Brady Bill 1994, did it have an effect on crime?

[Zoogster]

Pilman, that list is misleading and as I explained follows a cultural pattern, which then was countered with a rise in authoritarian practices and restrictions.

That list could just as easily be misused to show that murders were actualy declining prior to the 1986 machinegun ban. Then they began to rise steadily afterwards.

It would be just as untrue as blaming 'assault rifles' which were used in very few crimes. Most crimes then were commited with easily concealed handguns. Most of those handguns were stolen, just like they are now. That is backed by solid evidence.
So the effects of the restrictive Brady programs had little impact.
None of that really matter though in the context of our Republic.

Freedom is freedom.
I don't think many of us could argue with the fact that Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and other extremely authoritarian regimes had less crime. They were less free, and the people had an obedient, subservient, attitude to all authority. Individual rights were not important, effeciency and obedience was. People that were the victims of government, or of the thugs that did prey on someone were helpless. Does that make it better because there was fewer non governmental predators and crime commited? Nazi Germany had one of the lowest crime rates, certainly far lower than current Germany. Was it better? (The Japanese people still have the same obedient subservient values they did in Imperial Japan. Not a free place, without privacy or a due process we would agree with but certainly low in crime.)


So what?
Freedom is not free. Governments have killed and been a greater danger to people throughout history than the average thugs ever were.
In the 20th century alone governments killed more of thier own civilian citizens than all thug like criminals combined for all documented human history. Many in the most advanced nations of the time, the type of places such things could 'never happen'.

Why are some people so rabidly opposed to the type of weapons not often present in crimes, and jumping at the chance to point out any time such a weapon is involved?
Combat capable arms suitable for facing infantry are scary to those individuals who wish to control a people, unless they are only in the possession of those that will always support those individuals.
Well armed Americans loyal the the beliefs of the founders are a threat to those individuals in control that desire something that contradicts the founding fathers, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

It has little to do with controlling predatory thugs and everything to do with controlling the people in general, even if at some point those people disagree.

Combat capable arms in the hands of the people are supposed to be extremely dangerous. It would not provide much deterent or balance if they were not.

The intent of the founding fathers was to insure liberty survived, not have the best statistics. Many horrible regimes have created much better crime statistics than we ever will. It is part of being a free diverse people.

 

[Thernlund]

You know... if you check the stats you'll find that since I was born Phoenix, Arizona has seen a steady increase in popultion.

Coincidence? Hardly.


-T.

 

[Drgong]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics

The simple fact is that all crime has been going down since the early 1990's, with a slight bump in the last two years due to economic factors.

For example, lets take Burgury, a crime that is in no way related to assult weapions in any way. They follow the same path as the murder numbers.

The fact is that when economic times are good, there is less crime, and when times are bad, there is worse numbers, and we had a amazing run with the economy in the last say, 20 years (really 30 years.)

these are the burgury numbers since 1990.

3,073,900
3,157,200
2,979,900
2,834,800
2,712,800
2,593,800
2,506,400
2,460,526
2,329,950
2,100,739
2,050,992
2,116,531
2,151,252
2,154,834
2,144,446
2,155,448
2,183,746

 

[PILMAN]

His response to me

"What are the effects on the murder rates, robbery rates, and violent crimes rates during and after its implementation?

I don't think you guys are smart enough to understand there are direct and indirect effects of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle Ban.

All you guys want to know are the direct effects. All you guys want to know are the direct effects.

Obviously the indirect effects of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle Ban is so significant that it was much much more successful than anyone would have predicted. A 10% to 20% drop would have been great. But we were getting a 30% to 50% drop.

More successful than anyone would have imagine. The 30% to 50% drop in violent crimes, murder rate, and robbery is a great measure as to how successful the indirect effects of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle Ban was.

You guys are just too shortsighted to seen beyond point A in order to get to point B.


High gas prices

Direct Effect - less driving
Indirect Effect - a drop in car accident deaths"

"I'm just going to accept the fact that none of you have real world encounter using a gun for self-defense in the US.

I'm just going to accept the fact that none of you can explain why there is such a big drop in violent crime rates, murder rates, and robbery rates when the Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban went into effect in 1994.

All I get is rhetorical and hypothetical BS with no real world data and results to back up that BS.

I'm done with this thread."

 

[Thernlund]

I'm just going to accept the fact that none of you can explain why there is such a big drop in violent crime rates, murder rates, and robbery rates when the Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban went into effect in 1994.

Wait a minute... if the AWB had an effect, but the violent crime rate was already in decline before the ban took effect, would not the decline suddenly be more pronounced when it did take effect?

It wasn't. As such, it would seem that the AWB had no effect either way.

Did I mention my birth and the population of Phoenix? That was a direct effect folks. Not indirect.


-T.

 

[PILMAN]

response by another anti-gunner

"Until the constitution is changed to outlaw guns, (and it might need to be) I don't see people changing their minds. You can have people on the right support the constitution when it suits their needs, then call it a "******* piece of paper!" when it doesn't.

Sometimes I think more people in the United States use the constitution when they want, than the bible. Using something as a tool to only suit you... imho is wrong."

The threads turned into 17 pages of mayhem.

 

[Thernlund]

All this controversy, so little time.

Ho-hum.

Using something as a tool to only suit you... imho is wrong.

That's why I treat all my guns to dinner and a movie at least once a month. It's not just about me, you know.

-T.

 

[rugerman07]

Did it have an effect on crime? Yeah,....negative!

 

[benEzra]

How does he claim it decreased crime if it INCREASED the number of "assault weapons" sold annually (which it did)?

Does he believe that "assault weapons" in private hands reduce crime?

 

[PILMAN]

Guys I showed him the study "Would banning guns reduce murder and suicide" and he's created a new thread with the following, need some support here what to reply with.

What he wrote:

"Pro-gun advocates who don't want any form of gun control will repeat the same lies and rhetoric over and over again.

1. They say there is no correlation between gun control and murder rates.

They will use the study by Don B. Kates & Gary Mauser study: Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence.


My response:
Proving correlation between the murder rate and gun ownership in Europe is irrelevant, unless you are proving the effects of gun control on each nation individually.

Showing Luxembourg, a nation with total gun control, has 9 times the murder rate of Austria and Germany is irrelevant unless you can show that crime increase or decrease significantly after the gun ban.

If the study has showed a positive correlation between European nations with stricter gun control and higher murder rate, does that mean stricter gun control leads to higher murder rates? Not necessarily. It could mean that European nations with higher murder rate to begin with, tends to implement stricter gun controls in order to deal with the problem because it works.

However, the study show no correlation. But I say, the correlation wouldn't tell us much, unless you are doing a study on each European nation individually, and the murder rates before and after gun control went into effect.



2. They would say Luxembourg, a nation with total gun ban, has 9 times the murder rate of Austria and Germany. 9 TIMES. Dramatic, isn't it?

Again, citing the study by Don B. Kates & Gary Mauser study: Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence.


My Response:

That is false.

Not only did cherry pick European nations, they cherry pick the murder rates from different years.

Not only did they cherry pick murder rates from different years, they got the Luxembourg murder rate wrong.

Not only was the Luxembourg murder rate wrong, it was off by... a factor of 10 times.

Come on "Professors" Don B. Kates & Gary Mauser. If you are doing an exhaustive study on firearms and murder rates, you have to make sure you have the murder rates right or at least close to the actual numbers. Always check at least two sources. Otherwise your whole study falls apart and make yourself look stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

Numbers check out with the UN reports.

In 2000, the murder rate for Luxembourg is on 0.23

2002 murder rates

Luxembourg 0.9 (Not 9.0!!!)

Germany 1.11
Austria 0.80
United States 5.52


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders


to be continue....

3. Gun control don't work in the US. Banning guns won't stop criminals from getting guns. An armed society is a polite society. If you ban guns only criminals will have guns.


My response:

Sorry, but gun control does work. Banning Assault Rifle does work. Real world results speak for itself. Your rhetoric does not.


The Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban went into effect in 1994. See the effect it has on violent crimes, murders, and robbery. All their rates drop dramatically from 1994 to 2004, ranging from 30% to 50% across the US.

Washington DC Murder Rate

1991 80.6
1992 75.25
1993 78.5
1994 70.0
1995 65.0
1996 73.1
1997 56.9
1998 49.7
1999 46.4
2000 41.8
2001 40.3
2002 46.4
2003 44.7
2004 35.7
2005 33.5
2005 29.1


Arkansas Murder rate
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/arcrime.htm

1991 11.1
1992 10.8
1993 10.2
1994 12.0
1995 10.4
1996 8.7
1997 9.9
1998 7.9
1999 5.6
2000 6.3
2001 5.5
2002 5.2
2003 6.6
2004 6.4
2005 6.8
2006 7.3


Texas Murder rate
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

1991 15.3
1992 12.7
1993 11.9
1994 11.0
1995 9.0
1996 7.7
1997 6.8
1998 6.8
1999 6.1
2000 5.9
2001 6.2
2002 6.0
2003 6.4
2004 6.1
2005 6.1
2006 5.9


New York

1994 11.1
2000 5.0
2004 4.6

California

1993 13.1
1994 11.8
2000 6.0
2004 6.7


Louisiana

1994 19.8
1995 17.0
2004 12.7

Florida
1993 8.9
1994 8.3
2000 5.3
2004 5.4


US Murder rate

1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.5
1993 9.0
1994 8.2
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
2000 5.5
2004 5.5
2005 5.6

4. They would say the Brady Bill would not work and had no impact on gun homicides.

They would rely on the comments of Philip J. Cook.

"Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "

"Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."


My Response:
Trend started in 1993? Really? So what happen in 1993 that cause this trend? President Clinton becoming president and pass gun control law in 1993?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Violent                Murder            Robbery
        Crime                Rate            Rate
1990      729.6                9.4                256.3
1991     758.2                 9.8             272.7
1992     757.7                9.3             263.7
1993     747.1 (down 1%, > 1990)        9.5 (increase, > 1990)     256.0 (down 3%, ~1990)
1994     713.6 (down 5%)         9.0 (down 5%)    237.8 (down 7%)
1995     684.5 (down 4%)         8.2 (down 9%)    220.9 (down 7%)
1996     636.6 (down 7%)     7.4 (down 10%)    201.9 (down 9%)

A statewide gun ban has very little impact on murder rates and homicide rates on the state, while a nationwide gun control and assault rifle ban had a significant impact on every state. That is why control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed
National wide gun control works much better than state-wide gun control.


Here is what Cook said in 1993, before the Brady Bill went into effect.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6DF103FF936A2575BC0A965958260&sec=&spon=



Murder rate dropped by more the 42% from 1993 to 2004. The Brady Bill was much much more successful than Cook had anticipated.

Wow Cook. Cook is so wrong and trying to save face by saying it has nothing to do with the Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban.

Dr. Cook puts a different gloss on the same sobering truth: "In these areas of social control there is only so much you can do. You would have to accept a 10 percent reduction in violent crime as a great victory.


10% reduction in violent crime a great victory.

Wow, then the Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban was a huge success, beyond all expectations.

Violent crime dropped 48% from 1993 to 2004."

 

[Drgong]

ALL crime, including Crimes that have no relation to gun ownership (such as Burglery) declined in the 1990's, and thus you cannot say "Gun Control stopped burgleries".

Crime drop off was due to the good economy and demogrpahic shifts in the united states.

 

[jad0110]

Originally Posted by The liberal from someplace else
I'm just going to accept the fact that none of you can explain why there is such a big drop in violent crime rates, murder rates, and robbery rates when the Brady Bill and Assault Rifle Ban went into effect in 1994.

Tell him it dropped because that's when state concealed carry laws started spreading across the country like wildfire! I love it when these antigunners claim that allowing CCW will cause old west style shootouts in the streets, and then they turn around and say the AWB of '94 worked because murder rates fell. The hole in his argument is big enough to sail a Nimitz class aircraft carrier through.

In the end, I prefer not to argue with statistics. It's too easy for an anti to claim that the stats are made up, or manipulated in some fasion. Ask him this: If eeeeevil black rifles were banned (supposedly banned - which as others pointed out, sales during this period actually increased) why wouldn't those intent on murder just pick up an any other rifle, pistol or shotgun available off the street? Or heck, why not any other tool? Does he actually believe that a would be murderous thug would say to himself "Gee, I would really like to kill ______. But since I can't use a high-powered, evil assault rifle, I guess I'll just watch Wheel of Fortune instead "???

 

[another okie]

Just as a little comment and leaving aside the main topics here, Luxembourg does not have total gun control. I don't know why both the NRA and the Brady group say it does, but it's not true no matter how many people say it.

It is not that hard to own a gun in Luxembourg. There are gun collectors and active shooters. If you will google gun ranges and gun shops in Luxembourg you will find them. Of course, you will have to do it in French. A few people also will claim there is a total handgun ban, which is also untrue. Anyone making either of those claims should do a little more research, and we should be wary of their claims.

Here is a link to the luxembourg shooter's association.

http://www.fltas.lu/

Notice that they have pistol shooting clubs! Obviously there is no handgun ban. In the past I have looked at the statutes, which basically require a license and registration for ownership of almost any kind of weapon.

Here's where the NRA erroneously claims there is a total ban. I notified them of it months ago. It's still there.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

 

[Zoogster]

How does he claim it decreased crime if it INCREASED the number of "assault weapons" sold annually

That is a funny angle I had not thought of, but I have seen the number of sales.
The number of the same type of weapons without bayonet lugs and flash hiders being sold increased significantly after the passage of the AWB.
Many people not previously into such weapons wanted one after the attention the legislation brought. ARs and AKs went from being firearms some had to becoming the most common rifles in America.

So the Ban actualy increased the number that were owned by Americans.

It is not that hard to own a gun in Luxembourg. There are gun collectors and active shooters. If you will google gun ranges and gun shops in Luxembourg you will find them.

Most nations in the world have some level of gun ownership. What made America different and unique is that it was a guaranteed unrestricted right that could not be infringed on, and the purpose for it.
In most of the world people can jump through hoops, belong to a club, pass a background check, pay a fee, and own some type of weapon for limited purposes.

They don't have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the purpose of resisting all oppression and tyranny foriegn and domestic set forth by thier founders in defense of liberty. A right that essentialy spells out that restrictions defeat the intent (and why it shall not be "infringed") and that very capable arms are necessary to create that effective capability and deterent.

They have the privilege to enjoy recreation involving some arms at the discretion of thier government if they meet certain requirements.

These are very different things, and do not simply equate to 'the ability to own a gun.'

 

[another okie]

I didn't say it was easy. In fact I said there was a lot of paperwork and regulation. I didn't say it was a right of the people. I just said that folks who say there's a ban are wrong. Are you disagreeing with that? I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The point came up in a discussion of crime rates in which Luxembourg was offered as a country with a firearms ban that still had firearms crime. It's untrue. Leave me out of your statistical discussion.