Researcher finds evidence that relaxing gun laws ups murder rate

[CenSin]

Researcher finds evidence that relaxing gun laws ups murder rate
Missouri provided a rare chance to track before-and-after changes in murders.

by John Timmer (02/23/2014, 2:30pm EST)

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/researcher-finds-evidence-that-relaxing-gun-laws-ups-murder-rate/

 

 

In the US, researching the interaction between regulations and gun violence is incredibly challenging. A patchwork of state and local regulations complicates finding populations that can be used to track any changes in response to new legislation. And, since 1996, federal funding for the research has been nearly nonexistent.

Nevertheless, the researchers that have found money to study the subject sometimes do get a bit of a break. One of those occurred in 2007, when the state of Missouri repealed regulations on the purchase of guns that had been in place since 1921. Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health described the consequences of this change at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The US limits on gun research date back to a 1993 study funded by the CDC, which found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk for homicide. After an attempt to eliminate the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention failed, Congress simply eliminated all the money that had been used to fund gun research there and directed that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Those prohibitions remain in place.

Even were money for gun research easy to obtain, it's difficult to do well. Each state has its own set of firearm regulations, and historic, cultural, and demographic differences among the states make interstate comparisons treacherous. Rates of violence tend to vary from year-to-year as well, often for reasons that are independent of access to weaponry.

As a result, we have an extremely limited picture of how gun regulations influence violence in the US. That's why the events in Missouri provide a rare opportunity. The population stayed largely the same as the regulations changed, and the change came at a time when the national murder rate was dropping at a steady pace.

Since the 1920s, Missouri had been operating under a permit-to-purchase system, where would-be gun buyers would have to see local law enforcement for a background check and general vetting. If a person passed the check, they'd be given a permit that allowed them to buy guns. In 2007, that law was changed so that any required background checks were performed at the time of purchase, and buyers would be approved immediately after completion. It passed as part of a package that included stand-your-ground legislation.

As the national murder rate continued to trend downward, Missouri's held steady in the wake of the changes. Webster also said that the age adjusted gun homicide rate in Missouri went up by 25 percent. In eight other states, there were no significant changes in this figure and, in aggregate, the rate in these states went down by 2.2 percent. Changes in murders committed without firearms were not statistically significant.

Another change came in the dynamic of the guns seized after crimes. Prior to the change in the law, most of the guns recovered at crimes had been in circulation for a while; after, there were many more that had been in circulation for less than a year. The number of guns seized just three months after purchase doubled.

Webster showed polling results that indicate that the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners and NRA members, are in favor of background checks for people interested in purchasing guns. But his data suggests that how the checks are handled can make a big difference in what ultimately happens with the weapons.

 

[peacemak3r]

Because you know, criminals legally buys their guns.

[CenSin]

Because you know, criminals legally buys their guns.

I'd like to think that common sense applies to everything, but some results just defy. This researcher found that laws do have an effect.

[MHV9218]

Because you know, criminals legally buys their guns.

 

The fewer guns on the street, the fewer guns on the black market. 

[peacemak3r]

The fewer guns on the street, the fewer guns on the black market. 

 

Yeah........no.

 

We have no nukes on the street yet I bet we have nukes on the black market.

[Roadcruiser1]

More Guns=No Crime.

 

Switzerland has the lowest crime rate, and murder rate of any nation, and all their civilians are armed...........

[MHV9218]

^ Total, complete statistically inaccurate nonsense.

 

Yeah........no.

 

We have no nukes on the street yet I bet we have nukes on the black market.

You're really straw-man'ing this to the point of nuclear warfare? Total different situation.

[peacemak3r]

I couldn't think of any at the time. More so, how would you know if the black market would have less guns if there were more gun laws? You're still implying the fact that criminals and the black market "follows" the laws anyway.

[DJ MC]

For me, living in a state where guns are easily accessible to people around here, not a lot of murders happen around here. Of course to be fair, not all crime committed makes it to the news and it's usually domestic. Now as for Switzerland, here is an article on why crime is low over there.

 

http://libertycrier.com/why-switzerland-has-the-lowest-crime-rate-in-the-world/

[Turbo19]

I tell you, some of the arguments that contradict or simply outright dismiss these studies defy all logic.

 

Seems that the majority of the consensus not in agreement are simply trying to shift attention as to not drag the discussion for fear it'll lead to outright banning of firearms, which would never happen.

[CenSin]

I couldn't think of any at the time. More so, how would you know if the black market would have less guns if there were more gun laws? You're still implying the fact that criminals and the black market "follows" the laws anyway.

But where do guns ultimately come from? If you can get guns into the hands of people you can trust to not misuse or resell them, then you can curtail the amount that gets into the black market. Laws have real effects even on the lawless. The current laws simply need to do more to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

[peacemak3r]

Alright I got some relevant comparisons on hand now.

 

There are extensive laws concerning importing engines from different countries into the United States and I mean extensive. Yet there are still shops everywhere offering to sell these engines. I don't see the difference here. Yeah, you'll put some new laws to restrict selling guns on the streets and in legal vendors. Still doesn't stop people in the underground and the black market obtaining them.

 

We have laws on drugs yet....there are still drugs being sold on the streets.

[CenSin]

We have laws on drugs yet....there are still drugs being sold on the streets.

Can guns be made more easily than drugs? If a legal supply were available and unrestricted, wouldn't you think that much more of it would be floating around?

[peacemak3r]

Can guns be made more easily than drugs?

 

That depends on whom you are buying from, which in terms depends on whom they are receiving from as well.

 

Statistics is just a reference, it's not always 100% accurate. If a supply is never revealed, how would that apply to their statistics?

[QM1to6Ave]

One big issue I have with this study is that it is difficult to extrapolate gun-related data from one state to the rest of the US. Every state has citizens with significantly different attitudes towards guns and cities of different sizes. These factors play a big role in how people view guns and use them.

 

Still an intersting study nonetheless, and I suspect that a good portion of the increased murders were impulsive/emotional killings be people who were pissed off and able to buy guns without the "cooling off" period that comes with needin to get a permit from law enforcement before purchasing the guns. 

[Roadcruiser1]

^ Total, complete statistically inaccurate nonsense.

 

 

You're really straw-man'ing this to the point of nuclear warfare? Total different situation.

 

Really?

 

Switzerland: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

 

United States:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

Look here too. Note that the countries that have banned firearms has some of the highest murder rates in the world!!!!!!!!!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[MHV9218]

Really?

 

Switzerland: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

 

United States:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

Look here too. Note that the countries that have banned firearms has some of the highest murder rates in the world!!!!!!!!!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

Okay, clearly you just have no idea how to read data.

 

Switzerland's homicide rate is .52 people per 100,000.

The USA's homicide rate is 3.6 people per 100,000.

 

For those of you keeping score at home, that's about about 700% more homicides per 100,000 people in America than Switzerland.

 

Good try though.

[CenSin]

Okay, clearly you just have no idea how to read data.

 

Switzerland's homicide rate is .52 people per 100,000.

The USA's homicide rate is 3.6 people per 100,000.

 

For those of you keeping score at home, that's about about 700% more homicides per 100,000 people in America than Switzerland.

 

Good try though.

Can you believe it? We're ranked amongst the third world countries in terms of murder counts. Some familiar places that often show up on the news pertaining to violence, civil wars, and unrest: Democratic Republic of the Congo; Russia; Pakistan; Colombia.

[Kamen Rider]

If the use of guns was directly linked to violence than incidents LIKE THIS wouldn't happen. 

 

29 people are dead and 130 are injured, and not a gun to be found. Just those sharp pointy things that people keep forgetting can do just as much damage as a bullet. 

[CDTA]

Ok guys, absolutely nobody here is suggesting that if gun laws became tightened, all crime would suddenly disappear, without a trace. The point is to prevent SOME. Preventing SOME murders, violent crimes etc. is better than NONE. 

 

 

Alright I got some relevant comparisons on hand now.

 

There are extensive laws concerning importing engines from different countries into the United States and I mean extensive. Yet there are still shops everywhere offering to sell these engines. I don't see the difference here. Yeah, you'll put some new laws to restrict selling guns on the streets and in legal vendors. Still doesn't stop people in the underground and the black market obtaining them.

 

We have laws on drugs yet....there are still drugs being sold on the streets.

 

Despite the speed limit on the highway being 65, many people do 70-80. Does this mean we're not going to lower the speed limit ever for any reason? When was "Oh well people are just gonna speed anyways" ever considered as an excuse for not lowering the speed limit in any case? Does this mean we're going to raise it to 75-80? If that were the case, people would then do 90. You see where i'm getting at?

[CenSin]

If the use of guns was directly linked to violence than incidents LIKE THIS wouldn't happen. 

 

29 people are dead and 130 are injured, and not a gun to be found. Just those sharp pointy things that people keep forgetting can do just as much damage as a bullet. 

"Gun violence" is a subset of violence, and a significant cause of death. Knives and baseball bats don't hold a candle to the kill rate and range of guns. See above post.

[peacemak3r]

Ok guys, absolutely nobody here is suggesting that if gun laws became tightened, all crime would suddenly disappear, without a trace. The point is to prevent SOME. Preventing SOME murders, violent crimes etc. is better than NONE. 

 

Despite the speed limit on the highway being 65, many people do 70-80. Does this mean we're not going to lower the speed limit ever for any reason? When was "Oh well people are just gonna speed anyways" ever considered as an excuse for not lowering the speed limit in any case? Does this mean we're going to raise it to 75-80? If that were the case, people would then do 90. You see where i'm getting at?

 

I will agree to disagree because obviously this subject is split into two group and no one will budge. Though, to comment on your speed limit statement. A similar discussion unfolded about it in the past and the same statement was shutdown fairly quickly. None the less, yes the point is to prevent and lower rates but in reality, it won't do shit because criminals don't follow the laws anyway.

[MHV9218]

I will agree to disagree because obviously this subject is split into two group and no one will budge. Though, to comment on your speed limit statement. A similar discussion unfolded about it in the past and the same statement was shutdown fairly quickly. None the less, yes the point is to prevent and lower rates but in reality, it won't do shit because criminals don't follow the laws anyway.

 

Except it has and will "do shit," as is proven by countries with tight gun regulations like, as roadcruiser thoughtfully pointed out, Switzerland. Or basically anywhere in Europe. Where they don't have shootings in anywhere near the same volume as we do, because they don't have a gun culture like we do.

[peacemak3r]

Except it has and will "do shit," as is proven by countries with tight gun regulations like, as roadcruiser thoughtfully pointed out, Switzerland. Or basically anywhere in Europe. Where they don't have shootings in anywhere near the same volume as we do, because they don't have a gun culture like we do.

 

Stubborn are we?

 

A country with a gun culture with gun laws...yeah that will definitely stop criminals from getting guns. We have a big automotive culture in the States as well, upon strict guidelines and laws to not street race and break speeding laws. I don't see how that still stopped people from committing them.

 

Of course you ignored my "agree to disagree" comment, but I'm not amazed.