Anyone see the article in the NY times? A study done from 85-97 in 32 states shows that the rate of decline of gun violence in theose states was uneffected by whether or not the individual state had adopted the Brady Bill.
I don’t want to argue about the larger issue here. But I think that this pretty well shows that this type of law does not effect criminals.
Vindication!
Did it happen to mention if there was a rise in gun violence?
Also, what was the effect on the rate of accidental injury and death due to guns?
Did anyone else pick it up? Id like to see the article before addressing the OP, and those jerks at the NY times charge for looking at old articles.
Yahoo is carrying the story also…
Something to be thankful for, there. At least one good thing comes of this. But, they also note that with instant background checks, this part may climb back up.
Really, there is a need for more data and research.
The same article (or a similar one) is in the Washington Post today:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18885-2000Aug1.html
Mr.Zambezi
I think it only shows that the specific Brady Bill provisions themselves were not enough. There is no doubt that if you took away everyone’s guns, it would affect gun violence.
What is significant about this is that gun control advocates like to claim that they are not trying to take away all guns - they are only calling for this or that bill. The NRA has opposed all such bills because they are convinced that the gun control advocates are indeed going to try to take away all guns, only it is being done in stages. It would seem that the NRA is correct in this. I think it is lkely that gun control advocates will continue to call for more and more sweeping measures.
Welcome Mr. Z, this must be your daily romp around the firewall.
I read it on cnn.com this morning. Almost posted it here but got distracted.
Glad you posted it! And damned glad that the poll results came out as they did.
Reality check…
Since when do criminals pay attention to laws? A criminal is not going to the local gunshop and purchase a gun. He/she is going to buy it on the black market or steal it.
I am not in favor of gun control. I think it should be law that everyone carry one out there in plain sight.
Ok, I agree more study is in order after reading the article. Thing is it’s not gonna happen. The secondary purchases mentioned in the article is a significant ammount 34% If Im correct. Those secondary figures can’t be studied because of the aforementione NRA, who has been able to keep congrees from funding the ATF to track such purchases. And since I know there’ll be a demand for a cite here’s one on this study http://www.handguncontrol.org/research/studies/bradysave.asp
This is more on gunshows
http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/gunshows.asp
You’re citing HCI?!? fer krissake, those guys are even more biased than the NRA, and that is saying a lot. Just so you know, the NRA is in favor of “instant checks”, but HCI is against them, as they would rather have a waiting period that annoys law-abiding citizens as oposed to an insatnt background check which keeps guns out of the hands of felons.
I disagree a tiny bit. I think concealed carry is better than open carry. Any time you carry a gun in plain view, it intimidates some people and makes others think you’re looking for trouble and respond accordingly. I’d prefer to see everybody carry concealed [LEGALLY!] for that reason.
But I agree completely that gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from getting and using guns. All they do is turn criminals into a few wolves roaming around in a society of unarmed sheep.
But that’s the way the anti-gun people want it: First, you disarm the victims. The criminals will keep doing what they do, and crimes and violence will increase. You do studies showing how bad violence still is, say that they show our society isn’t mature or responsible enough to own guns, and pass stricter and stricter gun control laws, eventually outlawing them outright. While at the same time, you yourself have a permit to carry a gun concealed. Which makes you a hypocrite. (diane feynstein?)
Joe Cool…
Concealed carry…maybe they have one.
Open carry…ain’t no doubt.
Daniel, if they’re so biased, I’m sure you’ll be able to prove them wrong. Go for it.
We’re all biased. I’m biased in favor of gun control; Mr. Zambezi’s biased against it. HCI’s biased for it; the NRA’s biased against it. We can’t just ignore the other guy’s points because they’re ‘biased.’ We still have to get out there and debate the issues on the basis of the facts.
I can’t remember anyone on the gun-control side ever claiming that the Brady law would have a major effect on crime. The argument for it, IIRC, was that it would stop the occasional crime of passion, and that the waiting period and background check were such a minimal burden that if it saved a single life, it would be more than a fair trade.
Whether such a trade is worth it is a matter of opinion, of course, but most Americans seem to believe it is.
The big deal surrounding the Brady bill, for many years, was that due to pressure from the NRA, Congress wouldn’t even approve this token legislation. It was a symbol of Congress’ unwillingness to do anything that offended the NRA, and the NRA’s unwilingness to consider the virtues of even the most modest gun-control legislation.
Again, nobody ever claimed that the Brady law would be a solution to gun violence, but rather something that would save some lives at essentially no cost in terms of lives or essential liberties. (The latter is a matter of hotly contested opinion, of course.) The gun control side has been forced to push legislation piecemeal because for many years, even the most trivial gun-control laws were stymied. And even now, it would be impossible to pass a comprehensive gun-control law, one that would be sufficient for the long haul with only minor alterations. So of course you’re never going to see the end of new gun control laws being proposed. We don’t choose to do this a step at a time, doggonit.
This is the fundamental distinction between pro-gun types and the vast majority of Americans. Guns aren’t our hobby, so we have little desire to carry one constantly against the longshot possibility that we might need it.
What we’re up against here is two drastically different visions of how a safe society should be achieved. The pro-gun side envisions a world that’s safe because everyone’s carrying, so the ‘good guys’ will be able to protect themselves against the ‘bad guys’ at a moment’s notice, should the bad guys try anything. The gun-control types look at numerous industrialized countries in which guns are rare, and people can walk the streets in the middle of the night. And we say, “we’d like to be like that.”
This is what each side is up against: an opposite side that sees things so completely differently that negotiation is hard to imagine. I don’t suppose those on either side can really make sense of the other side.
Since one of the safe countries with relatively few guns is Canada, that seems to punch holes in the black-market thesis: if that’s where criminals get their guns, how come Canadian criminals aren’t running rampant with black-market guns easily smuggled across the porous American border?
The other recurring weakness in the pro-gun worldview is the demarcation of the human race into good and bad. These elements tend to be mixed in all of us, and in the USA, DOJ statistics say you’re more likely to be killed by a previously law-abiding citizen who’s having a bad day (and has a gun to make it easier to help share his misery) than by someone identifiable as a criminal. The easy availability of guns may somewhat suppress crime by career criminals, but they increase the likelihood of the casual shooting by a citizen having a bad day.
Just in terms of mathematical modeling, it doesn’t matter what numbers you feed in: as the number of people with a gun handy increases, there’s a point at which the suppression of crime by criminals is more than balanced by the violence done by previously law-abiding citizens in moments of anger.
It’s kinda like the Laffer curve. The only question is, where are we on the curve?
Not to mention that an unarmed society is the easiest to control. When the public can’t protect itself, they become totally reliant on the goverment to do it. Which obviously gives the government a dangerous amount of power.
Mr.Zambezi wrote, in the OP:
Wait a minute … the Brady Bill was a Federal law, wasn’t it? How can a State decide not to adopt it?
Quote:
I really hate this argument. It comes up whenever I participate in an arguement regarding gun control. The governemnt already has all th power it needs. If the government decided tommorrow to turn into a totalitarian regime, your guns will not stop them! Your gun vs tanks, grenades, fighter jets, APCs, laser guided bombs, steath technology, etc… You won’t stand a chance!
**
Really? Like where? The United Kingdom maybe?
Here’s a little excerpt for ya:
The new figures will also show an overall rise in violence and street crime, particularly in London, where violent crimes rose by more than 160%. In some areas of the capital, street crime has risen by more than 20%.
I don’t think I’d walk on those streets in the middle of the night.
I’d like to see these statistics. Got a cite?
Bullshit. There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. The armed forces would be out-numbered a bit. In addition to that, not all of the military would follow such a horrendous order. You’d have the army fighting against itself. Not to mention that a very large portion of the US military is not on the US mainland.
Here’s an offical report from Australia, another county that has mostly outlawed guns.
In essence, this report says that while gun violence has gone down, total crime has actually increased. Other methods of death and destruction are being substituted.
That’s the other point that makes it an unsound argument. I nearly said that but I thought Id let someone else do it.