New Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ & Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide rates

[Aim1]

Second big takeaway from this study is:

“The study Spiegel oversaw also shows researchers discovered “changes in household gun ownership were not found to be significantly associated with homicide or suicide rates.” This runs 180 degrees counter to the Left’s incessant claims that a gun in the house puts the homeowner at greater risk.”




https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...nd-magazine-bans-do-not-lower-homicide-rates/

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

You’re gonna find stiff discussion re: “homicide” vs “gun violence”.

FWIW I agree. Using the old Archie Bunker discussion point it wouldn’t make a difference if by gun, hammer, or pushed outta window.

 

[danez71]

That's breitbarts spin but that's not the tone the study has.

Key Results
Universal background checks were associated with a 14.9% (95% CI, 5.2–23.6%) reduction in overall homicide rates, violent misdemeanor laws were associated with a 18.1% (95% CI, 8.1–27.1%) reduction in homicide, and “shall issue” laws were associated with a 9.0% (95% CI, 1.1–17.4%) increase in homicide. These laws were significantly associated only with firearm-related homicide rates, not non-firearm-related homicide rates. None of the other laws examined were consistently related to overall homicide or suicide rates.

Conclusions
We found a relationship between the enactment of two types of state firearm laws and reductions in homicide over time. However, further research is necessary to determine whether these associations are causal ones.

There's another part that says that restricting gun ownership lowers the homicide rate more than restricting the type of guns sold.

 

[Sistema1927]

It really wouldn't matter what any or all studies showed.

Freedom is always dangerous.

 

[BigBore44]

Only 2 things that needs to be studied is how gun restriction or banning affects the localities for which it happens. And compare that to states that have constitutional carry.

And calling crime or suicide involving firearms “gun violence” is misleading. And purposefully so. It redirects responsibility away from the individual to an inanimate object. With that logic, why don’t we just “execute” the guns the criminals use or place them in permanent purgatory, and let the criminals go free? That should fix the problem right?

 

[robinkevin]

It really wouldn't matter what any or all studies showed.

Freedom is always dangerous.

I will take dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery any day!

 

[MedWheeler]

BigBore44 writes

With that logic, why don’t we just “execute” the guns the criminals use or place them in permanent purgatory, and let the criminals go free? That should fix the problem right?

I think that concept is already in practice in a lot of jurisdictions.

 

[BigBore44]

BigBore44 writes



I think that concept is already in practice in a lot of jurisdictions.

Tongue in cheek concept. But yes, it does happen. And we see the results.

 

[JONWILL]

Everyone knows that guns aren't the issue in violent crime. People commit crime and just use guns as tools to do it.

It is the lack of parents in the home and parents who actually care and nurture their child

There will still be some bad apples but kids left to run the streets and not forced to be responsible won't do well.

 

[GEM]

This was known back in the 2000's and reported. The reasons that the AWB and mag bans didn't impact crime laws were that the existing stock of weapons and the production of weapons without the cosmetic features of the bans (and these guns had equal efficacy) more than supplied market for the guns.

The gun world responds to such findings by saying: Oh, Goody - bans don't work get rid of them.
The antigun world says - the bans are not draconian enough and must include no grandfathering and mandatory turn in.

That's the conclusions of the authors of these study. As pointed out this study was in favor of UBCs and against shall issue. Thus chortling about it is really naive.

Haven't read the study but one factor is whether the increase in deaths from shall issue areas is due to carriers committing the crimes. Overall increases are not predictive or giving any causal info.

It's like when someone says:

1. Gun world - don't ban MSSAs because Jerry Bang Bang can shoot a lever action as fast. See - video - chortle, chortle.
2. Antigun world - so ban the lever guns also. See Australia.

Naivety is a common flaw in progun arguments.

 

[herrwalther]

I will take dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery any day!

I am fairly certain I have a shirt that says that. Somewhere.

 

[FlSwampRat]

chortling about it is really naive.

I'll have you know, sir, I haven't chortled in quite some time. I have, upon occasion, laughed, chuckled, guffawed and once or twice giggled. That was, however, under the influence of helium inhalation.
Nowadays, I mostly find myself slamming my head on the countertop, tabletop or even a handy doorpost.

 

[Tommygunn]

This was known back in the 2000's and reported. The reasons that the AWB and mag bans didn't impact crime laws were that the existing stock of weapons and the production of weapons without the cosmetic features of the bans (and these guns had equal efficacy) more than supplied market for the guns.

The gun world responds to such findings by saying: Oh, Goody - bans don't work get rid of them.
The antigun world says - the bans are not draconian enough and must include no grandfathering and mandatory turn in.

That's the conclusions of the authors of these study. As pointed out this study was in favor of UBCs and against shall issue. Thus chortling about it is really naive.

Haven't read the study but one factor is whether the increase in deaths from shall issue areas is due to carriers committing the crimes. Overall increases are not predictive or giving any causal info.

It's like when someone says:

1. Gun world - don't ban MSSAs because Jerry Bang Bang can shoot a lever action as fast. See - video - chortle, chortle.
2. Antigun world - so ban the lever guns also. See Australia.

Naivety is a common flaw in progun arguments.

IMHO, naivety is a common trait on both sides of the gun argument. Antigunners are quite naive, IMO, when they claim banning guns works. The University of Chicago (A. K. A. Lott-Mustard) study concluded areas in America where guns were easier to obtain had lower murder rates than places with strict gun control.
OTOH, liberals, or antigunners, complain that places like Chicago with high murder rates are like that because other states with lax gun laws are used as sources for guns and whine these other states need harsher gun restrictions.
But those people don't seem to get it that those states with fewer gun restrictions have a lower murder rate than Chicago ..... despite their presumably higher rate of legal gun availability. Thus, we're back at the start, the "dog is chasing his tail and describing a complete circle."

 

[MedWheeler]

Tommygunn writes:

...antigunners, complain that places like Chicago with high murder rates are like that because other states with lax gun laws are used as sources for guns and whine these other states need harsher gun restrictions.

Not enough of them are asking why the guns need to travel from their "home states" to places like Chicago to be part of a problem. Why don't the guns just stay home and commit their crimes there?