for the edification of the masses.

Or, in a less dramatic fashion, what you talkin' about, Lebell? ;)