More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement

[applegrove]

More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement

By Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/

"SNIP...........................



Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.

These findings build on and strengthen the conclusions of Donohue's earlier research, which only used data through 2006. In addition to having nearly two decades' worth of additional data to work with, Donohue's findings also improve upon Lott and Mustard's research by using a variety of different statistical models, as well as controlling for a number of confounding factors, like the crack epidemic of the early 1990s.

These new findings are strong. But there's rarely such a thing as a slam-dunk in social science research. Donohue notes that "different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect." Teasing out cause from effect in social science research is often a fraught proposition.


...........................SNIP"

[GGJohn]

1. If this were true, then why doesn't the FBI's UCR reflect that?

Violent crime has been declining since the 70's, a 40% decline I believe, and gun related crime is down in 2013 from 2012

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)

Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%)


2012 and 2010, for comparison:


Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2012 (FBI)

Total murders...................... 12,711
Handguns............................ 8,813 (49.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 1,848 (14.5%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,637 (12.9%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,583 (12.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 678 (5.3%)
Rifles................................ 320 (2.5%)
Shotguns.............................. 302 (2.4%)


Murder, by State and Types of Weapons, 2010 (FBI)

Total murders...........................12,996
Handguns.................................6,009 (46.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035 (15.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc...................1,772 (13.6%)
Edged weapons............................1,704 (13.1%)
Hands, feet, etc...........................745 (5.7%)
Shotguns...................................373 (2.9%)
Rifles.....................................358 (2.8%)


The 9-year trend in rifle homicides, 2005-2013:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285

So I don't see the "more guns=more crimes" assertion, unless I'm missing something here.
I think I'll believe the stats compiled by the FBI over a Stanford prof.

[Hoyt]

2. GG, you are missing a lot. Crime would be even less with fewer gunz and

the yahoos attracted to them.

You have to control for other factors -- aging population, better survelience, tougher sentences, etc. If you guys could bring yourself to keep less guns and stop promoting then, no telling how low crime rates might go.

We do appreciate your keeping up with the stats. If only you knew how to interpret them. I guess your three safes full of gunz are reflective of your bias.

[GGJohn]

3. Your missing my point completely,

Stanford law professor John Donohue is saying that more guns=more crimes, but according to the FBI's UCR, that's not true at all.

You say I'm not interpreting them correctly? Then why don't you interpret them for me and show where I and the FBI made our mistake.

BTW, it's not 3 safes full of guns, I'll let you guess how many it really is.

[Hoyt]

4. Do you know what the phrase "other factors equal" means?

[GGJohn]

5. I know exactly what it means,

but you still haven't shown how I and the FBI have mis-interpreted the stats.
It's really simple, Stanford law professor John Donohue is wrong.

[flamin lib]

6. So riddle me this, GG

Finland is the industrialized country nearest the US in household gun ownership (38% vs 43%). Finland's death by gun rate is 4.5 per 100,000 and the US rate is 10 per, more than twice as much. 17% of US households own handguns and Finland has a pistol ownership rate of 6%. Hmmmm, twice as many pistols in the US and twice as many deaths.

The nearest country to the US educationally, ethnically, culturally and economically is Canada with a gun ownership rate of 15% overall and 3% for pistols. The gun death rate there is 2.5 per 100,000. Canada also outlaws semi auto guns of all types.

So, even though gun deaths are down in the US, Americans are twice as likely to die by gun as Finland (nearest in gun ownership rate) and 6 times more likely than in Canada. Could it be that, as Hoyt said upthread, that crime rates in the US could be much lower if there were fewer guns?

If gun ownership has nothing to do with death by gun, how do you account for these numbers? I'd be careful trying to cite "other factors" after the upthread exchange . . .

http://guncontrol.ca/overview-gun-control-us-canada-global/

[GGJohn]

7. Huh?

That has nothing to do with my post saying that Donohue was wrong about more guns=more crime.

Sure, gun deaths would be fewer if there were fewer guns, but deaths by other means would probably increase.

[flamin lib]

8. I'll type this real slow 'cause you seem to not read well . . .

The OP indicates that more guns equates to more crime.

Your first reply was with FBI statistics and "So I don't see the 'more guns = more crime' assertion . . ."

Hoyt pointed out that there could be many mitigating reasons for lowering crime rates, that crime could be much lower than it is with fewer guns and you reply that FBI stats prove that more guns does not mean more crime ignoring the other factors that might account for falling crime rates.

I weigh in with another study that includes other countries and has statistics that parallel the conclusions of the OP study.

You claim that my post has nothing to do with Donohue being wrong. Huh? Multiple studies, different sources, same conclusions. But you can't, or won't, see that. This is the sort of willful refusal to admit that guns increase death rates that permeates the Gungeon.

You have that in common with all the gun nuts that I have on ignore.

[GGJohn]

9. Then I would suggest you put me on ignore also,

but I stand by what I said, Donohue is wrong according to the FBI stats, more guns do not = more crime.

[flamin lib]

10. You can stand by being willfully ignorant if you want but

anyone without the blindness brought on by the religious seal of a gun nut can see that Donohue is not wrong and that there are multiple studies and statistics that parallel those conclusion.

Now, complying with your wishes.

[GGJohn]

11. Willfully ignorant?

That's good coming from someone who won't acknowledge the stats.
bye bye.

[jimmy the one]

12. more guns more crime & more lies

ggjohn: Your missing my point completely, Stanford law professor John Donohue is saying that more guns=more crimes, but according to the FBI's UCR, that's not true at all.

.. Donahue is not contending crime didn't fall, he's contending that lax CCW laws caused higher rates of aggravated asslt, robb, rape & murder, than existed prior to states passing such laws. Donahue's data does not necessarily run from early 90's to now (when violent crime declined), but from when a state passed a shall issue ccw law.
Learn to comprehend better so as to not footstick.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said.. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8% increase in the incidence of aggravated assault .. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33% in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/

ggjohn: You say I'm not interpreting them correctly? Then why don't you interpret them for me and show where I and the FBI made our mistake.

Look above.