Record of effects from gun laws

Here's a good review of data on the effect of gun laws:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730198/pdf/v011p00077.pdf

Here's a good quote:

If we assume a constant impact of the law across all adopting states and combine the states ... we produce estimates similar to those of Lott and Mustard for firearm homicide, RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and total homicide, RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.01). We believe these estimates are inaccurate because they fail to account for the variation in risk ratios across states and the variation between states in homicide rates over time.

And here's a recap of that quote:

On the whole, after we let more folks carry guns in this country, there was a non-significant drop in murder involving guns in this country, and there was a non-signficant drop in murder altogether. The risk of murder via gun became only 95% of what it had been under laws preventing gun carrying, and the risk of getting murdered in general became only 97% of what it had been under laws preventing gun carrying. The authors, however, believe that such an aggregate (an "overall, there was less murder in the country when there were more guns in the country") analysis is misleading.

In other words they would say that, in spite of the overall decrease in murder seen after the increase of gun availability in this country, you not only have to take 51 different views of the data -- 50 states + the District of Columbia -- you also have to add in some assumptions, such as the assumption that the murder rates were going to fall when they did regardless of gun availabilty.

Notice how tricky that gets. It could very easily devolve into the fallacy of the argument with a child (AWAC):

***************
Child:
I want more ice cream.

Parent:
But you just had some ice cream.

Child:
Yeah, but I was supposed to have more ice cream then, because I ate my dinner -- so that ice cream doesn't count toward my total.

Parent:
No, you have to look at your overall rate of ice cream ingestion, that's what matters -- the overall rate.

Child:
No it doesn't. I only have to look at my specific rate, which means I deserve more ice cream right now.
***************

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/09, 1:08pm)

Post 1

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 7:01am

We should require those who access dangerous drugs to have a prescription from their doctor.

If that doesn't work, and the war on drugs is failing, then we should require those who are already obeying the law to fill out those prescriptions in TRIPLICATE so that they will obey the law even MORE.

When we ban certain weapons and create a new black market/failed prohibition opportunity, we are counting on the fact that those who currently kill each other and innocents over black market distribution rights in banned drugs will draw the line there, and not kill themselves and innocents over black market distribution rights in banned firearms.

Or, maybe, we are hoping they will switch from drive by shootings to drive by lethal injections, as a kind of whacky symmetry...

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/18, 7:03am)

Post 2

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 12:40pm

The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime
by John Lott in today's WSJ

Post 3

Saturday, January 19, 2013 - 1:46pm

Good link, Merlin. The misinformation about guns is pretty staggering.

Shortly after the Sandy Hook disaster, my parent's neighbor bought two AR-15 "assault" rifles (for the purpose of re-selling to make a profit). My mother was a bit revolted to hear it. I told her, "You know it is not a "machine gun" right?". She said, "Huh?". I said, "Yeah, automatic rifles are already illegal". Her response "...Oh".

Later the neighbor brought one of the rifles over and let us look it over. I asked, "Something I'm a little confused about, what exactly is the difference between an assault rifle and an "ordinary" rifle?" His response: "Nothing. This just looks cooler."

You hear politicians throw around the words assault rifle, assault weapon, military-style weapon, etc. They are clearly either totally ignorant or deliberately spreading misinformation. I'm not insensitive towards someone who has concerns about gun laws or gun culture, but it's a very frustrating hurdle to have to clear out all the muck before you have an honest discussion about it every single time.

Post 4

Sunday, January 20, 2013 - 4:06pm