Proof that the Brady Bill does not work

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by slythe *
Let’s see now. Do I believe the 2,000,000 “Me, too!” stories that cannot possibly be verified, or do I look at all of the very real reports of people accidently shooting friends and family members, and all of the verified reports of family members shooting each other out of anger and/or dispair…[blah, blah, blah, blah]…

You make my brain hurt. You’re supposed to help FIGHT ignorance here, not roll around in it like a pig in his favorite shite-hole.

Sarcasm aside, The benefit of people carrying guns is not that every person who has a gun defends himself against the boogieman, or so that they can feel powerful, or so that they can roam the streets looking for crimes in progress pretending they’re dirty harry.

The mere presence of firearms in the hands of the population is, in itself, what stops crimes. It’s called prevention, or more properly, a deterrent. Your smug, cocky attitude about gun owners is pretty similar to this:

Imagine writing letters to congress telling them that we should eliminate/outlaw/whatever any sort of driver education. After all, if you really wanted to be safe in a crash you would wear a helmet, a 5-point safety harness, install a 2" tube rollcage, replace all your glass with plexi, armor your vehicle with 1/4" of steel plating, and of course the all-important and ever-popular “Call 911” when you wreck.

Does that make any sense? Isn’t it more logical to PREVENT a problem than to have to REACT to one?

That’s the effect when people own guns. Predators know the people are armed, so steer clear (more often) because the risk is not worth the gain. But on the occasions when you are forced into a confrontation, you will be better equipped to defend yourself. It’s much more difficult to attack a wolf than a sheep, even if you win. Criminals do not like even terms, and are more likely to move on to a better target if you appear likely to put up a fight. Police are not required to protect you, it is not their job. And not only don’t they have to, but they are not capable. Police RESPOND to crimes that have already happened, they don’t run around in capes and stop them from happening.

THAT is why people should be armed.

Not to mention that pesky little bill of rights thingie, and defending the country from tyranny. But that’s another argument entirely.

[Mojo]

I didn’t address the question because it is facetious conjecture, but since you insist… Do you have any clue what the process to get a concealed carry weapon permit is? In Texas, you take a written test, then you have to pass a timed shot trial. You have to make accurate shots within a certain amount of time, only a few seconds. If you are not accurate, you will not be issued a CCW permit.

(further down) This process is similar, BTW, to the firearm qualification that police go through. Interesting then that the police would kill more than ten times as many innocents than the armed public, eh?

Which is tangental to the issue being discussed- the average gun-owners aim and training. Concealed weapons permits are a very small minority of gun permits issued and are not an accurate reflection of the average owner.

[Demise]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mojo *
**

Which is tangental to the issue being discussed- the average gun-owners aim and training. Concealed weapons permits are a very small minority of gun permits issued and are not an accurate reflection of the average owner. **

Please tell me what other permits allow you to carry a gun that don’t require you to be a peace officer. I’m really curious, because a CCW permit is the only way you can carry a firearm in Texas.

Maybe I made a mistake, but I assumed the granny in the example wring put foward was legally carrying a weapon. If she wasn’t, then his argument falls apart. She becomes just as criminal as the robber.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Slythe, your position on teh place for guns in our society is irrelevant to the OP. There is now proof that the Brady Bill does not work. Criminals are generally not deterred by laws.

Do you have any hard evidence of any gun law actually cutting down on gun crime? If not, then please start another gun thread…or better yet, start up one of the many dead threads that we have had.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Please tell me what other permits allow you to carry a gun that don’t require you to be a peace officer. I’m really curious

Well, in New York state you need to have a permit to own a handgun at all. You need a separate permit for concealing it. You can’t posessa piostol in teh city without a special permit. This is why there is so little crime in NYC

[Mojo]

Most states have separate licenses for permission to carry a concealed handgun vs. a non-concealed one. In Arizona, it was much more common for someone to walk around with a gun visible in a holster. And I assume you were referring solely to handguns, as I don’t think your statement would apply to hunting rifles.

[wring]

Ok, I’ll try and make the points again, this time, won’t use scenarios since it causes people to miss the point.

quoting the study cited by Mr. Z in the first place (and by the way, only his link worked, not pldennison’s) :

**Our analyses ** provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states.

emphasis mine. They studied the data. One thing that kinda slipped away, and they admit in the page cited, is that they “left out all data regarding violence crimes among juveniles” since “homicide among juveniles have followed different trends”. However, since “secondary gun sales account for 40% of the transfers” of gun ownership and are largely unregulated, and, even the study admits “account for the large majority of sales to both juveniles and criminals”, it seems that they are leaving out a great amount of data which may in fact not support their conclusions.
I found no reference to their thoughts on why rapes/etc went up or down based on gun control legislation.

and regarding the arguement that rapists “decide” to not rape based on their knowledge that “this is a gun carry state, and therefore the victim might have a weapon”, I’m still waiting for a specific cite to look at those statements. I work with ex-offenders for a living. It has been my experience, when talking with criminals, that the thought process that goes on prior to a criminal act, generally is not the well thought out plan that folks think. An embarassing percentage didn’t really “think” at all, and certainly not about the potential consequences of their actions, be in probability of being caught or potential for physical harm to themselves. Those of us who work with rapists see that those who commit the crime of rape are a different classification in general than all other crimes. They aren’t, in general, doing it as a means of gaining money or drugs (lots of crimes committed for those). While you’re at it, look also for stats about household burgleries in states with gun control legislation vs. not. I mean, if you really believe that the rapist on the street will be detered how about the guy who’s breaking into houses to steal??? The criminals DON’T think ahead. unless my state’s offenders are significantly different from the norm.

The study cited also admits that until the legal loophole of those unregulated sales at gun shows is closed, then the true effects of any legislation is almost unobtainable.

The best available evidence suggests that treatment-state gun dealers are important sources of guns that have been used in crimes in both the treatment and control states. Interstate gun-running is often the source of guns being used in crimes in the control states, with many of these guns coming from states with more lenient gun laws such as the treatment states.27, 28

and:

However, the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act [bold] does not permit a reliable analysis [/bold] of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets.

emphasis mine.

I’d be happy to look at the stats suggested by the person who claims that rape is actually increased by gun control laws. whenever it comes.

and, so folks don’t get all preachy at me at a later date, all of you who have been referring to me as “Mr. wring”, I understand that you’re being polite, but, I am female, so “wring” will do, thank you. no problem, just didn’t want misunderstandings later…

[pldennison]

Sorry about that, wring. I accidentally included the period at the end as part of the URL. It should be:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf

As noted at that page, in the authors’ abstract (bolding mine):

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, with-out
increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately
1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

The authors also note (I have eliminate footnotes for expediency in copying, but there are several):

The rarity of these incidents is reflected in Florida statistics: 221,443 licenses were issued between October 1, 1987, and April 30, 1994, but only 18 crimes involving firearms were committed by those
with licenses. While a statewide breakdown on the nature of those crimes is not available, Dade County records indicate that four crimes involving a permitted handgun took place there between September 1987 and August 1992, and none of those cases resulted in injury.

The potential defensive nature of guns is indicated by the different rates of so-called hot burglaries, where residents are at home when the criminals strike. Almost half the burglaries in Canada and Britain, which have tough
gun control laws, are ‘‘hot burglaries.’’ By contrast, the United States, with laxer restrictions, has a ‘‘hot burglary’’ rate of only 13 percent. Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveal that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts ‘‘casing’’ a house to ensure
that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because ‘‘that’s the way to get shot.’’

[JohnDoe]

The whole point here is that the Brady Bill Does Not Work. The study that prompted the start of this thread came to that conclusion… Despite the “SPIN” put on it by the DOJ and others.

So, now we have a law on the books that does not work as intended, and there are a bunch of folks out there calling for MORE of the same.

We now see, both in the USA and abroad, that restrictive firearms laws have the OPPOSITE EFFECT than that desired… And those advocating these ineffective laws are calling for more of them.

I call that cruel, inhumane, heartless, draconian, and criminally negligent! The numbers tell you that these laws hurt and kill more than they help, and you want more of the same.

SHAME on you!

[Mr.Zambezi]

The study cited also admits that until the legal loophole of those unregulated sales at gun shows is closed, then the true effects of any legislation is almost unobtainable

huh? The criminals and juveniles who are currently buying their weapons on the black market are probably not going to start purchasing their guns from gun shows that do background checks. The problem is that all a shady dealer has to do is to tell the customer to meet him after the show.

It seems to me that with 300,000,000 guns in the US, their are only a few options to deter gun crime 1)create severe penalties and enforce them 2)outlaw and confiscate ALL guns 3) Accept the level of crime.

Personally I think the level is acceptable, though I favor strict enforcement. I do not believe that criminals will ever obey the law, and I know that you can’t stop them from owning something simply by making it illegal. If you can buy heroin, you can buy illegal guns.

[Demise]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
Most states have separate licenses for permission to carry a concealed handgun vs. a non-concealed one. In Arizona, it was much more common for someone to walk around with a gun visible in a holster. And I assume you were referring solely to handguns, as I don’t think your statement would apply to hunting rifles.

There is no separate permit in Texas to carry a non-concealed handgun. The only way to legally carry a handgun on your person is to have it concealed and have a CCW permit.

*Originally posted by wring *
**Ok, I’ll try and make the points again, this time, won’t use scenarios since it causes people to miss the point.

quoting the study cited by Mr. Z in the first place (and by the way, only his link worked, not pldennison’s) :**

We are talking about two different studies. You read the one referred to in the OP. My quotes are from the link that pldennison posted.

Try these fixed links:

More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf

An interview with John Lott
http://www.reason.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html

**and regarding the arguement that rapists “decide” to not rape based on their knowledge that “this is a gun carry state, and therefore the victim might have a weapon”, I’m still waiting for a specific cite to look at those statements. I work with ex-offenders for a living. It has been my experience, when talking with criminals, that the thought process that goes on prior to a criminal act, generally is not the well thought out plan that folks think. An embarassing percentage didn’t really “think” at all, and certainly not about the potential consequences of their actions, be in probability of being caught or potential for physical harm to themselves. **

I understand what you mean, but I don’t think it applies the same way. Gun on hip: death. Women you were about to assault suddenly pointing a gun at you: death. With a gun, they are seeing their own immediate mortality. It’s a little different than the criminal that crawls down a chimney and gets stuck, then slowly dies, or one that jumps out of a moving car. They might not consider that fact that a specific person could be carrying a gun, but when it is stuck in their face, it would sure spring to mind.

Ask the felons you talk to if they saw a women with a gun, would they try to rape her. I am pretty sure what the answer will be.

[wring]

thanks, I’ll be busy reading the study for a while. don’t think I’m ignoring, you…

first thing I DID notice, tho’ was the use of a sarcastic tone quickly.

Cook further states that each
year there are ‘‘only’’ 80,000–82,000 defensive uses of guns during as-saults, robberies, and household burglaries.

which seems to show some bias on the part of the studies author.

but I’ll get back to you on all of the rest. Interesting that they actually asked inmates. yea, I can believe that the break in folk do check out the residence but, did they screen that for carry states vs. not? if the potential for meeting up with the gun toting home owner was the serious deterent, you’d expect to find a measurable reduction in burglaries in those states compared to the others.

[SPOOFE]

slythe said…

SPOOFE, I think that my greatest objection is that the gun manufacturers are trying, through scare tactics and “patriotism”, to flood our society with handguns. Maybe if everyone recieved the proper training in both how to fire a handgun and when to fire a handgun, THEN went out and got one, I wouldn’t fear for my life the next time I didn’t go through that green light at the intersection fast enough for the “bubba” sitting a quarter-inch away from my back bumper. Instead, everyone gets their little “equalizer”, then maybe they recieve some training on how to use it.

I agree with that 100%. Too many people see a gun and think, “I’d like some punk to try something NOW!” I see a gun and think, “Let’s see… I’ll place the target at 50 yards and see how well I do”. There’s not enough smarts about guns, and there’s not enough respect for guns. Yes, I say respect; we should respect anything that can kill us. Not the same way we’d respect… oh… The Pope or somebody, but the same way we respect railroad crossings and earthquakes.

And yes, gun manufacturers and lots of gun enthusiasts DO try to instill scare tactics. To me, this is only annoying (especially when the sob stories are blown out of proportion). The bottom line, for me, is that I see a gun as a tool, plain and simple, that can provide either pleasure or pain, and should be dealt with responsibly and realistically.

Unfortunately, not enough people deal with 'em responsibly, on both sides of the debate.

[Czarcasm]

The difference is, if one side deals with it improperly, somebody’s rights gets stepped on, at least temporarily. If the other side deals with it improperly, people get hurt or killed permanently.

[tracer]

slythe wrote:

The difference is, if one side deals with it improperly, somebody’s rights gets stepped on, at least temporarily. If the other side deals with it improperly, people get hurt or killed permanently.

Yeah. Like the woman who gets killed by an armed stalker because she has to wait 5 days before she can get a gun to protect herself.

[Mojo]

Yeah. Like the woman who gets killed by an armed stalker because she has to wait 5 days before she can get a gun to protect herself.

Do you have a cite for this or can I use fictitious examples too?

[pldennison]

quote:

Yeah. Like the woman who gets killed by an armed stalker because she has to wait 5 days before she can get a gun to protect herself.

Do you have a cite for this or can I use fictitious examples too?

"Mrs. Elmasri, a Wisconsin woman whose estranged husband had threatened her and her children, called a firearms instructor for advice on how to buy a gun for self-defense. She was advised that, under Wisconsin’s progressive handgun law, she would have to wait 48 hours so that the police could perform the required background check.

Twenty-four hours later, . . . Mrs. Elmasri’s husband murdered the defenseless woman and her two children."
(Gun Laws No Answer For Crime, Arizona Republic, Jan. 10, 1993, p. C1.)

[Myrr21]

That’s not a fair example. There’s no way to show how many murders were prevented by a background check or waiting period. One example of someone suffering because of it can be shown, but only because that is measureable in a way that the opposing case isn’t.

[ExTank]

Someone tried to discredit Lott’s research because it was funded by the Olin Foundation (he applied for and received a grant), which was created by John M. Olin of the Olin Corporation, an ammunition manufacturer and owner of Winchester Arms.

The Olin Foundation, like the Ford and Carnegie Foundations
have specific “missions” or goals, and that mission statement may influence what type of research various grants are awarded for.

But that doesn’t necessarily make any research done by an awardee of a grant from any particular group biased; the research and conclusions, once published, are reviewed by the scholastic community. Any inherent error or bias are sure to be quickly found and the research (and the researcher) rebutted by interested parties.

By my own personal political beliefs, I might be inclined to think that anything done by the Carnegie Foundation as nothing more than United Nations “New World Order” propoganda. But it isn’t, and I don’t.

So far, Dr. Lott’s work has stood up to every challenge. The only people still claiming that it it biased (well, they actualy use harsher language than that) is HCI and their faux intellectual/legal center, the CPHV.

The scope of his work is broad, his methodology so far unimpeachable. His conclusions are sound: the vast majority of states with shall-issue concealed carry permits have lower crime rates than those that do not, by varying degrees depending on several different factors. Read his book, and know for thyself.

ExTank

[Myrr21]

Just to clarify my point a little, the study states that there was no significant reduction in states that had tighter gun laws (i.e. the Brady Bill). Now turn this around: the study therefore also states that there was no significant reduction in states with more permissive gun laws.

So what if the cases are equalling each other out? What if for every single murder caused there is one prevented…perfect 1:1 ratio? How does this affect you POV?