Missouri gun murders 'rose after law repeal'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mrkramer, Feb 17, 2014.

  1. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #1
    I found this article to be interesting and provide another good reason to require stronger background checks for guns. The results here are unsurprising, but it is interesting to see an actual study on this rather than just anecdotal evidence. I'll be curious as to how some of our pro gun people try to spin this...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    I couldn't get your link to work at first, so I looked around for alternatives hoping to find the actual study of something more direct.

    I did find written testimony by Daniel W. Webster, Professor and Director of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research [who appears to be the author of the upcoming study] that was presented before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday February 12, 2013.

    If you have the time and inclination, read the full text where he later cites evidence to refute the following claims ...

    • We don’t need to pass new gun laws, we just need to enforce current ones.
    • Requiring background checks for all firearms sales is too great of a burden to gun purchasers to justify.
    • Proposed universal background checks would allow the federal government to create a registry of gun owners.
    • Limits on assault weapons and large capacity magazines would not enhance public safety.ould allow the federal government to create a registry of gun owners.
    • “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
     
  3. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #3
    Believers will read, non-believers will scoff.

    Continue.
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    This issue is shaping up like Global Warming, where science and data keeps piling up on one side, while the other side gets further and further marginalized to the fringe.

    But that will be a long and painful process.

    And right now, science does not hold the day.
     
  5. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #5
    "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." - Someone or other
     
  6. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #6
    No. The issue is that firearm ownership is written in our constitution and it's the line between that and public safety concerns that needs to be carefully towed.

    Making analogies of gun ownership and global warming doesn't make sense...
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    how DARE you say such things, well said BTW.:)

    ----------

    1. agreed
    2 I don't see it that way, I kind of like having a BG check for BOTH private & store sales
    3 not sure on this one
    4 seems like a 2 part deal, banning the large capacity mags is stupid as there are millions of them already out there, it turns people who LEGALLY owned them into criminals for no reason.
    5. no, but you do have a better chance of doing so .
     
  8. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #8
    Interesting, the study doesn't mention a reason for the spike from 2004 to 2005. When the permit-to-purchase law was in effect.

    Year - firearms murders - total murders
    2001 - 236/395
    2002 - 232/348
    2003 - 204/327
    2004 - 232/351
    2005 - 307/445
    2006 - 260/367
    2007 - 259/384
    2008 - 345/477
    2009 - 287/416
    2010 - 321/432
    2011 - 325/429

    Missouri Highway Patrol
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Here's why it's exactly like Global Warming.

    In both GW and firearms there are deniers who refuse to accept the science that is exposing the problem and thwarting any effort to find a solution.

    In both cases acknowledging the scientifically-established truth should be the easiest thing to do. The hard part is figuring out how to implement a solution.

    Yet in both we are still mired in getting the deniers to simply admit something is true.

    If this only involved fringe members of society they could be easily ignored and worked around. But with both GW and firearms, these deniers are pervasive in society and include top-level politicians who forestall any effort to alleviate the problem while clinging to unscientific falsehoods to drive the debate.

    That is how Global Warming and firearms are the same.
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    For the more analytical than the average gun advocate, I recommend the following paper on the origins of the 2nd Amendment, and the role that Patrick Henry, in particular, had in forcing the issue.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

    Although some of Patrick Henry's most famous early speeches were not recorded word-for-word, before the revolution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry#American_Revolution

    So, although, with no context, the 2nd Amendment is very ambiguous, by reading the history of the 2nd Amendment we see that the motivation was directly and indirectly slavery: fear that the Federal Government would abolish slavery (this was a real possibility in the early days) and, that the Federal Government would restrict the rights of states to control slaves, suppress slave rebellions and force slaves to return to their slaveowners. A rather sad history, don't you think? And, a tenuous one upon which to base the "right" to individually own an AR-15.
     
  11. chown33, Feb 17, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2014

    chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #11
    There are two spikes: one in 2005, and another in 2008. Take those out and the graphs look very different.

    Below are some graphs for those numbers.

    Here's the data, as used in Google Chart Playground:
    Code:
    function drawVisualization() {
      // Some raw data (not necessarily accurate)
      var data = google.visualization.arrayToDataTable([
        ['Year',   'Gun Murders', 'All Murders', 'Non-gun Murders'],
        ['2001',    236,      395,      395-236 ],
        ['2002',    232,      348,      348-232 ],
        ['2003',    204,      327,      327-204 ],
        ['2004',    232,      351,      351-232 ],
        ['2005',    307,      445,      445-307 ],
        ['2006',    260,      367,      367-260 ],
        ['2007',    259,      384,      384-259 ],
        ['2008',    345,      477,      477-345 ],
        ['2009',    287,      416,      416-287 ],
        ['2010',    321,      432,      432-321 ],
        ['2011',    325,      429,      429-325 ],
      ]);
    
      // Create and draw the visualization.
      var ac = new google.visualization.LineChart(document.getElementById('visualization'));
      ac.draw(data, {
        title : 'Missouri Murders',
        isStacked: false,
        width: 600,
        height: 400,
        vAxis: {title: "Deaths"},
        hAxis: {title: "Year"}
      });
    }
    ​
    There's basically an initial decline, then a steady rise in gun murders from 2003 onwards, with two distinct spikes.

    The steady rise is essentially the same before and after 2007, not counting the two spikes, and ignoring the initial decline. There is one spike before the repeal and one after.

    Even with the spikes and initial declines, the gun-murder trend is clearly upward, and the non-gun murder trend is clearly flat to downward.

    The non-gun murder numbers are calculated by subtracting the posted values. It's relatively flat compared to the rising gun-murders line.

    I say "initial decline" only to describe the provided data points. I don't have the date when Missouri's permit-to-purchase law went into effect, so I have no correlation between the first data point in 2001 and the presence or absence of that law.

    These are the posted murder counts and not per-capita murder rates. If population increases over the same time period, then the gun-murders line would be a gun-murder rate per capita, and will be flattened.

    I have done nothing to account for any other correlations, such as changes in policing level, incarceration level, etc. Those factors are accounted for in the to-be-published article:
    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.​

    Finally, I used the numbers exactly as posted. I didn't check them against the linked source data.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. mrkramer thread starter macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    I haven't had a chance to track down the actual study as opposed to just reading articles reporting on it, but my guess would be that those spikes might coincide with a general rise in crime rather than just one in firearms murders.
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    For guns recovered either at crime scenes or from perpetrators, it would be easy to determine the dates of purchase.

    As a for instance, what if the firearms of the spike years had been acquired a year or six before? Absent that sort of knowledge, one can draw most any conclusion which fits one's agenda.

    Another unanswered question is whether or not the crime guns were or were not legally acquired.

    Federal testimony before Congress has stated that somewhere around 86% of all crime guns were illegally acquired. Another ten percent or so were legally acquired, but many months and even years before use in a crime. At best, there is then the uncontrolled "other means of acquisition" of some four percent.

    Then you have those states where only federal laws exist as to purchase, other than minimum age. These seem to have somewhere between less and no-more-than the gun-crime rates of high-control states like New York, California or Illinois.
     
  14. mrkramer thread starter macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    Your questions were already answered earlier in the thread, look at post #2 for the source of these quotes,

    And as for your comment about how guns are acquired for use in crime.

    Feel free to cite sources that refute this...
     

Share This Page