Missouri gun murders 'rose after law repeal'

[OrochiEddie]

From the BBC. I'll see if I can find the actual article so the methodology can be observed. There obviously endless factors to consider, but figured its worth having the discussion since it comes up quite often here.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578

Researchers claim a new study provides some of the most compelling evidence yet for tighter gun controls in the US.

The team followed the consequences of the State of Missouri repealing its permit-to-purchase handgun law in 2007.

The law had required purchasers to be vetted by the local sheriff and to receive a licence before buying a gun.

Reporting soon in the Journal of Urban Health, the researchers will say that the repeal resulted in an immediate spike in gun violence and murders.

The study links the abandonment of the background check to an additional 60 or so murders occurring per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.

"Coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri," said Prof Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

"That upward trajectory did not happen with homicides that did not involve guns; it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite – it was trending downward; and it was not specific to one or two localities – it was, for the most part, state-wide," he told BBC News.

The team said it took account of changes that occurred in policing levels and incarceration rates, trends in burglaries, and statistically controlled for other possible confounding factors such as shifts in unemployment and poverty.


What was stark, added Prof Webster, was the rise in the number of handguns that subsequently found their way into the hands of criminals.

The team counted a doubling of handguns shortly after sale being recovered from scenes of crimes or from criminals.

"This study is compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence," said Prof Webster.

The Johns Hopkins researcher was participating in a discussion here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The theme was "science-based strategies for reducing gun violence".

America currently has more than 300 million firearms in circulation. But the issue of gun control remains a hugely contentious one.

 

[lithy]

Public safety or reduction in gun violence are not valid reasons for strict gun regulation without repeal of the second amendment.

Yes you can reduce gun related deaths by making firearms extremely difficult to get. This doesn't really mesh with the basis of our system of law.

It's just common sense.

 

[T.A.P.]

Those treacherous red coats are at it again.

 

[Lagduf]

Public safety or reduction in gun violence are not valid reasons for strict gun regulation without repeal of the second amendment.

Repealing the Second Amendment doesn't eliminate the right to keep and bear arms no more than repealing the First Amendment means the state can establish its own church.

You, of course, know that

Edit: I'd like to see Eddie's take on the methodology.

What confuses me is that when you buy a handgun from a dealer you still have to pass the NICS (Federal) background check?

If the repeal of the permitting scheme does account for an increase in people using handguns for murders then what accounts for this? Particularly given that its legal in MO to buy a handgun from a private party which has no background check.

 

[brentsg]

My local gun dealer (in MO) is in a shopping center next to a massive liquor store and Chuck E. Cheese. I need to head in there some afternoon and buy a handgun.

 

[smokehouse]

Chicago Illinois is often the murder capital of the country, almost exclusively with firearms...and they have some of the most restrictive laws in the country...including full background checks, a post purchase waiting peroid, a list of banned firearms as long as my arm (including guns they continue to ban even though the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional) and requiring residents to carry a special FOID card to even posses a firearm or even buy/own ammunition.

I wonder of the Brits care to address that situation?

 

[StevenK]

Chicago Illinois is often the murder capital of the country, almost exclusively with firearms...and they have some of the most restrictive laws in the country...including full background checks, a post purchase waiting peroid, a list of banned firearms as long as my arm (including guns they continue to ban even though the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional) and requiring residents to carry a special FOID card to even posses a firearm or even buy/own ammunition.

I wonder of the Brits care to address that situation?

I don't know much about US gun laws and don't really have an interest in being the Brit spanking boy for this particular thread, but to have a stab at answering the specific question you've asked I would have thought that most of the murders in Chicago were gang related so probably not legally owned firearms anyway. That being the case the local laws in a country without border controls are pretty irrelevant to people criminally intent on possessing firearms. That's all just a guess though.

That aside, there are too many guns in the US to ever get rid of them even if it was suddenly decided to make them all illegal so fuck it, enjoy them, the few extra deaths per annum would probably be akin to a 1mph reduction in the speed limit and no one goes ape shit about that.

 

[norton9478]

Chicago has a high murder rate. But it is far from the worst in the US.

Some of the worse cities/states have loose gun laws, some have strict ones.

City wide gun restrictions don't work very well. That is for certain.

 

[OrochiEddie]

Chicago Illinois is often the murder capital of the country, almost exclusively with firearms...and they have some of the most restrictive laws in the country...including full background checks, a post purchase waiting peroid, a list of banned firearms as long as my arm (including guns they continue to ban even though the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional) and requiring residents to carry a special FOID card to even posses a firearm or even buy/own ammunition.

I wonder of the Brits care to address that situation?

Like the Missouri data, the statement alone does not really properly address the situation. Chicago is a massive area with large spreads of diversity racially and on a SES level as well. I'd want to see where the crimes are taking place, and whether the firearms used are legally owned. My guess is that you are seeing the larger percentage of crime in the south and western areas which are notoriously unsafe and likely with unregistered firearms. Some of those areas the police barely enter or mediate because they are so dangerous and have spiraled out of control. I've met one or two people from that area, one while I was working at my jail. The stories were just crazy and you come to realize that its the wild west in some of those neighborhoods. Stricter or looser laws won't do anything. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised otherwise.

What that doesn't address is whether the strict laws are limiting gun violence in areas beyond those and if other forms of violence have elevated since those harsh restrictions.

Another issue to consider is what are the laws in the neighboring states (I.E. Indiana and Wisconsin). Looser laws in those states would make it much easier to bring in weapons into Chicago. An issue with the large fluctuation in laws between states is that the strict laws are made somewhat moot by lenient laws in nearby locations. I'd love to see data on where guns recovered from crime scenes originate from. I think that would make good sense of the bigger picture.


The biggest issue with pro/anti firearm debates is that each side cherry picks its data very carefully to represent their argument which makes proper objective conclusions very challenging. I get that we all have different philosophies and beliefs on gun ownership and that is a right we have. I'll admit that I'm personally very anti-gun, but I also understand what the 2nd amendment states and I respect it for what it is. This forum has actually done a lot in terms of enlightening me on very level headed arguments from the other side of the debate. Lagduf in particular has been a great resource on the topic. Not that I agree with him, but I have a much larger level of respect for your stance.

I'll scope in the next few weeks and see if the article comes up in my digital libraries and I'll skim through it if it does.

 

[Lagduf]

I'll be interested to see how (or if) the issuance of CCW Permits/License to Carry Concealed Weapons in IL changes crime, etc in that state.

CA is basically on the path to become a so called "shall issue" case thanks to the USCA9 decision last week by the 3 judge panel in the Peruta case which stated requiring a "good cause" to exercise bearing arms was impermissible.

The biggest issue with pro/anti firearm debates is that each side cherry picks its data very carefully to represent their argument which makes proper objective conclusions very challenging.

Yes.

I'm a member of the NRA because...they litigate. That said, they are some of the worst offenders in terms of cherry picking "facts" and lets not get started on their hyperbolic fear-mongering. Unfortunately that's how the raise money because it works (unfortunately.)

My issue with the 2nd Amendment community is that far too many gun owners simply aren't interested in the 2A as a civil right. It's a cultural thing in a lot of areas and probably is about maintaining a status quo. Not sure if that makes sense. As you know I'm interested in firearms from a mechanical and historical standpoint and the civil rights aspect.

California is an interesting place to look at in terms of gun ownership. We probably have the most diverse selection of gun owners in the nation.

 

[smokehouse]

I don't know much about US gun laws and don't really have an interest in being the Brit spanking boy for this particular thread, but to have a stab at answering the specific question you've asked I would have thought that most of the murders in Chicago were gang related so probably not legally owned firearms anyway. That being the case the local laws in a country without border controls are pretty irrelevant to people criminally intent on possessing firearms. That's all just a guess though.

That aside, there are too many guns in the US to ever get rid of them even if it was suddenly decided to make them all illegal so fuck it, enjoy them, the few extra deaths per annum would probably be akin to a 1mph reduction in the speed limit and no one goes ape shit about that.

Winnar is you.

Seriously...most firearm crimes/murders are done with illegal firearms, not legally owned firearms. This info is out there if you care to look it up.

The problem is that one nut job gets his hands on one (legally or no), goes on a shooting spree and the media wants everything banned. Statistically...those kinds of firearm deaths are almost immeasurable given the rest of the violent deaths and happen each in the US. Its just that a nice, fresh pile of dead children is way more effective for a gun grabbing politician to climb on for their next "Ban-Ban-Ban!!!" crying session rather than a ballot box.

 

[smokehouse]

Chicago has a high murder rate. But it is far from the worst in the US.

Some of the worse cities/states have loose gun laws, some have strict ones.

City wide gun restrictions don't work very well. That is for certain.

Wrong...check yo facts brotha:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...013-marks-a-historic-low-for-many-cities.html

 

[smokehouse]

Like the Missouri data, the statement alone does not really properly address the situation. Chicago is a massive area with large spreads of diversity racially and on a SES level as well. I'd want to see where the crimes are taking place, and whether the firearms used are legally owned. My guess is that you are seeing the larger percentage of crime in the south and western areas which are notoriously unsafe and likely with unregistered firearms. Some of those areas the police barely enter or mediate because they are so dangerous and have spiraled out of control. I've met one or two people from that area, one while I was working at my jail. The stories were just crazy and you come to realize that its the wild west in some of those neighborhoods. Stricter or looser laws won't do anything. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised otherwise.

What that doesn't address is whether the strict laws are limiting gun violence in areas beyond those and if other forms of violence have elevated since those harsh restrictions.

Another issue to consider is what are the laws in the neighboring states (I.E. Indiana and Wisconsin). Looser laws in those states would make it much easier to bring in weapons into Chicago. An issue with the large fluctuation in laws between states is that the strict laws are made somewhat moot by lenient laws in nearby locations. I'd love to see data on where guns recovered from crime scenes originate from. I think that would make good sense of the bigger picture.


The biggest issue with pro/anti firearm debates is that each side cherry picks its data very carefully to represent their argument which makes proper objective conclusions very challenging. I get that we all have different philosophies and beliefs on gun ownership and that is a right we have. I'll admit that I'm personally very anti-gun, but I also understand what the 2nd amendment states and I respect it for what it is. This forum has actually done a lot in terms of enlightening me on very level headed arguments from the other side of the debate. Lagduf in particular has been a great resource on the topic. Not that I agree with him, but I have a much larger level of respect for your stance.

I'll scope in the next few weeks and see if the article comes up in my digital libraries and I'll skim through it if it does.

The problem is...banning a common use/owned item never does a damn thing.

I have to go through a god-awful checklist of shit every 20 days to get me Allegra D. Why? Fucking meth heads. So...Illinois made it hard as shit to get anything with pseudo is in it...

That was a few years back?

Think meth use/sale/distribution has gone down? Not in the slightest.

We just keep banning things and it just gets worse, it blows my mind. People will reply with "well, in smokehouse-land would you make them legal?" To which is reply with "yes, 100%". Concerning drugs, the US prohibition was a prime example...ban alcohol, and the mafia steps in and crime shoots through the roof. Make it legal once more and poof...no more beer barons.

Firearm ban haven proven to be grossly ineffective and pointless. They simply do not work. Take the "Clinton ban" for example...what good did that do? None. And when it expired? Yup. No big deal, no blood in the streets.

Politicians have lost their fucking minds...as have most voters...and I'm not just speaking of firearm issues either.

I guess I look at it this way...if a person has a legal right, and someone wants to strip that right, they better have a DAMN strong case for it. Anti-firearm activists have little to no evidence to back up their lofty claims and often, it is the contrary to what they claim. Having a right, I have to prove nothing...it's a right. They should have the burden of proof that my right should not exist. So far...all of the laws they pass do little if anything outside of make law abiding citizen's lives harder.

 

[Lagduf]

Firearm ban haven proven to be grossly ineffective and pointless. They simply do not work. Take the "Clinton ban" for example...what good did that do? None. And when it expired? Yup. No big deal, no blood in the streets.

Regardless of their efficacy those bans were (and are) unconstitutional.

EDIT: In my opinion, of course

 

[smokehouse]

Regardless of their efficacy those bans were (and are) unconstitutional.

Exactly.

I am so sick of getting in that discussion with people...to the point now where I rarely speak out about it now. With Illinois being force fed concealed carry...it's been a big topic here in the state.

I finally started replying to people that would ask "why do you need a gun?" With "why do I have to explain my need for a legal right to you, who are you to question my rights?" I'll rarely say anything else, it really is pointless.

Sadly...much of the bill of rights is now on the chopping block, firearms isn't the only one being chopped to bits and skewed...

This is a sad time for America...and I really mean that.

 

[Lagduf]

Just tell them this:

"[a] citizen may not be required to offer 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

 

[Karou]

it seems they have had several other spikes as a state where they didn't follow the national trend. I doubt Firearms laws were ''loosened'' every time they have set their own trend. maybe somethig else is going on there?

edit: didn't someone here say that its a really rascist shithole? or was that some other state?

 

[evil wasabi]

little known fact is that Norton has a very large and extensive collection of firearms, but has been lobbying against the ownership of firearms so that he will not be met with resistance when the time comes for him to overthrow his shire.

 

[OrochiEddie]

it seems they have had several other spikes as a state where they didn't follow the national trend. I doubt Firearms laws were ''loosened'' every time they have set their own trend. maybe somethig else is going on there?

edit: didn't someone here say that its a really rascist shithole? or was that some other state?

Ummm... not not really. On average its followed the national trend with some variance, but not anything significant aside from 1968. The only shift is at the debated point...around 2008, where the US goes down and Missouri stays roughly the same.


By the way that graph is fucking terrible. Whoever made it should be clubbed.

 

[norton9478]

Wrong...check yo facts brotha:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...013-marks-a-historic-low-for-many-cities.html

I did check my facts.
Look at the article you quoted.

Detroit: 42/100,000
New Orleans: 42/100,000
Baltimore: 37/100,000
Memphis: 22.9/100,000
Philly: 15.9/100,000
Chicago: 15.9/100,000

And then look at cities that weren't included:
Atlanta: 17.7

Miami
Stockton
Camden, NJ
Oakland Ca

 

[Lagduf]

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Stockton!

 

[brentsg]

By the way that graph is fucking terrible. Whoever made it should be shot.

hmm

 

[OrochiEddie]

hmm

excuse you. I purposely picked a non firearm related source of pain and suffering.

 

[Lagduf]

I would absolutely rather be shot than clubbed.

Fuck blunt force trauma.

 

[norton9478]

little known fact is that Norton has a very large and extensive collection of firearms, but has been lobbying against the ownership of firearms so that he will not be met with resistance when the time comes for him to overthrow his shire.

I support the removal of all gun laws.