Maybe it's too obvious - do control laws work?

T

tatera

New member
I was reading through some of the expected implications of the overturn of DC's gun ban and how it will likely see a Supreme Court ruling (first since oft cited precedence of U.S. vs Miller 1939).

DC's attorny made a very ironic statement rebuking the DC Circuit Court's decision to the effect of "We will not stand by while our citizens die!" This was lambasted because DC has a history of suscessfully defend itself against suits by its citizens where law enforcement failed to protect them. If you're incidentally protected in the course of enforcing the law then that's a beneficial side effect of a police officer doing his duty. There is long and established court rulings to this effect so her statements were of poor taste.

All of this provoked the thought: If government officials are certain laws are effective in fighting crime, why don't they simply pass some laws making it illegal to break into people's homes or make it illegal to murder folks? If laws controlling criminal behaviour are truly effective then once they pass those laws we should see a sudden plummit in crime rates all over the country.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic but the correlation between any law an its effect on crimal activity should provide decades and decades of research material for either side attemtping to prove the expected effectiveness of gun control law on criminals.

Does anyone publish research on other control law - gun related or not? What are your thoughts on this simple logic?
 
One thing I know (and I think an excellent topic for discussion with would-be "banners") - the 2 high marks for violent crime rates in this country coincide exactly with the 2 biggest control laws - Prohibition and the War on Drugs. These bans also increased the use of those objects being banned.
 
I'm about to start up a Statistics class to wrap up my MBA and intend on doing some sort of research paper comparing crime statistics from comparable cities in states with vary levels of gun control. There are a lot of variables involved to ensure that your base numbers are valid (I've already failed this class once lol) but I'm going to try to get a high level view if gun control = lower crime rate or vice versa.
 
These bans also increased the use of those objects being banned.

You might what think that through again.
Click to expand...

OK - pretty solid on this - "The Prohibition amendment of the 1920s was ineffective because it was unenforceable, it caused the explosive growth of crime, and it increased the amount of alcohol consumption."

But I will rethink the drug issue though - results are a bit more positive, if not as cut & dry.
 
I've got a local example nearby. Nashua NH and Lowell MA

They're both similarly sized cities close on either side of the border.

Massachusetts gun laws are some of the most draconian in the nation.
New Hampshire has almost no gun laws, just CCW for a $10 fee. That's it.

Nashua has an extremely low violent crime rate, and what there is hardly ever involves firearms.
Lowell has an out of control violent crime rate, with nightly drug and gang shootings.

Convenience store clerks have successfully defended themselves with a firearm in Nashua.
In Lowell, good luck getting the right to do so...and then choosing a MA-approved gun from a small list.

Says it all to me...


Besides, simple common sense. If someone is willing to break laws regarding murder, are they going to bother with laws regarding lawful ownership of a firearm?
 
Quote:
These bans also increased the use of those objects being banned.

You might what think that through again.

OK - pretty solid on this - "The Prohibition amendment of the 1920s was ineffective because it was unenforceable, it caused the explosive growth of crime, and it increased the amount of alcohol consumption."
Click to expand...

It's not the level of consumption of either I'm concerned with; it's the level of abuse. Prohibition speak-easy culture exposed more people to binge drinking/drinking for the buzz regardless of what happened to total consumption.

I'm not sure we'll have an easy time figuring out if the war on drugs increased or decreased the number of abusers vs. recreational users.

Some parts of the WOD are okay with me, such as Nancy Reagan and Just Say No. Asset forfeiture laws tend to get me roiled up, not to mention the loss of financial privacy from related laundering laws....

It's pure hubris to think there's something special about our culturally accepted drugs alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine that make them more okay than cannabis, laudanum, etc.:rolleyes:

Random thoughts: Women's temperance Movement, MADD, Just Say No--I better stop before I type something misogynistic.....:D
 
One thing is for sure, if the Supreme court chooses to hear the case of D.C. vs Parker, it will be an interesting summer for the presidential candidates. The left side will not be able to avoid the topic.

There's beginning to be a swing on the collective vs individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment by legal scholars and a rejection of the U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruling. We'll see if the SC continues with that obvious trend.
 
tatera said:
One thing is for sure, if the Supreme court chooses to hear the case of D.C. vs Heller, it will be an interesting summer for the presidential candidates.
Click to expand...
There. I corrected it for you. - I know, I'm anal retentive.... :D
 
Rejection of socialism is what is needed, and DC v Heller will be a great step in the right direction. I'd like to see Fenty personally assessed with all of the legal costs for both sides--he has wasted our money trying to take away our rights. That should not be allowed to be.
 
Thanks Antipitas for the correction.

Some of the original coverage was "Parker", Heller being the only one of the apellents with standing in the case. A distinction made in cases like this requiring a person to actually have suffered "injury" due to the govt's actions. He was the only one denied the ability to register a firearm. Without that, they had no standing and the case would have been tossed.
 
I've got a local example nearby. Nashua NH and Lowell MA

They're both similarly sized cities close on either side of the border.
Click to expand...

Similar size (in absolute population) seems to be about all the similarity there is. Lowell appears to have roughly three times the population density. Lowell is about 15 miles closer to the Boston metro area. Lowell seems to have a median income about $16K lower, with housing prices being comparable. Depending on where you get the numbers, Lowell seems to have anywhere from double to quadruple the poverty rate.

Lowell has a significantly higher rate of unemployment, and a significantly lower rate of higher education. Lowell has over double the rate (20%+) of foreign-born residents (and no, Mexico/Latin America is not the leading contributor).

I suspect there might be more to the disparity in crime rate than just the gun laws.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to single you out...most people on both sides of this argument are often guilty of this. It's just hard to pin down whether higher crime (or lower crime) are actually a consequence of gun control laws (or a lack thereof). Too many other factors to consider, plus the fact that very few areas are geographically isolated from areas where guns are still easier to come by.

Heck, about the only place that's likely to be isolated enough to really measure such things is Hawaii; and of course then you still run into vastly different socioeconomic factors. Though, just for fun, I looked it up...it would appear at first glance that Hawaii has a lower violent crime rate than the national average, which for a city that size is pretty impressive...and they have fairly restrictive gun laws, with permits to carry nearly impossible to come by.

Know what that says? Nothing. Just like the example this post is in response to.

Besides, simple common sense. If someone is willing to break laws regarding murder, are they going to bother with laws regarding lawful ownership of a firearm?
Click to expand...

This is, of course, an excellent question.

Granted, firearms violations can in theory provide the police with an opportunity to put criminals away before they actually rob/kill anybody. The acquisition or carrying of a weapon is one more chance before the "real" crime to catch a criminal. Of course, what small improvement this may offer is only conceivably worth it if whatever regulations we're talking about have little to no affect on otherwise law abiding citizens...which you, I, and pretty much everybody else here can agree is not the case in MA, or a slew of other areas.

However, there are compelling arguments as to why the purchase of a handgun might be more heavily regulated than the purchase of a Pepsi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top