Proof that the Brady Bill does not work

[Demise]

*Originally posted by Myrr21 *
**I hope I’ve expressed this clearly; I realize that the 43:1 data is not perfect–given pldennison’s point–but if you look carefully, the link you cite is trying to falsely correlate numbers **

The vast majority of these deaths, in a relatively small area 20 years ago, were suicides. S-U-I-C-I-D-E-S. What does this have to do with guns? Do you think that people are going to suddenly realize the world is fine if guns are outlawed? Maybe you will notice, from data collected at the same time, in the same place, that more people killed themselves without guns than with them. How does using such limited data mean that all people in the entire US have these ridiculous 43-1 odds? Blathering that you have 43-1 odds of someone in a household other than an intruder dying from a gunshot is almost outright lying. It is definitely misleading at the minimum.

Damn, I knew I was going to need that reference when I ran across it…you don’t necessarily have the right you think youhave under the second amendment. A Superior Court (not the Supreme Court, so it isn’t final here) has ruled that private citizens are not necessarily part of a “well-regulated militia”. Moreover, we don’t allow people to own tanks. We don’t allow them to own rocket launchers. We don’t allow them to own machine guns (with a few exceptions). So where is the line? Obviously we can prevent people from owning certain firearms; we can also regulate how they are bought and sold. If you don’t like it, get the law repealed, but it’s certainly not deprving you of any legal rights you “have”.

First, the 2nd Amendment in its entirety:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Some information for you:

“The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction,” by Southmayd Professor of Law at Yale University, Akhil Reed Amar

*"Several modern scholars have read the (second) amendment as protecting only arms bearing in organized ‘state militias,’ like SWAT teams and National Guard units. …

"This reading doesn’t quite work. The states’-rights reading puts great weight on the word militia, but the word appears only in the amendment’s subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to “the people,” not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means ‘states,’ it says so.

"Thus, as noted above, ‘the people’ at the core of the Second Amendment are the same people at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment. Elbridge Gerry put the point nicely in the First Congress, in language that closely tracked the populist concern about governmental self-dealing at the root of earlier amendments: ‘This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government.’

"What’s more, the ‘militia,’ as used in the amendment and in clause 16, had a very different meaning two hundred years ago than in ordinary conversation today. Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as the ‘state militia,’ but two hundred years ago, any band of paid, semiprofessional, part-time volunteers, like today’s Guard, would have been called “a select corps” or “select militia” – and viewed in many quarters as little better than a standing army.

“In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, ‘the militia’ referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection – the “militia” is identical to “the people” in the core sense described above. Indeed, the version of the amendment that initially passed the House, only to be stylistically shortened in the Senate, explicitly defined the militia as ‘composed of the body of the People.’ This is clearly the sense in which ‘the militia’ is used in clause 16 and throughout The Federalist, in keeping with standard usage confirmed by contemporaneous dictionaries, legal and otherwise. As Tench Coxe wrote in a 1788 Pennsylvania essay, ‘Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?’”*

Or:

The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the ‘state militia’) to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.

The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia” (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia” (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of “the people” expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group.

And again from the Supreme Court, in the case of UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

There is plenty more out there saying that “the militia” was understood at the time of the framing of the Constitution to be all able bodied men capable of bearing arms.

[ExTank]

Let’s compare Dr. Arthur Kellerman and Professor John Lott:

Lott: Economist, with interests in criminology, public finance, public choice and industrial organization. Strong in math and causal relationships, identifying trends.

Kellerman: Physician. Good at diagnosing and treating illness and injury. Strong observational skills, immediate cause/effect skills.

Lott: Completed a recent study concerning the impact of concealed carry laws on crime, examining over 3,000 counties nationwide over several years.

Kellerman: completed a study 17 years ago examining one county in Washington state.

Lott: Examined, weighed and measured myriad factors including income levels, racial makeup, crime rates (detailed specifically by type before and after CCW laws went into effect), arrest rates, conviction rates, average sentence by offense, average time served by offense, parole conditions and parole enforcement. Examined and discarded unquantifiable variable, but inlcuded them in his book as an example of factors that were not included in his conclusions.

Kellerman: Counted a handfull of simplistic factors, without a detailed breakdown of offenses by type, and included “Unknown”, hence unquantifiable and therefore statistically meaningless factors.

Lott: Self-proclaimed non-partisan on gun-rights issues.

Kellerman: Self-proclaimed gun control/anti-violence advocate.

Let’s break down Dr. Kellerman’s work, using the stats Mr. Z provided, since no one seem to have taken exception to them and to save me the time of looking them up (I trust Mr. Z’s integrity; if you don’t, I’m sure he’ll be more than happy to provide links to Dr. Kellerman’s study).

From Mr. Z’s post:

Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann’s paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).
Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3

Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

Let’s apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.
Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50
Suicide2 347
Unknown 0

Total 397
Self-protection homicide3 4

Let’s break down these numbers just a bit. For instance, there were slightly more suicides in homes without firearms than there were in home with, by about 4.2%.

This may indicate that firearm induced suicides are not the preferred choice of suicide; it may merely be a statistical anomaly of King county, Washington. Without a comparison between some other similar demograpic, though, there is no way to draw any meaningful conclusion.

It does, however, seem to indicate that people willing to commit suicide are going to do so, regardless of methodolgy.

So the presence or absence of a firearm in the home impacting on suicide rates overall seems to be a non-issue. Eliminating suicide deaths from both tables yields the following corrections:

Table 1. Classification of 56 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Unknown 3

Total: 56
Self-protection homicide: 9
As we see from Table 1, 56 firearm-induced violent deaths to 9 justifiable firearms-induced homicides gives us a new ratio of 6.22:1.

Let’s apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.
Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50
Unknown 0

Total: 50
Self-protection homicide3: 4

This yields a new ratio 12.5 violent non-firearms related homicides for every single non-firearms-related self-defense homicide (50/4=12.5)

Additionally, I would like to discard the “Unknown” factor from both tables. As the term “unknown” implies, the cause is, well, unknown, therefore unquantifiable, hence not relevant for a statistical analysis. Let’s run the tables again, sans “Unknown” fatalities:

Table 1. Classification of 53 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41

Total: 53
Self-protection homicide: 9
As we see from Table 1, 53 firearm-related criminal homicides to 9 justifiable firearms-related homicides gives us a new, final ratio of 5.88:1, but only when comparing Criminal Homicides/Unintentional Deaths to Self-Protection Homicides!

Let’s apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.
Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50

Total: 50
Self-protection homicide3: 4

This yields no signifigant change from the last set of figures, leaving us with the same ratio of 12.5 violent non-firearms related criminal homicides for every single non-firearms-related self-defense homicides (50/4=12.5), or 12.5:1.

Dr. Kellerman’s “43:1” ratio simply compared Criminal/Unintentional Homicides to Justifiable Homicides. The real ratio comes from comparing the results of Tables 1 and 2, deaths in homes with guns versus deaths in homes without guns; excluding the justifiable homicide figures from both tables yields the following number: 53/50=1.06, or a 6% increase in risk of being unintentionally/maliciously killed with a firearm in a home than in one without a firearm.

Note: I excluded justifiable, self-defense homicides because, well, they’re justifiable. The dead person was asking for it, one way or another. If you object to that, ask yourself seriously: “What Do You Object To More:
Guns, Violence, or Gun Violence”. They are three seperate, distinct things, whether you believe it or not.

Even if I factor justifiable homicides from both tables back into the mix, there’s not much difference: 62 total firearms homicides in homes with guns (53 unintentional/criminal + 9 justifiable) divided by 54 total non-firearm homicides in homes without guns(50 unintentional/criminal + 4 justifiable) equal: 62/54=1.148, rounded up to 1.15, or an overall 15% increased risk of death from a firearm in a home with a gun than in a home without a firearm.

These new numbers tell me that while there is only anywhere from 6% to 15% increased risk of death in a home with a firearm, a person is 2.25 times more likely to sucessfully defend themselves in a home with a firearm than without: 9/4=2.25, or 125%!.

Which means homes with a firearm enjoy an over 2:1 advantage for the occupants facing a self defense situation than homes without a firearm, while running only a 6% increased risk of an unintentional death or criminal homicide, or an overall 15% increased risk of of firearm death

And since dice have no memory, I’ll take a 125% better chance of sucessfully defending myself against a 6% increased chance of accidentally or maliciously killing someone else.

Additionally, and speaking strictly for myself, being a safety-conscious firearms enthusiast and a reasonably sane and stable personality, I believe my family and friends are at a signifigantly reduced chance of me accidentally/maliciously killing them, while they still enjoy the more than doubled protection of being in my presence, or in my home.

Conclusion: homes with guns are sucessfully defended 2.25 times more often than homes without, with only a 6% increased chance of unintentional/malicious homicides.

And all of it is bunk, for the simple reason that it is a look at only one county, in one state, 17 years ago.

Which illustrates my ultimate point: that there are three kinds of lies.

If the ignorant are interested, I’ll address the issue of what constitutes “Arms” (again!); as well as the law, current legal thought and past and present court rulings concerning the “Militia” tomorrow.

ExTank
“Lies, Damned Lies, and Dr. Kellerman’s Gun Control Statistics.”

[Myrr21]

Please stop stately the quote in a blatantly incorrect manner after I already pointed out the discrepancy. There were ** not ** more suicides in households with a gun than in households without.

Note that the first table is suicides * involving a firearm * iin households with a gun. The second is suicides in households without a gun. Note that * non-firearm suicides * in households with a gun are not counted.

That’s why you can’t compare those two pieces of data–there isn’t a direct link. Of course, I already said this–but it seems to have been ignored.

[Demise]

*Originally posted by Myrr21 *
**Please stop stately the quote in a blatantly incorrect manner after I already pointed out the discrepancy. There were ** not ** more suicides in households with a gun than in households without.

Note that the first table is suicides * involving a firearm * iin households with a gun. The second is suicides in households without a gun. Note that * non-firearm suicides * in households with a gun are not counted.

That’s why you can’t compare those two pieces of data–there isn’t a direct link. Of course, I already said this–but it seems to have been ignored. **

I do not see where this data says that that the non-gun suicides are in a home without a gun. Show me where that is posted. It says: “Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm”. How, exactly, do you translate this to mean “suicides in households without a gun”? All it says is that these are deaths that did not involve a gun, not that a gun wasn’t present in the household. You weren’t ignored, you were wrong, there is no discrepancy.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Myrrh said

A Superior Court (not the Supreme Court, so it isn’t final here) has ruled that private citizens are not necessarily part of a “well-regulated militia”.

Now, myrrh do you think that statements like this help you at all?

Teher are several supreme court cases that say exactly the opposite. Try Cruikshank or Miller. In fact you can read them here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html. In Presser the court opined:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government

and in miller:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense

But I guess that all of this is rendered meaningless because myrrh thinks that maybe a court somewhere might have disagreed.

Christ, ExTank. How many times do we have to educate these folks?

And I am still waiting on something that shows that the Brady Bill actually works.

[Mojo]

-19 states had Brady Bill type waiting periods in place prior to the BB passing, the others did not.
-Since the BB was passed, gun deaths have declined across the board.
-Gun deaths decreased more (but not statistically significantly more) in states that did not have the BB style laws in place previously.

So gun deaths decreased in all states since the passage of the BB, slightly more so in states that did not have BB style laws, and you consider this proof that the Brady Bill doesn’t work? I suggest you stop sniffing gunpowder.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Mojo, I suggest you stop making wise cracks when you are talking out of your ass. First of all, you state that crime went down in states that didn’t have BB laws. That would suggest the crime drops faster without the law.

But you must know that violent crime has been on the decline for years because of, for one reason, a demographic decline in the number of young males.

The study compared states with and without the BB laws. THe BB laws had no effect. the authors clearly state this in their conclusion. But I guess if you state otherwise, the authors of the study must have misread their own data :rolleyes:

[pldennison]

According to Lott’s research (which I notice strict gun control advocates are scruplously avoiding), violent crimes of all categories, but especially rapes and murders, declined most heavily in states where concealed-carry laws and “shall issue” laws were adopted from 1977-1992.

Also, the Post notes this morning that strict-gun-control Japan, usually held up as a paradigm of civility, is increasingly falling victim to violent crime and gunplay as criminals get their hands on black-market handguns, and the citizenry, of course, have no way to protect themselves.

[Mojo]

No, no and no. “That would suggest the crime drops faster without the law.” it dropped faster in states that previously did not have the law and now do. And the data does not show that it had no effect.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Ok, Mojo, you are starting to tick me off.Would you please read the study, or at least support your assertions. Here is what the authors of the study said

A statistical analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 284 No. 5, August 2, 2000) found:

“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.”

and

The only previous study of the association between homicide and the national Brady Act found a statistically insignificant reduction in the murder rate of 2.3% in the treatment states compared with control states, and statistically significant increases in rape and aggravated assault equal to 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively

Now, could you please explain the logic underlying your conclusion that the brady bill reduces crime?

[Mr.Zambezi]

Ok, Mojo, you are starting to tick me off.Would you please read the study, or at least support your assertions. Here is what the authors of the study said

A statistical analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 284 No. 5, August 2, 2000) found:

“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.”

and

The only previous study of the association between homicide and the national Brady Act found a statistically insignificant reduction in the murder rate of 2.3% in the treatment states compared with control states, and statistically significant increases in rape and aggravated assault equal to 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively

Now, could you please explain the logic underlying your conclusion that the brady bill reduces crime?

[Mojo]

I’m looking at the raw data which shows that gun deaths are down across the board, period. Slightly more so in states that did not have the Brady Bill passed. Draw your own conclusions.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Ice cream sales go up in summer.

Drowning deaths also increase in the summer.

therefore, ice cream must be the cause of drowning.

[Mojo]

End of debate.

[Mr.Zambezi]

well, if you refuse to support your conjectures, it never really was a debate at all. It was gainsaying.

[SPOOFE]

Mojo, I think all that Mr. Z is asking for is some evidence for your claims. In light of the fact that he’s provided, on several occasions in this thread, numerous quotes that support his position, why do you feel the need to act so huffy about that request?

[pldennison]

I think, maybe, perhaps, Mojo and Mr. Z. are two ships passing in the night here. If I could paraphrase for the benefit of all, what Mr. Z., and the authors of the report, are saying is this: Even if there has been a decrease in gun deaths since the implementation of a federal waiting period, if you control for all other factors that can affect the rate of gun deaths, none of the decrease is attributable to the Brady laws. Mr. Z., is that a fair assessment of what you’re trying to say?

On the other hand, Lott’s research, which to this point has stood unrefuted, shows that, when controlling for other crime-reduction and deterrence measures, concealed-carry permits are strongly and positively associated with a reduction in violent crime, and furthermore do not result in increased gunplay among citizens.

[ExTank]

PLD:

I can’t speak for Mr. Z, but I think that that is about as concise a summation of Prof. Lott’s study as one can get.

My copy of his book is back home in Dallas, so I can’t reference his work; I’m strictly spit-ballin’ from memory.

I was initially overwhelmed when reading his book (it is pretty dry), but on the second read, it just…clicked.

ExTank

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**I’m looking at the raw data which shows that gun deaths are down across the board, period. Slightly more so in states that did not have the Brady Bill passed. Draw your own conclusions. **

The Brady Bill is a federal law. Even if representatives from in the House or Senators from a state voted against it they’d still have to obey it.

Marc

[Mr.Zambezi]

That’s a good summations PLD. The study had test and control states (they actually used the scientific method). THey went into the study looking to prove that the Brady Laws work. When they took into consideration al of the factors involved in gun violence, they found no correlation.

Correltion is the key. That is what my example about ice cream causing drowning was about.

I appologize for getting a bit irked, but I do not like to be called an idiot when I have sound scientific studies to back up my position. Lott’s work is impeccable, as is that of the JAMA study. I just wish that the gun control folks would look at heh facts and ignore the hype.