Brady Center Says Obama Has Failed on Gun Control.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

USAFNoDak. Yes for simple arguments maybe. However, (I majored in criminology in college BUT am not a criminologist!) crime is a complicated thing to explain as to causation.

I think there are many factors to consider and as Double Naught has shown in other posts like here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...70&postcount=1 you will have a hard time convincing someone who knows what they are talking about concerning crime to make such a simple claim. I would tread easy and arm yourself more with real facts. More work but better for us progun folk to debate.

The graph would be a tool to use when refuting the simple argument that an increase in guns will result in, or cause, an increase in violent crime. You could easily refute that argument with a graph. I would not, as my post indicates, attempt to take the argument to the next level with a simple graph; that level being that an increase in guns necessarily results in a decrease in crime. As you note, there are too many factors involved in crime to make such a simple argument. The anti gun side has been trying to simplify the debate for decades, on the other hand. A graph showing increased gun ownership vs decreased levels in violent crime would refute their simple debating point. One could then take them to the next level and state, "crime is much too complicated to make a simple statement that more guns equals more crime". That would take the steam out of more than 80% of the anti gunners who argue on pure emotion because they hate guns. It would be pretty hard for them to build upon their argument if their opponent had a nice graph showing an increasing number of guns coinciding with, while not necessarily causing, a drop in violent crime rates.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The graph would be a tool to use when refuting the simple argument that an increase in guns will result in, or cause, an increase in violent crime.

I would still be careful. If you are comparing the overall entire US with that chart maybe. However, crime varies widely by location and legal gun ownership may not be a factor.

I am not refuting you just saying that simple answers to crime usually are....well simple. Just because the antis do it (wrongly) doesn't mean we should. I think the jury is still way out concerning causation based on the availability of guns. However, there ARE studies that show a correlation between gun availability and gun murders. But causation is what folk want to know about and that hasn't to my knowledge been shown.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

I am not refuting you just saying that simple answers to crime usually are....well simple. Just because the antis do it (wrongly) doesn't mean we should.

I'm saying that we don't do what the antis do, but we do use a simple tool to refute their simple argument. We don't argue that an increase in guns causes a decrease in crime. However, when some simpleton tells me that increased gun ownership will result in an increase in violent crime, a graph showing the opposite should pretty much stop that argument in its tracks and allow one to explain to the simpleton that crime is much too complicated to make simple statements as they have just done. The graph gives them a visual of how they are wrong in their premise.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However, when some simpleton tells me that increased gun ownership will result in an increase in violent crime, a graph showing the opposite should pretty much stop that argument in its tracks and allow one to explain to the simpleton that crime is much too complicated to make simple statements as they have just done. The graph gives them a visual of how they are wrong in their premise.

Good Luck. If he is a simpleton then what makes you think he will believe the graph you show him? The antis can show other data that says the opposite. Anyway, what I hear from the Brady types is that guns don't cause violent crime, they just make it more lethal. They admit to worldwide societal violence they just say that having lots of access to guns makes the violence more deadly. So the issue is not just violence but gun violence and if you look at the "graphs" from Dr. Hemenway concerning gun violence based on access to guns in urban areas it doesn't show what you might think. Again, simple representations of data about complicated issues is not to my way of thinking a good thing. Double Naught Spy where are you?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I wish we could get some reporter in the MSM to point out this failure of logic on the part of the Brady Center.

Do you also call for a reporter to point out the logic in the argument of More Guns Equals Less Crime as well? As near as I can tell, but sides of the argument have made unsubstantiated claims about what will or won't happen and both suffer the same fallacies of argument. So to want to see the Brady Center shot down for their argument will be also to call for the shooting down of Lott and several other pro-gun groups that believe more guns equals less crime.

As noted above, there is no causation between gun numbers, concealed carry permit, and crime rates (be they overall crime rates, violent crime rates, gun crime rates, etc.)

 

[USAFNoDak]

Double Naught Spy:

So to want to see the Brady Center shot down for their argument will be also to call for the shooting down of Lott and several other pro-gun groups that believe more guns equals less crime.

As noted above, there is no causation between gun numbers, concealed carry permit, and crime rates (be they overall crime rates, violent crime rates, gun crime rates, etc.)

Regarding your first paragraph, John Lott was shot down, stomped upon, burned in effagy, and ridiculed, by many people, including some who are pro gun rights, such as Gary Kleck. We never saw the same amount of attacks for Dr. Kellermen from the mainstream media when he tossed out his "people with guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be killed than someone who doesn't keep a gun in the home" B.S. His data was proven to be a lot less reliable than Lott's data. Kellerman later had to revise his number down to "3 times as likely" instead of "43 times as likely", but even that number is bogus. Yet, anti gun and gun-control groups still use Kellerman from time to time to bolster their arguments.

On your second paragraph, I agree, and said so. But, that also means the anti gun and gun control groups cannot make statements that more guns equal more crime. The drop in crime rates since about 1991, during an increase in gun ownership, especially since Obama was elected, disprove their theory. I would just like to have a graph in hand to demonstrate that to them.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

Anyway, what I hear from the Brady types is that guns don't cause violent crime, they just make it more lethal.

I beg to differ, especially with how the Brady types treat "assault weapons". They routinely claim that those guns cause crime and cause more police officers to be killed in the line of duty. Yet, since Obama was elected, much of the increase in gun purchases have been guns purchased which would fit the model of the what the Brady's refer to as "assault weapons".

In summary then, the number of "assault weapons", as the Brady's would classify them, has risen significantly during and drop in violent crime rates. That seems to refute one of their core arguments. However, people who may on the fence when it comes to "assault weapons", may be inclined to believe that those types of firearms are the weapon of choice for criminals, due to Hollywood and some of our politicians, such as Feinstein and Schumer. However, if they could be shown a graph which shows the increase in sales of "assault weapons" along with a decrease in violent crime rates, it may help them to second guess the Brady's and their ilk.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Regarding your first paragraph, John Lott was shot down, stomped upon, burned in effagy, and ridiculed, by many people, including some who are pro gun rights, such as Gary Kleck.

And some of that was well deserved. Especially, that Mary Rouse phony screen name he used online. We should hold our studies to the same rigor that we hold the antis. As to the antis being held accountable I believe Michael Bellesiles
(an anti-gun reseacher) got booted from Emory and had a prize rescinded as well for lack of academic integrity. So I think the scruntiny cuts both ways.

I beg to differ, especially with how the Brady types treat "assault weapons".

Well, you may differ but I have heard Paul Helmke, Dennis Henigan, and Ladd Everrett say exactly that. Everrett said it on Tom Gresham's Guntalk if you want to hear him I can send you the link.

Nevertheless your summations about crime are overly simplistic and I don't think help your argument much on gun ownership. I think the best we can hope for based on my limited readings of crime studies is that we cannot show that guns cause more or less crime. What I have read from folks like Glenn Meyer who I think does this for a living seem to agree.

The Brady's argument about "assault" weapons is that they can kill a lot of people real fast (and they can) and that they have no legitimate use for civilians (their opinion). That argument is the one I hear that tends to resonate with voters IMO. Crime rates (other than actual guns deaths) are rarely mentioned. As to the police what I hear them say is that these weapons are becoming the tool of choice for violent types like drug gangs. They offer nothing empirical to show that.

 

[USAFNoDak]

The Brady Center claims that the AWB94 was effective in protecting police officers and that being allowed to sunset has made it more dangerous for police officers because they have to again face gangs and criminals armed with "assault weapons". That doesn't seem to be the case if we look at FBI stats on police officers killed with firearms.

The first link shows police officers killed with guns before and slightly after the ban went into effect in 94.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/02leoka.pdf

Table 32.


The second link shows police officers killed with guns slightly before and after the "assault weapons" ban was allowed to expire.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_27.html

Table 27.


I don't see the same pattern which the Brady's claim exists. It looks as though there is no correlation whatsoever in the "assault weapons" ban and police killings with firearms. One note: handguns continue to be the weapon of choice for criminals who kill police officers, not "assault weapons". So, again, the Brady's attempt to use the faulty line of reasoning that more guns, in this case being "assault weapons", equals more crime. The data doesn't seem to hold water for them, however.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG

Nevertheless your summations about crime are overly simplistic and I don't think help your argument much on gun ownership. I think the best we can hope for based on my limited readings of crime studies is that we cannot show that guns cause more or less crime. What I have read from folks like Glenn Meyer who I think does this for a living seem to agree.

My summations about crime, in this particular instance, is that we cannot allow the anti gun and gun control groups to have the high ground when they say that increased gun ownership increases crime. I agree with you that we cannot show that guns cause MORE or less crime. I've been very clear that I do not attempt to make statements that more guns result in less crime. I've never said that. However, I won't let the anti gun and gun control folks get away with the reverse of that. More guns does not mean more crime anymore than more guns means less crime. There is ample proof of that when you look at the drop in crime vs. increases in gun ownership. That doesn't mean the decrease in crime is a direct result of the increase in gun ownership. But it makes the reverse argument, more guns equals more crimes, untrue.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

Well, you may differ but I have heard Paul Helmke, Dennis Henigan, and Ladd Everrett say exactly that. Everrett said it on Tom Gresham's Guntalk if you want to hear him I can send you the link.

They may very well have said that. But it's only a piece of their argument. They continually attempt to point out that the "assault weapons" ban led to increased police safety and that the expiration of same has led to decreased police safety. See my post above with numbers from the FBI. They are not simplistic and seem to prove the error in the Brady's claims.

Their claims of increased police safety with the ban vs. decreased police safety without the ban is very analogous to the claim of "more guns equals more crime". It isn't true, necessarily. We can't let them sit on that premise. Their friends in the media will carry their water for them if we don't shoot holes in their buckets.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

More guns does not mean more crime anymore than more guns means less crime.

On this we agree.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

They may very well have said that. But it's only a piece of their argument. They continually attempt to point out that the "assault weapons" ban led to increased police safety and that the expiration of same has led to decreased police safety. See my post above with numbers from the FBI. They are not simplistic and seem to prove the error in the Brady's claims.

Regarding your first paragraph, John Lott was shot down, stomped upon, burned in effagy, and ridiculed, by many people, including some who are pro gun rights, such as Gary Kleck

John Lott may have been ridiculed, but by golly folks still believe and reiterate the claim being made and they are just as wrong as the Brady Center's claims. Both sides are equally guilty of this misuse of information.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389890&highlight=crime+rate
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=373978&highlight=crime+rate
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=373988&highlight=crime+rate

Their claims are silly and we seem to keep making the same mistakes.

So if you are so worried about invalid claims being made, then you need to take a look at both sides of the argument.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Double Naught Spy:

So if you are so worried about invalid claims being made, then you need to take a look at both sides of the argument.

I agree that Lott and anyone else making a claim that more guns equals less crime is not a valid argument, and I believe I've said so, numerous times within this thread.

However, we have a mainstream media which seems to take the side of "more guns equals more crime". Would you not agree with that? Who has a broader broadcast of their message, the mainstream media, or John Lott? He is one person, vs. thousands of journalists in the print and video media. That's why I asked the question of when a reporter would question the logic of the anti gun and gun control proponents when those people trott out the "if we only had less guns we wouldn't have the violent crime problem that we do in the US" argument. If that claim is true, then by pure logic we should be seeing a significant increase in violent crime rates because gun purchases have risen. However, violent crime rates are trending downwards.

If the mainstream media was objective in their coverage of gun rights vs. gun control, I would hope to see them pointing out these two trends. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I only see pro gun rights outlets who seem to be reporting this. That's my point.

Please don't think I'm a supporter of Lott's theory or that there is any causal relationship between more guns resulting in less crime. I'm not. I believe I've explicitly stated so.

My beef is that the anti gun and gun control groups, bolstered by their friends in the media, do not seem to be questioned on their premise that more guns results in more crimes, even when there is data which would seem to disprove that premise.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Double Naught Spy:

John Lott may have been ridiculed, but by golly folks still believe and reiterate the claim being made and they are just as wrong as the Brady Center's claims. Both sides are equally guilty of this misuse of information.

I agree. However, who gets the affirmation of the mainstream media, John Lott or the Brady Center? That's where my issue exists. The misuse of the information is much more widespread on the side of "more guns equals more crime" than on the side of "more guns equals less crime". Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However, who gets the affirmation of the mainstream media, John Lott or the Brady Center?

I think most on TFL would say that the mainstream media tends to be anti-gun and so yes the Brady Center gets quoted more often by them. However, within the gun world and that includes the NRA and TFL, John Lott is a demi-god. So, to answer where I see you going, both ideas are wrong.

Therefore, if your purpose in using the simplistic chart is simply to take the issue of guns being causational to violent crime either good or bad off the debating table then fine and I would go along with that.

I watched a debate with Gary Kleck and someone from the audience asked him "if guns make us safer, and we have so many why do we have so many murders?" and he answered that the issue of crime is multifacted and no one factor could answer that question. That is why I do not favor the use of simplistic "bumper sticker" approaches to understanding our violent crime problem in the USA.

 

[firespectrum]

Coincidence? I think not...

When I opened the link my browser froze up and I had to restart my computer. There must have been an offensive BS overload... I knew I liked Firefox for a reason

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG

I think most on TFL would say that the mainstream media tends to be anti-gun and so yes the Brady Center gets quoted more often by them. However, within the gun world and that includes the NRA and TFL, John Lott is a demi-god. So, to answer where I see you going, both ideas are wrong.

As I stated in one of my recent posts above, it is incorrect to say that more guns equals less crime. I agree with you. However, the MSM has much broader reach in our society than the NRA, John Lott, and TFL, combined. They take the opposite approach, which is also wrong. Yes, we need to police our side. Who is going to police their side, other than us?

Therefore, if your purpose in using the simplistic chart is simply to take the issue of guns being causational to violent crime either good or bad off the debating table then fine and I would go along with that.

I believe that has been my point all along, so I thank you for your willingness to agree on that point. We are, for the most part, on the same side, TG.

I watched a debate with Gary Kleck and someone from the audience asked him "if guns make us safer, and we have so many why do we have so many murders?" and he answered that the issue of crime is multifacted and no one factor could answer that question. That is why I do not favor the use of simplistic "bumper sticker" approaches to understanding our violent crime problem in the USA.

I agree 100% with you and Mr. Kleck on the fact that crime has so many factors it is unreasonable and illogical to point to one factor and say "See, that's why we have such high crime rates". That's what bothers me about the Brady Center and their friends in the MSM getting away with "more guns equals more crime" with no one seeming to question it other than pro gun rights groups which don't get anywhere near the coverage in the MSM that gun control groups get.

I do not favor using simplistic "bumper sticker" approaches to understanding our violent crime rates. I'd like to force the anti gun and gun control side to move away from their "bumper sticker" approach regarding "more guns equals more crime". A graph which seems to refute that claim would help someone from our side to claim just what you and Kleck have been saying. That is, you cannot make such a simple claim about guns vs. crime. The graph would be a way to change the debate towards trying to figure out why our violent crime rates are so high. This would be done by exploring more demographics than just the amount of guns in the US.

Unfortunately, the MSM consistently runs with the "more guns equals more crime" bumper sticker claims from groups such as the Brady Center. If the MSM were as objective as you and I are, they'd be looking into other issues regarding crime. At the very least they'd question their own premise by looking into the fact that gun purchases have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing in the USA.

That would not help their own agenda, which, as you've agreed, tends to be for more gun control. The reason for that agenda may truly be a belief on their part that more guns equals more crime. If so, how do we change that belief?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The reason for that agenda may truly be a belief on their part that more guns indeed equals more crime.

I think for the most part they do believe it. And using a defective logic it rings true. If there were no guns there would be no gun crime. However, as I said the logic is defective because there are guns and there will always be guns in any foreseeable future I can imagine. Same same for violent crime, see Cain and Abel.

If so, how do we change that belief?

That is a question that would require a long answer. However, what we do not want to do is what folk often do who oppose one another's position. That is, mirror-image. Junk science is junk science whether it is pro or anti-gun. I would use real science to refute junk science, not junk to junk.

Absolutely we should question and oppose anti-gun junk science. But let's do it thoughtfully and with objective means. That is my point.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG

Absolutely we should question and oppose anti-gun junk science. But let's do it thoughtfully and with objective means. That is my point.

I believe it's my point as well. One tool we can use to cause thoughtful and objective engagement by people who have been misled by the anti-gun-junk-science argument (more guns = more crime) is a visual tool (ie, graph) to show that the premise (more guns = more crime) is not necessarily valid. Then we move to where you, Kleck, and I want to go. We begin the discussion regarding the multifaceted issue of violent crime. If we can do that, we've scored big time. The anti's will be forced to scramble for a new "bumper sticker" talking point.