DC gun law Effect
Robert L. Ray
I have taken the liberty to respond to Paul Barnett's post from
"clear the air on gun debate" in this new folder, since the original
author of the "clear the air" folder does not with it cluttered
up with what he calls (statistics).
For those who don't know, we are debating a 1991 article from the
New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Effects of Restrictive
Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District
of Columbia." by Colin Loftin, phd et al.
It showed a dramatic and long lasting (11 years) drop in firearm related
homicides and suicides following DC's 1976 passage of its gun ordinance.
Paul Barnett wrote (re: the DC gun law effect):
> How do you explain the abrupt drop, if it was indeed related to the
> availability of handguns? Did all those illegal handguns simply
> disappear?
RR: Obviously not. What happened, I believe, is that massive publicity
due to the city's huge homicide rate and to the city council's attempt
to pass this law resulted in extra-ordinary political pressure on the
city police to put a lid on crime quick. This effect could have taken
place even as the law was being debated.
The other thing is, the law was instant. Unlike the Brady Bill,
it did not depend on the quantity of New gun buyers building over time.
Quite simply, it promised 10 days in jail and a $300 fine for anyone caught
with an unregistered handgun. And all handguns had to be registered within
60 days.
> Since the trend started downward 2 years earlier (in 1974),
> I would suspect jitter in the data, since the sample size is relatively
> small.
RR: The "trend" did not start in 1974. If you look carefully at the data,
you will see fluxuations in homicides throughout the study's 20 year period
(1968-1988). There were peaks before the law passed in 1969, 1972 and
in 1974. There were lesser peaks in homicides in the middle of 1975 and
in the beginning of 1976. So until the law actually was passed, those
peaks (and the resulting valleys) were merely random fluxuations.
I can prove this with a graph and explanation. What Loftin's group did,
of course, was average the monthly homicides for
the 8 years before the law passed, with the average for the 12 years
after the law passed. They saw a 25% drop in homicides. On an
abbreviated graph it would look something like this... with the *'s
being yearly total homicides:
+ (1974)
+ * +
+ * +
+ -------------- * ----------+
+ * / | +
+ / | * +
+ / | + post-law avg
+ pre-law avg 25% + / *
+ drop + /
+ | + * /
+ | +---------------*-----------------
+ + * *
+ +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1972 1976 1981
RR: This graph shows a pre-law avg (1st horizontal line) and
a post-law avg (last horizontal line). It also shows the
25% drop between them (the partial "|" vertical line).
And it shows (in the middle) a vertical line of crosses denoting when
the gun law was passed (1976).
Now, you are correct that if you just look at the yearly
homicide totals (the "*"'s) you could assume that the drop
in homicides began in 1974. But this would be wrong. What you
must do is use the monthly data, which I have done, and compute yearly
averages AS IF the vertical 1976 line were moved back toward 1974.
What you will find is that the difference between the pre and
post average lines is the BIGGEST right at 1976. That's right. Even
if you move the vertical cross (+) line backyards to 1975 or to
1974, the difference between the averages (25% in 1976) gets smaller.
It also gets smaller if you move the vertical line forward in time.
Thus, the biggest average drop in homicides throughout the 1972-1981 period
which I plotted occurred right in 1976, when the law was passed.
What this does is show that the 1974 peak in firearm homicides, and
the slow drop for the next year and a half afterwards, was well within
the random fluxuations seen before the law was passed.
> * Why didn't they exclude justifiable and excusable homicides?
RR: Probably because the number of them were too low to break out
statistically. Loftin's group doesn't address your particular
question, but he does say that "unintentional deaths and deaths caused
by firearms in which the intent was unknown were excluded because the
monthly frequency was too low for meaningful analysis."
> * Why didn't they consider the demographic differences between
> their control group and their measured group?
RR: There were three control groups. 1) non-firearm homicides in the
suburbs 2) firearm homicides in the suburbs and 3) non-firearm homicides
in D.C.
First, some of those suburbs have very poor areas of town... and some
of Washington D.C.'s neighborhoods are very rich. So I don't know that
you'd have all that much of a democraphic difference anyway. But,
regardless of that, the study measures changes before 1976 and after
1976. The suburbs didn't change. Washington's firearm-related homicide
totals did change. Demographic changes, like population, could not have
affected such an immediate drop as occurred.
And most importantly, the third "control" group, was non-firearm homicides
in D.C. Thus you had one control group that was D.C. itself, with the exact same
demographics as the target group (firearm homicides in D.C.). And still,
the conclusion was true. Thus, demographics would not explain the results.
David Golden
I think both of you are missing some keys points here:
1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
which contradicted their conclusion!
2) There is no reason to believe that the DC hand gun ban -- just
because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels. The experience
with gun bans in other parts of the US indicates a compliance level
of around 10-20%, from what I've read in this news group. Even a
good liberal like Carl Rowen ignores the law and tries to plug
some kids frolicking in his swimming pool.
3) During the period that this study covered, there were dramatically
different demographics in the Washington DC area, between the core
area and the suburbs.
Enturbulated
In <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>, dgo...@netcom.com (David Golden) writes:
>I think both of you are missing some keys points here:
>
>1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
>that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
>which contradicted their conclusion!
1) They explained why they exclude the data since the cocaine crack
problems lead to a rapid increase in homicides 12 years later (even the NRA
agrees with this conclusion)
2) they included 10 years before and 10 years after the ban
"Loftin e.a. use interrupted time-series analysis of 20 years of data, 10
years of data preceding and 10 years of data following the 1976 Washington DC
gun ban. They show using interrupted time-series analysis that there is an
abrupt drop in homicides and suicides in Washington DC, coinciding with the
implementation of the DC gun ban law."
>2) There is no reason to believe that the DC hand gun ban -- just
>because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels. The experience
>with gun bans in other parts of the US indicates a compliance level
>of around 10-20%, from what I've read in this news group. Even a
>good liberal like Carl Rowen ignores the law and tries to plug
>some kids frolicking in his swimming pool.
The law requires that registrants keep firearms unloaded and
disassembled or locked up except while they are being used for lawful
recreational purposes or when they are kept at a place of business.
The penalty originally specified for violation of the law was 10 days
in jail and a $300 fine. It was increased to one year in jail and a
$1,000 fine in March 1981.
>3) During the period that this study covered, there were dramatically
>different demographics in the Washington DC area, between the core
>area and the suburbs.
What do you mean ? They controlled for population changes
check out http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/loftin.html
Regards
Pim
---Annoy a fool, ask him to back up his beliefs with facts---
"An enemy may be deprived of property, lied to, tricked, sued
or destroyed by any means" L Ron Hubbard--Fair Game Policy,
"If guns are outlawed, how can we shoot liberals?"
Mississippi State Senator Mike Gunn running for Congress
http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta : Crime research info
Robert L. Ray
David Golden wrote:
> 1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
> that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
> which contradicted their conclusion!
RR: Nope. I got the study right in front of me. You are wrong.
> 2) There is no reason to believe that the DC hand gun ban -- just
> because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels.
RR: There's no evidence that it didn't. But the sudden drop in homicides
is strong inference, at least, that those who retained their guns, legally
or illegally, decided to refrain from using them.
> 3) During the period that this study covered, there were dramatically
> different demographics in the Washington DC area, between the core
> area and the suburbs.
RR: Such as? Even if there were, one of the control groups, as I mentioned,
was Washington D.C. itself. Why didn't you respond to that part of my
post?
Nosy
<In article <32601A...@interaccess.com> "Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
David Golden wrote:
< > 2) There is no reason to believe that the DC hand gun ban -- just
< > because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels.
< RR: There's no evidence that it didn't. But the sudden drop in homicides
< is strong inference, at least, that those who retained their guns, legally
< or illegally, decided to refrain from using them.
I see, so correlation is causation?
Does wet pavement cause rain to fall from the clouds above?
Julius Chang
>>1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
>>that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
>>which contradicted their conclusion!
>
>1) They explained why they exclude the data since the cocaine crack
>problems lead to a rapid increase in homicides 12 years later (even the NRA
>agrees with this conclusion)
So instead of actually including the data, analyzing it,
and then coming to some conclusion as to why the DC murder
rates skyrocketed, the authors simply assumed that it
wasn't valid data. Talk about a biased piece of research.
They basically ignored data that didn't happen to fit their
initial biases about gun control.
-Julius
Steve D. Fischer
In article <Dz6oq...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>, dgo...@netcom.com (David Golden) writes:
>>I think both of you are missing some keys points here:
>>1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
>>that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
>>which contradicted their conclusion!
>1) They explained why they exclude the data since the cocaine crack
>problems lead to a rapid increase in homicides 12 years later (even the
> NRA agrees with this conclusion)
Of course, if you exclude data which makes your case look bad,
you'll get the result you desire. :-)
The theory behind the law was obvious. Like the laws prohibiting
the possession of illegal drugs, the DC gun law was supposed to scare
potential lawbreakers into eschewing the use of guns or face dire con-
sequences as a result. It was not dependent upon the easy availability
or lack of availablility of guns. It was dependent upon the fear of
being caught and put in jail, or of having extra years tacked onto a
sentence for the crime committed using the gun. Hence, it wasn't sup-
posed to matter that you could steal guns, buy them in another state, or
buy them off the DC black market. The law enough was supposed to deter
the use of a gun. In that regard, it failed miserably during the crack
invasion. People just didn't care that gun possession was illegal.
Steve
Robert L. Ray
Steve D. Fischer wrote:
>
> The theory behind the law was obvious. Like the laws prohibiting
> the possession of illegal drugs, the DC gun law was supposed to scare
> potential lawbreakers into eschewing the use of guns or face dire con-
> sequences as a result. It was not dependent upon the easy availability
> or lack of availablility of guns. It was dependent upon the fear of
> being caught and put in jail, or of having extra years tacked onto a
> sentence for the crime committed using the gun.
RR: How can you say this, given the D.C. gun law's penalty? It certainly
wouldn't scare a criminal away from using a handgun. Perhaps you don't
even know what the penalty is, and are just guessing.
Enturbulated
In article , str...@crl.com says...
>
>In article <Dz6oq...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>In <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>, dgo...@netcom.com (David Golden) writes:
>>>I think both of you are missing some keys points here:
>>>1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
>>>that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
>>>which contradicted their conclusion!
>>1) They explained why they exclude the data since the cocaine crack
>>problems lead to a rapid increase in homicides 12 years later (even the
>> NRA agrees with this conclusion)
> Of course, if you exclude data which makes your case look bad,
>you'll get the result you desire. :-)
The reasons for excluding the data are two fold. First of all the
study used 20 years of data centered around the law. Second homicide
rates increased quickly 12 years later due to 'crack' cocaine trade.
>buy them off the DC black market. The law enough was supposed to deter
>the use of a gun. In that regard, it failed miserably during the crack
>invasion. People just didn't care that gun possession was illegal.
That it did not prevent the crack invasion does not mean that there
was no abrupt drop following the law in homicide rates in DC.
To blame the gun ban for the crack epidemic is plain silly.
Steve D. Fischer
In article <Dz8LI...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>>
>>In article <Dz6oq...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>In <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>, dgo...@netcom.com (David Golden) writes:
>>>>I think both of you are missing some keys points here:
>
>>>>1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
>>>>that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
>>>>which contradicted their conclusion!
>
>>>1) They explained why they exclude the data since the cocaine crack
>>>problems lead to a rapid increase in homicides 12 years later (even the
>>> NRA agrees with this conclusion)
>
>> Of course, if you exclude data which makes your case look bad,
>>you'll get the result you desire. :-)
>
> The reasons for excluding the data are two fold. First of all the
> study used 20 years of data centered around the law. Second homicide
> rates increased quickly 12 years later due to 'crack' cocaine trade.
>
>>buy them off the DC black market. The law enough was supposed to deter
>>the use of a gun. In that regard, it failed miserably during the crack
>>invasion. People just didn't care that gun possession was illegal.
>
>That it did not prevent the crack invasion does not mean that there
>was no abrupt drop following the law in homicide rates in DC.
>To blame the gun ban for the crack epidemic is plain silly.
>Pim
Well, that's a great big *D'UH* for you, Pim. What a strawman.
The claim was OBVIOUSLY *NOT* that the gun ban was responsible for the
crack epidemic, but that the gun ban did NOTHING to prevent the slaughter
which accompanied it.
Steve
Eric Williams
In a previous post, Robert L. Ray (ki...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: David Golden wrote:
: > 1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
: > that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
: > which contradicted their conclusion!
: RR: Nope. I got the study right in front of me. You are wrong.
: > 2) There is no reason to believe that the DC hand gun ban -- just
: > because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels.
: RR: There's no evidence that it didn't. But the sudden drop in homicides
: is strong inference, at least, that those who retained their guns, legally
: or illegally, decided to refrain from using them.
Only if you assume the point that you're setting out to
prove, i.e. that gun ownership leads to increased crime.
--
Eric Williams | wd6...@netcom.com | WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
"The information superhighway is a revolution that in years to come will
transcend newspapers, radio, and television as an information source.
Therefore, I think this is the time to put some restrictions on it."
-- Sen. James Exon (D-Neb.)
Steve D. Fischer
In article <ATAYLOR.96...@gauss.nmsu.edu>,
Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
><In article <32601A...@interaccess.com> "Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
> David Golden wrote:
>< > because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels.
>
>< RR: There's no evidence that it didn't. But the sudden drop in homicides
>< is strong inference, at least, that those who retained their guns, legally
>< or illegally, decided to refrain from using them.
>
>
> Does wet pavement cause rain to fall from the clouds above?
I'm betting that what really happened is that with all the hoopla
surrounding the new law, the cops were real gung-ho the first few years
after the ban and indulged themselves in rousting the street riff-raff
for guns, causing fewer of them to carry, until it was realized that
(a) The gun charges were by and large being dropped, and (b) the cops
lost their fervor for enforcing the law.
Steve D. Fischer
In article <32601A...@interaccess.com>,
Robert L. Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>David Golden wrote:
>> 1) This is junk science -- the authors admitted in the conclusion
>> that they excluded several years of the most recent data available
>> which contradicted their conclusion!
>
>RR: Nope. I got the study right in front of me. You are wrong.
>
>> because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels.
>
>RR: There's no evidence that it didn't. But the sudden drop in homicides
>is strong inference, at least, that those who retained their guns, legally
>or illegally, decided to refrain from using them.
Not necessarily. As with any new law, the zeal to enforce it is
greatest just after passage. It makes more sense to me that what
really happened was that cops went out and rousted the street riff-raff
and word got around to be careful when you're carrying a piece with you.
The Kansas City experiment showed that pretty conclusively. It was most
effective with young people. As time passed and it was realized that
the cops weren't getting prosecutions for carrying (plea bargains, lack
of jail space) guns and the zeal to enforce that law waned. Then came
the crack cocaine epidemic, and the need for guns to enforce territorial
disputes overcame any fear of the gun law.
>> 3) During the period that this study covered, there were dramatically
>> different demographics in the Washington DC area, between the core
>> area and the suburbs.
>RR: Such as? Even if there were, one of the control groups, as I mentioned,
>was Washington D.C. itself. Why didn't you respond to that part of my
>post?
How can you use a hotbed of crime undergoing demographic changes
(white flight, mostly) as a control group for anything?
Robert L. Ray
Steve D. Fischer wrote:
> >> 3) During the period that this study covered, there were dramatically
> >> different demographics in the Washington DC area, between the core
> >> area and the suburbs.
>
> >RR: Such as? Even if there were, one of the control groups, as I mentioned,
> >was Washington D.C. itself. Why didn't you respond to that part of my
> >post?
>
> How can you use a hotbed of crime undergoing demographic changes
> (white flight, mostly) as a control group for anything?
You don't understand what a control group is. In this case, one
of Loftin's control groups was non-firearm related homicides in
Washington D.C. Now, if the drop in firearm related homicides were
not connected to the gun law, then that drop in homicides also would
show up in similar drops in knife-homicide and other types of homicide.
Afterall, the populations would have been exactly the same.
But, what really happened was there was a drop in firearm related homicide
in Washington (-25%), but NO significant drop in non-firearm related
homicide (-4%) in Washington.
But using the same population base, Loftin cleverly factors out all
confounding sources of the gun-related homicide drop, except for the gun
law.
Robert L. Ray
Steve D. Fischer wrote:
>
> I'm betting that what really happened is that with all the hoopla
> surrounding the new law, the cops were real gung-ho the first few years
> after the ban and indulged themselves in rousting the street riff-raff
> for guns, causing fewer of them to carry, until it was realized that
> (a) The gun charges were by and large being dropped, and (b) the cops
> lost their fervor for enforcing the law.
RR: Of course, the law and the enforcement of the law must go hand in hand.
If you are correct, however, it only means that Enforced gun laws DO
reduce homicide. Something I totally agree with.
Sam A. Kersh
ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>>...............deletions.....................
>>buy them off the DC black market. The law enough was supposed to deter
>>the use of a gun. In that regard, it failed miserably during the crack
>>invasion. People just didn't care that gun possession was illegal.
>
>That it did not prevent the crack invasion does not mean that there
>was no abrupt drop following the law in homicide rates in DC.
>To blame the gun ban for the crack epidemic is plain silly.
>
>Regards
>
>Pim
>
>
Pim would have you believe that an abrupt and temporary drop in
homicides in D.C. were the result of D.C.'s draconian gun ban but
continues to deny that firearms training in Orlando reduced rapes;
firearms training in Kansas City reduced commercial robberies; and
mandatory firearms ownership in Kennesaw reduced residential burglary.
Lets see if we have this correct, gun control works and gun ownership
fails. Hmmmm, Professors Lott, Kleck, Sauter, Blackmon, etc would not
agree with you.
Sam A. Kersh
sa...@i-link.net
NRA Life Member
TSRA
===============================================================
If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.
Note: in off-seasons, substitute "fishing" for "hunting"
Robert L. Ray
Matthew T. Russotto wrote re: loftin study:
>
> Better check that study again. It's such a complete piece of
> unmitigated garbage that it constitutes an effective litmus test -- no
> reasonably honest and intelligent person would support that study,
> only a dedicated anti-gunner would. As such, making any guesses
> about what the reason for the effects of the new law are is premature
> -- no one has shown it had any.
RR: It's easy to throw darts. Much harder to present reasoned arguements and
facts. Next time, let's see some basis for your wild claims.
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <53ukib$l...@crl3.crl.com>, Steve D. Fischer <str...@crl.com> wrote:
}In article <ATAYLOR.96...@gauss.nmsu.edu>,
}Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
}><In article <32601A...@interaccess.com> "Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
}> David Golden wrote:
}>< > because it is law -- actually changed ownership levels.
}>
}>< RR: There's no evidence that it didn't. But the sudden drop in homicides
}>< is strong inference, at least, that those who retained their guns, legally
}>< or illegally, decided to refrain from using them.
}>
}>
}> Does wet pavement cause rain to fall from the clouds above?
}
}surrounding the new law, the cops were real gung-ho the first few years
}after the ban and indulged themselves in rousting the street riff-raff
}for guns, causing fewer of them to carry, until it was realized that
}(a) The gun charges were by and large being dropped, and (b) the cops
}lost their fervor for enforcing the law.
Better check that study again. It's such a complete piece of
unmitigated garbage that it constitutes an effective litmus test -- no
reasonably honest and intelligent person would support that study,
only a dedicated anti-gunner would. As such, making any guesses
about what the reason for the effects of the new law are is premature
-- no one has shown it had any.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <326456...@interaccess.com>,
}>
}> unmitigated garbage that it constitutes an effective litmus test -- no
}> reasonably honest and intelligent person would support that study,
}> only a dedicated anti-gunner would. As such, making any guesses
}> about what the reason for the effects of the new law are is premature
}> -- no one has shown it had any.
}
}facts. Next time, let's see some basis for your wild claims.
I have. Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. The flaws range
from the glaringly obvious, like the use of "rates" which are not
per-capita and the careful choosing of study years to avoid DC's high
homicide in the late '80s to the slightly less obvious, like the use
of statistical tests which look impressive but actually demonstrate nothing.
Robert L. Ray
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. The flaws range
> from the glaringly obvious, like the use of "rates" which are not
> per-capita and the careful choosing of study years to avoid DC's high
> homicide in the late '80s to the slightly less obvious, like the use
> of statistical tests which look impressive but actually demonstrate nothing.
RR: Reasoned arguments would have great effect on me. Unfortunately, your
arguments have been reasonably rejected, by the authors themselves, and by
my previous post which showed a dramatic decrease in "per-capita" homicide
after the gun law passed.
The authors rejected the population arguement in a different way, by
including Washington D.C. itself as a control group. Common sense
denies your argument when the statistics show a dramatic and immediate
drop in homicides, something that a population loss could not explain,
unless someone dropped a nuclear device on Washington in the summer
of 1776.
And the years chosen for the study were decided upon long before
the crack cocaine invasion lifted the homicide rates. Of course
I've explained all this before, but instead of moving this alone and
answering me, you've chosen to repeat the same old NRA complaints.
By not addressing my responses, your's is the argument that soon
becomes antiquated, and unreasonable.
Oh, and BTW, exactly what was wrong with Loftin's "statistical
tests?" How about giving us a .... "reason"....
ygrenyS
"Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. The flaws range
>> from the glaringly obvious, like the use of "rates" which are not
>> per-capita and the careful choosing of study years to avoid DC's high
>> homicide in the late '80s to the slightly less obvious, like the use
>> of statistical tests which look impressive but actually demonstrate nothing.
>RR: Reasoned arguments would have great effect on me. Unfortunately, your
>arguments have been reasonably rejected, by the authors themselves, and by
>my previous post which showed a dramatic decrease in "per-capita" homicide
>after the gun law passed.
Nonsense! DC became the Murder Capital of the U.S. only *after*
the gun ban disarmed the innocent and made DC's streets safer for
violent criminals. DC's per capital murder rates are *much* higher now than
they were before DC's draconian gun ban rendered ordinary citizens
defenseless against violent criminals who simply ignore such laws anyway.
> The authors rejected the population arguement in a different way, by
>including Washington D.C. itself as a control group. Common sense
>denies your argument when the statistics show a dramatic and immediate
>drop in homicides, something that a population loss could not explain,
>unless someone dropped a nuclear device on Washington in the summer
>of 1776.
The real statistcs show no dramatic drop in homicide rates in DC--quite
the opposite is true. DC's homicide rates skyrocketed after the
gun ban was implemented--which is what one would expect when victims
are disarmed and predators aren't.
--
<sig>
Annoy a Fascist: Just say NO! to gun control.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look
upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"Government doesn't work."
-- Harry Browne, Libertarian Presidential Candidate
</sig>
Enturbulated
In <326396d1...@news.i-link.net>, sa...@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) writes:
>ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>
>>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>Pim would have you believe that an abrupt and temporary drop in
>homicides in D.C. were the result of D.C.'s draconian gun ban but
>continues to deny that firearms training in Orlando reduced rapes;
>firearms training in Kansas City reduced commercial robberies; and
>mandatory firearms ownership in Kennesaw reduced residential burglary.
Indeed, since the changes in DC were statistically SIGNIFICANT and the
changes in Orlando, Kansas City, and Kennesaw were NOT. But maybe you can
show us the statistical significance of these drops Sam ?
http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/sam_home.html :For a background to this
discussion.
>Lets see if we have this correct, gun control works and gun ownership
>fails. Hmmmm, Professors Lott, Kleck, Sauter, Blackmon, etc would not
>agree with you.
Sauter and Blackmon ? I assume you mean Suter and Blackman, both known
for their 'impartial' and unbiased research ?
http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/suter.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/blackman.html
Enturbulated
In <53tmns$1...@crl11.crl.com>, str...@crl.com (Steve D. Fischer) writes:
>In article <Dz8LI...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>>That it did not prevent the crack invasion does not mean that there
>>was no abrupt drop following the law in homicide rates in DC.
>>To blame the gun ban for the crack epidemic is plain silly.
> Well, that's a great big *D'UH* for you, Pim. What a strawman.
>The claim was OBVIOUSLY *NOT* that the gun ban was responsible for the
>crack epidemic, but that the gun ban did NOTHING to prevent the slaughter
>which accompanied it.
And why would it ?
Enturbulated
In <542skf$7...@wanda.vf.pond.com>, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <326456...@interaccess.com>,
>Robert L. Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>}Matthew T. Russotto wrote re: loftin study:
>}>
>}> Better check that study again. It's such a complete piece of
>}> unmitigated garbage that it constitutes an effective litmus test -- no
>}> reasonably honest and intelligent person would support that study,
>}> only a dedicated anti-gunner would. As such, making any guesses
>}> about what the reason for the effects of the new law are is premature
>}> -- no one has shown it had any.
>}
>}RR: It's easy to throw darts. Much harder to present reasoned arguements and
>}facts. Next time, let's see some basis for your wild claims.
>
>from the glaringly obvious, like the use of "rates" which are not
>per-capita and the careful choosing of study years to avoid DC's high
But they did study per capita rates as well as raw data.
>homicide in the late '80s to the slightly less obvious, like the use
>of statistical tests which look impressive but actually demonstrate nothing.
The issue was the effect of the gun law, not the effect of the crack
cocaine trade,
Robert L. Ray
ygrenyS wrote:
> The real statistcs show no dramatic drop in homicide rates in DC--quite
> the opposite is true. DC's homicide rates skyrocketed after the
> gun ban was implemented--which is what one would expect when victims
> are disarmed and predators aren't.
>
RR: What real statistics? The stats I've given here are from the Loftin
study and from the FBI. Where are your so-called statistics? Frankly
Greny, it appears you are into heavy Denial, big time.
Robert L. Ray
John Payson wrote:
> After the gun laws passed, the number of murders stayed about the same,
> despite a fall in population (ergo, the murder rate went up).
RR: This is simply not true. I've got the study right in front of me.
The drop in murders was immediate and substantial. And the per-capita
figures that I've printed bear that out. Didn't you read them?
How can you possibly argue otherwise? Where are you getting your
misinformation? Are you just repeating something from American Rifleman?
Robert L. Ray
> >of Loftin's control groups was non-firearm related homicides in
> >Washington D.C. Now, if the drop in firearm related homicides were
> >not connected to the gun law, then that drop in homicides also would
> >show up in similar drops in knife-homicide and other types of homicide.
> > Afterall, the populations would have been exactly the same.
> >But, what really happened was there was a drop in firearm related homicide
> >in Washington (-25%), but NO significant drop in non-firearm related
> >homicide (-4%) in Washington.
> > But using the same population base, Loftin cleverly factors out all
> >confounding sources of the gun-related homicide drop, except for the gun
> >law.
Payson wrote:
> It's you and Loftin who don't understand what a control group is (or else
> Loftin does and doesn't care). A control group is one which is UNAFFECTED
> by the experimental stimulus; Loftin has done nothing to prove that non-
> firearm homicides would be unaffected by the gun control laws.
RR: OK, if you don't believe his D.C. control group was UNaffected by
the gun control law, it's up to you to explain why. And your
explanation would have to show that the gun law would in some way
"decrease" the number of murders by knives or bats (in order to show
the gun ban didn't artificially lower gun homicides).
But common sense alone tells us that IF there were an effect, it would
be to "increase" non-firearm murders. That's because criminals who couldn't
get guns might substitute knives and still commit the killings. Yet the Loftin
study did not show this effect. Therefore the control group was not affected
by the gun law.
> In particular, his data are quite consistent with the following hypotheses:
>
> -H1- As a result of the DC firearms laws, many criminals who would have
> used firearms to kill someone used knives, hands/feet, or other
> weapons to kill people. This raised the so-called "control" group
> rate above what it would otherwise have been.
RR: But the Loftin study shows just the opposite. The real data are
not consistent with your hypothesis. The non-firearm murder
rate dropped too, although insignificant statistically. Have you seen
the study?
> -H2- As a result of the civilian gun ban, criminals may have become more
> willing to use deadly attacks on their targets (200lb criminal going
> after 100lb senior citizen is a safer contest for the criminal if
> both are unarmed than if both are armed).
RR: Once again this theoretical effect would have "raised" the level of
homicides, when in reality, homicides went down.
Got anymore Red Herrings?
John Payson
In article <32657F...@interaccess.com>,
>including Washington D.C. itself as a control group. Common sense
>denies your argument when the statistics show a dramatic and immediate
>drop in homicides, something that a population loss could not explain,
>unless someone dropped a nuclear device on Washington in the summer
>of 1776.
After the gun laws passed, the number of murders stayed about the same,
despite a fall in population (ergo, the murder rate went up). Although
the ratio of firearm homicides to other homicides decreased, and this
decrease may well have been a result of the firearms laws, it's not at
all clear whether this was in any way _useful_. If outlawing guns results
in 100 fewer people being fatally shot per year and 150 more people being
fatally stabbed (some of whom would have been shot; others of whom would
have defended themselves with firearms) in what sense is this really a
good thing?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal aussi beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )
John Payson
In article <326308...@interaccess.com>,
>of Loftin's control groups was non-firearm related homicides in
>Washington D.C. Now, if the drop in firearm related homicides were
>not connected to the gun law, then that drop in homicides also would
>show up in similar drops in knife-homicide and other types of homicide.
> Afterall, the populations would have been exactly the same.
>But, what really happened was there was a drop in firearm related homicide
>in Washington (-25%), but NO significant drop in non-firearm related
>homicide (-4%) in Washington.
> But using the same population base, Loftin cleverly factors out all
>confounding sources of the gun-related homicide drop, except for the gun
>law.
It's you and Loftin who don't understand what a control group is (or else
Loftin does and doesn't care). A control group is one which is UNAFFECTED
by the experimental stimulus; Loftin has done nothing to prove that non-
firearm homicides would be unaffected by the gun control laws.
In particular, his data are quite consistent with the following hypotheses:
-H1- As a result of the DC firearms laws, many criminals who would have
used firearms to kill someone used knives, hands/feet, or other
weapons to kill people. This raised the so-called "control" group
rate above what it would otherwise have been.
-H2- As a result of the civilian gun ban, criminals may have become more
willing to use deadly attacks on their targets (200lb criminal going
after 100lb senior citizen is a safer contest for the criminal if
both are unarmed than if both are armed).
Nosy
< Matthew T. Russotto wrote re: loftin study:
< >
< > Better check that study again. It's such a complete piece of
< > unmitigated garbage that it constitutes an effective litmus test -- no
< > reasonably honest and intelligent person would support that study,
< > only a dedicated anti-gunner would. As such, making any guesses
< > about what the reason for the effects of the new law are is premature
< > -- no one has shown it had any.
< RR: It's easy to throw darts. Much harder to present reasoned arguements and
< facts. Next time, let's see some basis for your wild claims.
This canard of a study has been shown to be rubbish time
and time again.
We need not expend effort typing new text, when previous
versions will suffice.
I'll be looking forward to Ray's reply to the following text,
and his refutation of the sources footnoted therin.
Enjoy....
=============================================================================
From: "Edgar A. Suter" <su...@crl.com>
*************************************************************************
* Edgar A. Suter, MD su...@crl.com *
* Chair, DIRPP Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy *
*************************************************************************
The draconian Washington DC 1976-77 gun law is often inaccurately described
as a gun ban. In fact, the law was primarily a _handgun freeze_ since
existent _registered_ guns were grandfathered (the law also includes
certain stringent storage requirements even of long arms). Since new
handgun acquisitions are banned, it is understandable that some might
casually, but inaccurately, describe the law as a "ban." The freeze was
enacted in October 1976 and became effective in February 1977.
Critics of Loftin's article noted that the Washington DC homicide rates
_began_ a _gradual_ fall in 1974, two years before the DC gun freeze.
After this observation was called to Loftin's attention, Loftin responded,
but did not test that _actual_ "alternative hypothesis" of a _gradual_
decline _beginning _two_ years before the gun freeze. Instead Loftin
tested a "straw man" hypothesis, a hypothesis proposed by no one [except
Loftin], that there was an _abrupt_ decline _at_ (not "beginning") in
January 1974, almost _three_ years before the ban became effective. Loftin
claimed that publicity and discussion about the gun freeze _proposal_ might
have caused a reduction in violence even before its passage.
Since the 1976-77 law was a freeze, not a ban and confiscation, there is no
reason to expect an _abrupt_ drop. It is difficult to envision any
plausible reason for an abrupt drop (Did DC's predators suddenly get
religion and comply with the restrictions in anticipation even before
passage of the law? Were they so scared that the law _might_ be passed
that they stopped killing each other? Possible, but implausible.).
_If_ any effect were to be noticed, it would be expected to be _gradual_,
if and as the number of guns changed either downward by attrition
(grandfathered guns leave DC as the owner moves, guns become unserviceable
and unable to be replaced, etc.) or upward from the introduction of new
guns (because the law has and had no effect on the steady introduction of
new guns through illegal gun running). Loftin claims to have shown an
_abrupt_ change at November 1976, _after_ the law, but _before_ its
enactment. A gradual change is expected, but Loftin claimed to have
demonstrated an _abrupt_ change coinciding nearly exactly with enactment of
the gun freeze. There is no plausible epidemiological or other explanation
for an _abrupt_ change. Since the abrupt change violates the "rule of
biological plausibility," we have _another_ reason to be skeptical of
Loftin's claim.
The ARIMA (Automated Regressive Integrated Moving Average) method used by
Loftin generates some interesting statistical artefacts. These artefacts
allowed Loftin to contrive the appearance of a drop when no drop occurred.
In their grant proposal to CDC (to obtain tax money to subvert our civil
rights) for the DC study, Loftin discussed the ARIMA method. To
demonstrate the method, Loftin analyzed IBM stock prices during a period of
fluctuation. His "results" showed that the IBM stock fell. Statistical
models have their strengths and their weaknesses. If a statistical test
generates a result that is at variance with the primary [observed] data
collected, the statistical result is suspect. If a statistical method
makes an increase appear to be a decrease, one must explain how this could
be so. Either the primary data collection is at fault (e.g. someone did
not correctly count or enter the primary data points) or the statistical
method is at fault (e.g. computational error, the method is being
misapplied).
In the case of the Loftin article, the problem lies not with the primary
data count (nobody miscounted the _number_ of DC deaths), but with the
hypothesis, the statistical model, and/or the application of the model. As
I said in an earlier post on this subject, no statistical method turns
"black" into "white." The ARIMA analysis does not undercut the observation
the homicide rates increased every year between 1976 and 1991 (except
1985).
Numerous additional problems exist with Loftin's methods. Kleck, Cowan,
and many others have used Loftin's method to "test" a variety of
hypothetical intervention dates. Any number of random dates ("random" in
the sense that these dates do not coincide with any chronological landmarks
of the DC gun freeze) obtain the same results, an _abrupt_ "fall" in the
_number_ of homicides. Any number of dates _before and after_ the law can
be "shown" [by ARIMA artefact] to be points of _abrupt_ fall in homicide
raw numbers.
If Loftin and Mr. Van Meurs claim that _one_ of those dates of abrupt fall
- specifically the November 1976 date - was due to the gun freeze, how do
they explain the _other_ abrupt falls on _other_ random dates? "Other
causes," is the usual answer given by Loftin and his supporters --- which
is EXACTLY my point. "Other causes" explain the random date drops, "other
causes" explain the apparent drop noted by Loftin, AND "other causes"
explain the INCREASES as well AND the _apparent_ "drop" is a statistical
artefact, a spurious claim. Q.E.D.
Another problem: Loftin's method works only if you use the National Center
for Health Statistics (NCHS) data. His method fails to show a "drop" if one
uses FBI data. Why not? NCHS data does not cull out _justifiable_
homicides. Even though FBI data undercounts justifiable homicides (FBI
Uniform Crime Reports data are based on the _preliminary_ impression of the
investigating officer and suggest about 2% of homicides are justifiable. On
final analysis, about _20%_ of homicides are adjudicated as justifiable)
that small difference is enough to cause Loftin's entire analysis to
collapse. It is a bitter irony that the protective uses of guns,
justifiable homicides, provide the increment of data that allows a spurious
statistical contrivance to suggest that eliminating private gun ownership
is desirable.
Another problem: Loftin and his supporters pretend that the predominantly
white, affluent suburbs of Washington DC (that had a 25% INCREASE in
population) are an appropriate control group for overwhelmingly black,
impoverished, crack-infested urban Washington DC inner city (that had a 20%
DECREASE in population). A more appropriate control would have been a
demographically similar urban area, such as Baltimore MD.
Another problem: The population shifts (DC's decrease and the suburbs'
increase) exaggerate Loftin's ARIMA artefact.
Another problem: If one expands the baseline period (e.g. 10 years before
the law compared with 10 years after the law), Loftin's method fails to
demonstrate a drop. If you wish to invoke "other causes," I will happily
agree AND I will note that "other causes" also account for the drop
beginning two years _before_ the law AND "other causes" explain Loftin's
contrived abrupt "drop."
Bottom line: No statistical legerdemain can obscure the real world
observation that following Washington DC's 1976 gun freeze, DC's homicide
rates ROSE from 26.9 per 100,000 in 1976 to 80.6 per 100,000 in 1991. The
homicide rate rose in EVERY year between 1976 and 1991 except for 1985.
Whether the homicide rate increased _despite_ the law (the "other causes"
explanation) or _due to_ the law (by gradually disarming the victims), I
cannot say. I can say that, regardless of what reasons one may invoke,
homicide rates _inceased_ following_ the DC gun freeze to the _highest
levels _of _any jurisdiction_ at _any time_ in this nation. No rational
person can find any scientific support whatsoever for "gun control" in
these observations.
Criticism in the _medical literature_ of Loftin's article includes the
length-limited letters in New England Journal of Medicine (Letters.
"Effects of Restrictive Handgun Laws." NEJM. 1992; 326(17): 1157-61.) and
my article in JMAG (Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of
Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994;
83; 133-48.). The most detailed refutation of Loftin's statistical
contrivance, however, is Kleck's presentation to the American Society of
Criminology (Kleck G. "Interrupted Time Series Designs: Time for a
Reevaluation." a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology
annual meeting. New Orleans, LA. November 5, 1992.). The paper addresses
not only the basic conceptual problems of Loftin's article, but exposes
Loftin's methodological and statistical contrivance in meticulous detail.
"Hand waving"? "proof by assertion"? I don't think so. Let the readers
decide for themselves whether or not Loftin is competent and convincing.
The articles and criticism are readily available to those interested.
The relevant excerpt from my JMAG article summarizes:
Foretelling the future - gun prohibitionists and criminals share a crystal
ball...
Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, and Cottey TJ. "Effects of Restrictive
Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia."
N. Engl J Med 1991; 325:1615-20.
methodological and conceptual errors:
*** the apparent, temporary, and minuscule homicide drop occurred 2 years
before the Washington DC law took effect
*** the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et al.
has been invalidated
*** the study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates -
not correcting for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the
study period or for the 25% increase in the control population -
exaggerating the authors' misinterpretations
*** the study conveniently stopped as Washington, DC's overall homicide
rate skyrocketed to 8 times the national average and the Black, male, teen
homicide rate skyrocketed to 22 times the national average
*** used a drastically dissimilar demographic group as control
*** the authors virtually failed to discuss the role of complicating
factors such as the crack cocaine trade and criminal justice operations
during the study period
Loftin et al. attempted to show that Washington, DC's 1976 ban on new gun
sales decreased murder.[1] Loftin and his co-authors, using tax money,
produced "research" with several negating flaws that were ignored or
overlooked by "peer review" and the editorial board of the New England
Journal of Medicine - perhaps a corollary of the editor's
no-data-are-needed[2] policy.
Not only has the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et
al. has been invalidated,[3] but the temporary and minuscule homicide drop
began during 1974, 2 years before the gun law - How could the law, even
before its proposal, be responsible for the drop? Since homicidal maniacs
and criminals could not clairvoyantly anticipate the law, other causalities
should have been considered. The authors, however, side-stepped the
question and dismissed non-gun causalities without any analysis
whatsoever.
The study conveniently stopped as the Washington, DC homicide rate
skyrocketed. If the gun freeze law, which has not changed, were responsible
for the homicide drop, we would expect the "drop" to continue. If the
"guns-cause-murder" theory is valid and if the gun freeze were effective,
as "grandfathered" guns leave circulation (owner moves, dies, guns become
unserviceable, etc.), the homicide rate should drop steadily. Quite the
opposite is observed. The 1976 Washington, DC homicide rate before the law
was 26.9 (derived from population[4] and homicide[5] statistics) and then
tripled to 80.6 by 1991[6] despite or due to the law;
Justifiable and excusable homicides, including those by police officers,
were treated the same as murders and were not excluded from the study. The
study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates. This did not
correct for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the study
period or for the 25% increase in the control population - exaggerating the
authors' misinterpretation. The study used the adjacent suburbs as a
control group, an area with demographics drastically different from the
study group.
The authors examined and allowed only a single cause interpretation - guns
are to blame. They offhandedly discarded any other possible explanation.
They specifically ignored the role of the crack cocaine trade, FBI stolen
property and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms illegal weapon sting
operations in progress during the study, and measures instituted during the
study period that improved the efficiency of the Washington DC court
system. They generally ignored the role of poverty and myriad other factors
related to criminal violence.
Homicide has declined for every segment of American society except teenage
and young adult inner-city residents. The Black teenage male homicide rate
in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000,[7] yet less than 7 per 100,000 for
rural, middle-aged white men,[8] the US group for whom gun ownership has the
highest prevalence.[9] If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why
does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase" source of all those illegal
Washington, DC guns, not have a murder rate comparable to DC?
[According to the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1993: Virginia's
homicide rate is 8.3, Washington DC's is 78.5] The"guns-cause-violence"
theory founders.
Even in their responses to criticism,[10] the authors' intransigent bias is
evident. Their position? If a drop in murder is discovered (or
statistically contrived), gun control must receive the credit, but when
attention was drawn to the failures of gun control and their study design,
the skyrocketing murder rate must be credited to "other causes." Shall we
examine gun control as science or religion? It appears that the faith of
true believers is unshakable heedless of data and the scientific method.
[1] Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, and Cottey TJ. "Effects of
Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District
of Columbia." N. Engl J Med 1991; 325:1615-20.
[2] Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 326:1159-60.
[3] Kleck G. "Interrupted Time Series Designs: Time for a Reevaluation."
a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology annual meeting.
New Orleans, LA. November 5, 1992.
[4] US Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the US. - 96th.
Edition. 1976. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
[5] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1976. 1977.
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
[6] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991. 1992
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
[7] Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide Among Black
Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties: Comparison of Death Rates in Two
Periods, 1983 through 1985 and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8.
[8] Hammett M, Powell KE, O'Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide
Surveillance - United States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May
29,1992.
[9] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter. 1991.
[10] Loftin C et al. Correspondence. New England Journal of Medicine.
1992; 326:1159-60.
alan miles
>
> After the gun laws passed, the number of murders stayed about the same,
> despite a fall in population (ergo, the murder rate went up).
I'm sure this is getting very boring to regular readers. DC has gun
strict gun control. It's neighbor, Virginia, doesn't. External crime
factors have changed too. Therefore NONE of us can generalize about the
efficacy of gun control across the world based on the experience of DC.
Yet so many of you thoughtless zealous do so. You really seem smarter
than that. No?
These arguments are so dull.
James F. Mayer
In <amiles-1810...@amiles.port.net> ami...@interport.net (alan
Yes, they are, and the gun-control proponents constantly and
continuously blame the surrounding area for the gun crime and the
availibility of guns on that situation.
Why don't you proponents of gun-control quit bringing it up then
the rest of us won't have to counter your fantasies with facts?
--
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of
its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose
creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take
measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency
may suggest and prudence justify. #33
Dole/Kemp for President & VP in '96 Mark Sharpe for Congress
KE4MVU KOH 0767
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <32657F...@interaccess.com>,
}
}> Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. The flaws range
}> from the glaringly obvious, like the use of "rates" which are not
}> per-capita and the careful choosing of study years to avoid DC's high
}> of statistical tests which look impressive but actually demonstrate nothing.
}
}arguments have been reasonably rejected, by the authors themselves, and by
}my previous post which showed a dramatic decrease in "per-capita" homicide
}after the gun law passed.
There was no change in the trend. Anyone looking at the data can see
that the drop began before the gun ban, and leveled off shortly after
the gun ban, before shooting up dramatically in the '80s.
} The authors rejected the population arguement in a different way, by
}including Washington D.C. itself as a control group.
You can't control for effects to a population with the same population. That's
not a control group.
}Common sense
}denies your argument when the statistics show a dramatic and immediate
}drop in homicides, something that a population loss could not explain,
}unless someone dropped a nuclear device on Washington in the summer
}of 1776.
As the drop began before the gun ban, common sense indicates that the
gun ban did not cause it.
} Oh, and BTW, exactly what was wrong with Loftin's "statistical
}tests?" How about giving us a .... "reason"....
The reason is that it's fairly easy to describe a set of data which
Loftin's tests would give a positive result for, but which clearly are
a negative result.
Consider the following theoretical data set
Year: Homicide rate
1970: 40.0
1971: 45.0
1972: 40.0
1973: 35.0
1974: 30.0
1975: 25.0
1976: 20.0
1977: 19.0
1978: 19.2
1979: 19.4
1980: 19.6
1981: 19.8
Look-- the after ban average is WAY below the pre-ban average! The
gun ban must have worked, right?
Sam A. Kersh
ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>In <326396d1...@news.i-link.net>, sa...@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) writes:
>>ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>>
>>>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>
>>Pim would have you believe that an abrupt and temporary drop in
>>homicides in D.C. were the result of D.C.'s draconian gun ban but
>>continues to deny that firearms training in Orlando reduced rapes;
>>firearms training in Kansas City reduced commercial robberies; and
>>mandatory firearms ownership in Kennesaw reduced residential burglary.
>
>Indeed, since the changes in DC were statistically SIGNIFICANT and the
>changes in Orlando, Kansas City, and Kennesaw were NOT. But maybe you can
>show us the statistical significance of these drops Sam ?
>
statistically significant where?
Lets take a closer look at Washington D.C.
Washington DC
Year Population Homicides per 100,000
1973 746,518 268 35.9
1974 723,238 277 38.3
1975 716,463 235 32.8
1976 701,493 188 26.8
1977 690,647 192 27.8
1978 675,000 189 28.0
1979 656,934 180 27.4
1980 634,921 200 31.5
1981 635,328 223 35.1
1982 631,922 194 30.7
1983 622,449 183 29.4
1984 622,776 175 28.1
1985 625,532 147 23.5
1986 625,806 194 31.0
1987 618,977 309 50.0
1988 612,148 319 52.1
1989 605,319 328 54.1
1990 598,490 337 56.2
1991 591,661 345 58.3
1992 584,832 353 60.4
1993 578,000 454 78.5
1994 570,000 399 70.0
Averages
1973-75 260 35.7
1976-86 188 29.0
1987-94 355 60.0
Standard Deviation 1972- 75 2.76
Standard Deviation 1976 86 3.02
Standard Deviation 1987- 94 9.70
Standard Deviation 1972 - 94 15.89
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/sam_home.html :For a background to this
> discussion.
>
The only other person that Pim and Lambert have so "honored" is Don
Kates in Lambert's web site. I'm flattered but fully admit I'm not in
the same league as Kates but I must be doing something correct. 8-D
>
>>Lets see if we have this correct, gun control works and gun ownership
>>fails. Hmmmm, Professors Lott, Kleck, Sauter, Blackmon, etc would not
>>agree with you.
>
>
>Sauter and Blackmon ? I assume you mean Suter and Blackman, both known
>for their 'impartial' and unbiased research ?
>
Spell flames, Pim???
>http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/suter.html
>http://www.eskimo.com/~entheta/blackman.html
>
Sam A. Kersh
CSM, USA (ret)
NRA Life Member
TSRA
================================================
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
Sam A. Kersh
ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>In <326396d1...@news.i-link.net>, sa...@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) writes:
>>Lets see if we have this correct, gun control works and gun ownership
>>fails. Hmmmm, Professors Lott, Kleck, Sauter, Blackmon, etc would not
>>agree with you.
>
>
>Sauter and Blackmon ? I assume you mean Suter and Blackman, both known
>for their 'impartial' and unbiased research ?
>
Resorting to spell flames today??
Lee Taylor
alan miles wrote:
>
> In article <5463ls$3...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) wrote:
>
> >
> > After the gun laws passed, the number of murders stayed about the same,
> > despite a fall in population (ergo, the murder rate went up).
>
> I'm sure this is getting very boring to regular readers. DC has gun
> strict gun control. It's neighbor, Virginia, doesn't. External crime
> factors have changed too. Therefore NONE of us can generalize about the
> efficacy of gun control across the world based on the experience of DC.
> Yet so many of you thoughtless zealous do so. You really seem smarter
> than that. No?
>
> These arguments are so dull.
Oh really? Can a DC resident buy a gun in Virginia? They can't in
California. Most states have laws which restrict firearms sales to resident
of that state. Is VA different?
Or could it be that the criminals are even more criminal than expected.
(gasp!) Could it be that they are buying their weapons on the "black
market"? Naw, just because they ignore laws regarding murder, rape, arson,
theft, etc.; they'll still obey the anti-gun laws, right? Sure.
--
Lee Taylor http://www.tco.net/~lee/index.html
Independent Website Management -- The lowest rates on the WWW.
The Nor Cal Eagle Newspaper -- A pub. Of, By, and For The People.
Blue Ice -- Get the files the government has on you.
Sam A. Kersh
"Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
No stats but a peer review:
Initial Evaluation of University of Maryland/CDC
Study of State Right to Carry Laws(1)
by Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D.
(March 17, 1995)
This study is being rushed into the public debate before
publication in a "peer reviewed" journal(2) in an effort to
influence decision making. The title is misleading: Since
Florida's homicide rate has been falling dramatically since
adopting right-to-carry legislation, the study looks only at three
counties within the state, at one county in Mississippi, and at
three counties in Oregon.(3)
The study is by the same research group which studied a
handgun ban in Washington,(4) D.C., and pretended they had shown a
dramatic decrease in homicide, even as Washington's homicide rate
first inched upward, declined slightly in response to a mandatory-
penalty provision, and finally skyrocketed to set national records
for big-city homicide rates. That study established the
researchers' anti-gun bona fides for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), which is thus funding this study. It
uses the same discredited(5) methodology employed in their earlier
study, one which is unable to isolate or test various other factors
which might lead to changes in homicide trends (demographic
changes, sentencing and other legislative changes, trends in drug
trafficking, etc.). Having proven to their own and the CDC's
satisfaction that D.C.'s handgun ban reduced homicide even as the
homicide rate tripled, the same authors now assert that right-to-
carry legislation increases homicide even though the states
adopting it have homicide rates which are defying the dramatic
national murder-rate increase.
The only thing that the methodology used in this research can
show is whether there was a temporary or permanent, sharp or
gradual, change in a measured item -- in this case, homicide, as
all other violent crime is ignored -- at a given point in time;
testing different points of time will often lead to various other
time frames similarly indicating changes, whether there was any
explanation for the change or not. The methodology cannot,
however, explain why a change occurred, or which of a variety of
factors explained it; it is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc even
though there may have been nothing happening to prompt the change.
By averaging homicides or homicide rates for a long period of
time -- nearly 15 years for two Florida counties and over that for
the Mississippi and Oregon counties -- prior to adoption of the
law, impacts of the carry reform are disguised by relatively low
homicide rates in the early '70s and the early '80s; worse, the
authors changed the time frame used for Miami -- adopting a 1983
rather than an 1973 starting point. If they used the same time
frame, it would have appeared that Miami's homicide rate had
declined sharply,(6) using the pre-law averaging method they like
to report. They thus excluded some high homicide rate years which
would make the post-law period seem a decline. The use of long
pre-law time periods can obscure high homicide rates in years
immediately before right-to-carry reform. The study used only
three Florida counties, representing one-fourth of the state's
population, one Mississippi county, representing one-tenth of the
population, and three Oregon counties, representing over 40% of the
state's population and where even their study showed a decline in
homicide. The authors noted a 21% homicide rate decline in Florida
by 1992, the end-point for their research.(7)
The research uses National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
data on "homicide" instead of FBI data on "murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter." The major difference is that some civilian
justifiable/self-defense homicides are excluded from FBI data but
self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians are normally
included in NCHS data. In D.C., the difference was enough so that
applying their methodology to FBI data failed to show the pretended
decline the NCHS data showed, hinting that only non-criminal
homicides were prevented by the handgun ban. Similar use of the
wrong data here could disguise more defensive gun homicides.
More importantly, the study utterly ignores the fact that the
law affects only carrying of handguns in public, not possession.
There were no data reported on homicides involving persons with
carry permits -- presumably because there were no such criminal
homicides. The authors hypothesized that criminals might increase
unlawful carrying where law-abiding people are allowed to carry,
but presented no data or citation to any other study to support the
hypothesis. The study also ignored the location of homicides. In
a previous study of Detroit in which the same authors were
involved,(8) the authors at least acknowledged that one would have
to look at circumstances where carrying was involved in order to
evaluate the change -- and in that study nearly half of the
homicides were indoors, where carrying either with or without a
permit was largely irrelevant.
The authors separated gun-related from non-gun-related
homicides, ignoring the distinction between handguns, subject to
liberalized carry laws, and other firearms, and found greater
increase in gun than non-gun homicide, just as their D.C. study
found a greater decrease in gun than non-gun homicides.
Criminologically, firearms crime leads homicide trends, either
upward or downward, since such fluctuations are normally
indications of crime trends among active criminals, who are more
apt to use firearms. Thus, unsurprisingly, the sharp drop in
Florida's homicide rate since adopting its right-to-carry law was
faster for gun- than for non-gun-related homicides.
Disingenuously, the lead author has asserted that a possible
reason for Portland's decline in homicide is that, while adopting
right-to-carry, it also toughened its waiting period provision.
But Prof. McDowall has, using the same methodology, concluded that
"waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun
suicides."(9)
Incredibly, the authors suggest that laws against carrying in
public are "easy to enforce and they do not inconvenience most gun
owners." Easy enforcement may be relatively true of laws
regulating licensed firearms manufacturers, importers, dealers, and
distributors, and enforcement of carrying in public may be easier
than enforcement of possession bans in the home. But concealed
carry laws are very difficult to enforce without violating Fourth
Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.(10)
In short, the study ignores that lawful carrying is apparently
involved in none of the criminal homicides reported, it uses
unrepresentative and small segments of three states' populations,
it uses carefully selected time frames, it uses a discredited
methodology which makes it impossible to isolate possible causal
factors for trends, it uses data which counts criminal and self-
defense homicides as equally bad, and it sloughs over the fact that
the homicide trend nationally was increasing while dropping in two
of the three states allegedly studied, and rising minimally in
Mississippi.(11)
----------------------------
(1) David McDowall, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema. Easing
Conceal Firearm Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States.
Violence Research Group Discussion Paper 15. College Park, Md.:
University of Maryland, January 1995.
(2) The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology is to publish the
study this summer, in a symposium of "gun control" papers edited by
David McDowall, lead author of the paper.
(3) Indeed, they only wanted to look at one county, Multnomah,
containing Portland, but found too few homicides and so expanded to
three counties, all described to the news media as "Portland."
(4) Colin Loftin, et al. Effects of Restrictive Licensing of
Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia. New
England Journal of Medicine 325:1615-1620 (1991).
(5) Gary Kleck, Chester L. Britt, and David J. Bordua. The Emperor
Has No Clothes: Using Interrupted Time Series Design to Evaluate
Social Policy Impact. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, 1993.
(6) "Except in Miami, we studied the period between January 1973
and December 1992 (240 months). Miami homicides increased sharply
in May 1980, following an influx of refugees from Cuba. Miami's
monthly homicide totals appeared to stabilize by late 1982, and we
thus analyzed the period from January 1983 through December 1992
(120 months)."
(7) Through 1993, the handgun-related homicide rate in Florida had
fallen some 29% in Florida while rising 50% nationally.
(8) Patrick O'Carroll, et al. Preventing Homicide: An Evaluation
of the Efficacy of a Detroit Gun Ordinance. American Journal of
Public Health 81:576-581 (1991).
(9) David McDowall. Preventive Effects of Firearm Regulations on
Injury Mortality. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, Arizona, 1993.
(10) Paul Bendis and Steven Balkin. A Look at Gun Control
Enforcement. Journal of Police Science and Administration 7:439-
448 (1979); and J. Star. Why the gun law doesn't work. Chicago
27:128-131+ (February 1978).
(11) FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 1987,
1989, 1990, and 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994.
=+=+=
Michael Zarlenga
>Subject: Re: DC gun law Effect
The effect? Well, it's all quite obvious, isn't it?
The crime is so bad in parts of DC that, last time I was there, whole
neighborhoods were war zones. Has anything changed? Is it now the
utopia gunphobes keep trying to create?
Surely we can find ONE city with lots of gun control that isn;t a
haven for criminals? Let's see ... Los Angeles? Nope, lots of crime.
Ummmm ... NYC? Hell no, sections look like Bosnia. Chicago? Yeah,
RIGHT, try walking by Cabrini Green some evening after dark.
Hmmm ... someone help me ... I'm looking for ONE American city with
lots of gun control and a lower-than-average crime rate ... Anyone?
Surely there must be ONE example of gun control "working."
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Harry Browne (Libertarian) for President in 1996
Robert L. Ray
Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> >RR: What real statistics? The stats I've given here are from the Loftin
> >study and from the FBI. Where are your so-called statistics? Frankly
> >Greny, it appears you are into heavy Denial, big time.
>
> No stats but a peer review:
>
> Initial Evaluation of University of Maryland/CDC
> Study of State Right to Carry Laws(1)
>
> by Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D.
> (March 17, 1995)
RR: This is Peer Review? What a joke. You must know, don't you, that Blackman
is a hired gun of the National Rifle Association. Why should we believe
anything he claims? And, BTW, why didn't you even mention his NRA
credentials? Trying to hide the sorry truth?
The other problem is, I was talking about the Colin Loftin study
in the peer reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. That's the study
which discusses the "DC gun law effect," the title of this folder.
Yet you have attempted to rebut with an article critiquing a completely
DIFFERENT study, done by a fellow named Mackenzie, who didn't have ANY
roll in the Washington DC study.
So why have you dragged out an NRA response to the Mackenzie study,
in an effort to rebut the DC study? It doesn't make sense. But I'm a reasonable
guy.(g) Let's press on and see if Blackman can provide us with a connection.
> The study is by the same research group which studied a
> handgun ban in Washington,(4) D.C., and pretended they had shown a
> dramatic decrease in homicide, even as Washington's homicide rate
> first inched upward, declined slightly in response to a mandatory-
> penalty provision, and finally skyrocketed to set national records
> for big-city homicide rates.
RR: Aha, a guilt-by-association connection with the DC Loftin study.
Typical NRA BS. And if Blackman claims something, why doesn't he support
it with statistics? More typical NRA BS.
> It uses the same discredited(5) methodology employed in their earlier
> study, one which is unable to isolate or test various other factors
> which might lead to changes in homicide trends (demographic
> changes, sentencing and other legislative changes, trends in drug
> trafficking, etc.).
RR: More NRA BS. Loftin controlled for all of these. I have
explained how. No one here could dispute it. Blackman "saying it's
so" will never make it so. He needs to back up his wild claims with
facts.
> Having proven to their own and the CDC's
> satisfaction that D.C.'s handgun ban reduced homicide even as the
> homicide rate tripled,
RR: Total NRA BS. The study covered a 22 year period. That stats in
the study clearly show a 25% decline in gun homcides after the gun law
passed, and a 4% decline in other homicides during that post-law period.
Blackman's "triple" is a myth. Once again, I see no support for his claim.
> In D.C., the difference was enough so that
> applying their methodology to FBI data failed to show the pretended
> decline the NCHS data showed, hinting that only non-criminal
> homicides were prevented by the handgun ban.
RR: Who applied "their methodology to FBI data?" Blackman doesn't say,
nor does he give the statistics from this phantom application. More
NRA BS.
RR: There. That's all the NRA guy has to say about the DC study. Pretty
limp, wasn't he?
Sam A. Kersh
ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>In <542skf$7...@wanda.vf.pond.com>, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>In article <326456...@interaccess.com>,
>>Robert L. Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>}Matthew T. Russotto wrote re: loftin study:
>>}>
>>}> Better check that study again. It's such a complete piece of
>>}> unmitigated garbage that it constitutes an effective litmus test -- no
>>}> reasonably honest and intelligent person would support that study,
>>}> only a dedicated anti-gunner would. As such, making any guesses
>>}> about what the reason for the effects of the new law are is premature
>>}> -- no one has shown it had any.
>>}
>>}RR: It's easy to throw darts. Much harder to present reasoned arguements and
>>}facts. Next time, let's see some basis for your wild claims.
>>
>>I have. Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. The flaws range
>>from the glaringly obvious, like the use of "rates" which are not
>>per-capita and the careful choosing of study years to avoid DC's high
>
>But they did study per capita rates as well as raw data.
>
>>homicide in the late '80s to the slightly less obvious, like the use
>>of statistical tests which look impressive but actually demonstrate nothing.
>
> The issue was the effect of the gun law, not the effect of the crack
> cocaine trade,
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>Pim
Once again Pimster supports flawed and deliberately misleading "studies"
Robert L. Ray
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> There was no change in the trend. Anyone looking at the data can see
> that the drop began before the gun ban, and leveled off shortly after
> the gun ban, before shooting up dramatically in the '80s.
RR: You are quite, simply, wrong. I have the study right in front of me.
If you have it, look at the graph on page 1616 and attempt, with a straight
face, to repeat what you have just said. If you have the timerity to do so,
with the graph right in front of your nose, I will have to judge your
credibility accordingly.
> You can't control for effects to a population with the same population. That's
> not a control group.
RR: Nonsense. First of all, the criticism was the Loftin didn't control for
effects of population change, not effects "to a population." A control group
is one that attempts, in many ways, to simulate the group being judged.
For instance, if one had attempted to use Baltimore's population as a control
group, the author would have to attempt to sift out the elements of that
population which do not conform to the Washington model. Only by doing that
can he measure the control group against the variable in Washington being studied.
In Loftin's case, he used the exact same population as his control group.
This is not only permissible, it makes for the "perfect" control.
Thus the control group is DC's population over time. The variables are
gun homicides and non-gun homicides. Compared to the control group, gun homicides
went significantly down, while non-gun homicides went insignificantly down.
Since both variables were measured against the same control group, and
their results were radically different, one can posit that the control group
cannot be responsible for the change.
> As the drop began before the gun ban, common sense indicates that the
> gun ban did not cause it.
RR: If you will observe the monthly statistics, graphed on page 1616, you
can easily see that there is no drop in overall homicides before the
ban on handguns. You cannot observe this just looking at yearly averages.
There are fluxuations in the monthly totals.. but those fluxuations
are both higher and lower than the mean.
> it's fairly easy to describe a set of data which
> Loftin's tests would give a positive result for, but which clearly are
> a negative result.
>
> Consider the following theoretical data set
> Year: Homicide rate
> 1970: 40.0
> 1971: 45.0
> 1972: 40.0
> 1973: 35.0
> 1974: 30.0
> 1975: 25.0
> 1976: 20.0
> 1977: 19.0
> 1978: 19.2
> 1979: 19.4
> 1980: 19.6
> 1981: 19.8
>
> Look-- the after ban average is WAY below the pre-ban average! The
> gun ban must have worked, right?
RR: Right. That's why we have Time Series analysis. The monthly homicide
figures from Washington D.C. do NOT follow this gradual decrease that
you have offered theoretically. There are ups and downs throughout the
20 years, with fewer homicides during the last 12 years than the first 8 years.
But to test whether there is a gradual decline or a big jump all
at once, you need to do a 12 month moving average time series analysis
thoughout the 20 year period. Once you do, you will find that a jump
did occur, right at the time the gun ban law was passed in 1976.
Rockerboy
> >>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>
> >>was no abrupt drop following the law in homicide rates in DC.
> >>To blame the gun ban for the crack epidemic is plain silly.
>
> > Well, that's a great big *D'UH* for you, Pim. What a strawman.
> >The claim was OBVIOUSLY *NOT* that the gun ban was responsible for the
> >crack epidemic, but that the gun ban did NOTHING to prevent the slaughter
> >which accompanied it.
>
> And why would it ?
DUH, Pim! Because drugs are a criminal activity that attract criminals
from outside areas and entice locals to become criminals.
--
Sometimes what you say is going to get right in the faces of the
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care....
It's your place to challenge authority.
Rockerboy (roc...@best.com)
Rockerboy
Robert L. Ray wrote:
>
> But common sense alone tells us that IF there were an effect, it would
> be to "increase" non-firearm murders. That's because criminals who couldn't
> get guns might substitute knives and still commit the killings. Yet the Loftin
> study did not show this effect. Therefore the control group was not affected
> by the gun law.
No, Robert, this is not the case. In order to expect such substitution,
you would need to show that it was as simple to kill an unarmed man with
a bat or knife as is is with a gun. It is considerably more difficult
to kill a fleeing victim with a bat, for example.
It is considerably more dangerous to assault someone with a knife than a
gun. Why? Because at close range, a gun requires little skill or
strength. A knife requires both. Even a relatively new martial arts
student could take on an unskilled knife wielding opponant and win most
of the time. Even a blackbelt isn't stupid enough to face down a gun if
he can avoid it.
Steve D. Fischer
In article <DzEnz...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In <53tmns$1...@crl11.crl.com>, str...@crl.com (Steve D. Fischer) writes:
>>In article <Dz8LI...@eskimo.com>, Enturbulated <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>In article , str...@crl.com says...
>
>>>That it did not prevent the crack invasion does not mean that there
>>>was no abrupt drop following the law in homicide rates in DC.
>>>To blame the gun ban for the crack epidemic is plain silly.
>
>
>> Well, that's a great big *D'UH* for you, Pim. What a strawman.
>>The claim was OBVIOUSLY *NOT* that the gun ban was responsible for the
>>crack epidemic, but that the gun ban did NOTHING to prevent the slaughter
>>which accompanied it.
>
>And why would it ?
>
are supposed to scare people into conforming. If they don't, then what's
the point of the law in the first place? If only the relatively honest
people obey it, while the bad guys ignore it, how has the law improved
the situation?
Steve
RR
Russotto replies to me with a Suter article.
Although it takes much longer for me to reply than it did for him
to hit the "paste" key, here it goes:
Suter summarizes himself several times. (maybe he's in love with
himself).
But for the sake of brevity, I'll go with his
"short version."
Russotto copying Suter:
methodological and conceptual errors:
*** the apparent, temporary, and minuscule homicide drop occurred
2 years before the Washington DC law took effect
RR: No it didn't. If you take all the monthly homicide totals from
2 years prior to the gun law, add them up, and divide by 24, you
will get a figure of 12.2 average homicides a month.
The overall pre-law monthly average (1968 to Oct. 1976) is
13. The overall post-law monthly average is 10. You cannot deny
that 12.2 is far closer to 13 than it is to 10.
Thus, the 2 year period prior to the law (when Suter claims
the homicides have already dropped) obviously belongs with the
pre-law stats, not with the post-law stats.
The slight drop during that 2-year period was well within
the overall fluxuation rate of the 8 year pre-law period. There is
no corresponding 2 year study period after the law was passed that
averages as high as 12.2 homicides a month.
*** the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et al.
has been invalidated
RR: Certainly not by Suter. Nowhere in the paper you copied does
Suter mention any logic or documentation for this
"interrupted time series" claim. I asked you to provide
documentation and logic to support YOUR claims, and instead,
you give me Suter, who doesn't supply documentation either.
What a bummer.
*** the study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates -
not correcting for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the
study period or for the 25% increase in the control population -
exagerating the authors' misinterpretations
RR: Loftin controlled for population in his study in different
ways. Why doesn't Suter mention that? The answer's obvious.
Suter is afraid to confront the truth.
*** the study conveniently stopped as Washington, DC's overall homicide
rate skyrocketed to 8 times the national average and the Black, male, teen
homicide rate skyrocketed to 22 times the national average
RR: It stopped when it was originally designed to
stop, after 20 years. Loftin has argued that the crack cocaine
invasion after his study drove the murder rates up, and
Suter does not rebut that. Maybe cause he can't?
*** used a drastically dissimilar demographic group as control
RR: Loftin used the MOST similar demographic group possible:
Washington's very OWN population, as one of his controls for
population changes. The suburban controls that Suter talks about
were controlling for other potential variables, not for
population. Thus, Suter misrepresents the study yet again.
Loftin also controlled for population with a study of
mortality rates.. rates that depended on the very same population
base: Washington's population base.
*** the authors virtually failed to discuss the role of complicating
factors such as the crack cocaine trade and criminal justice operations
during the study period
RR: As I've mentioned, Loftin DOES discuss the crack cocaine trade,
saying it skyrocketed after his study ended. Suter also wants to
know why Loftin didn't control for "FBI stolen property and BATF
illegal weapons stings, and improvements in the court system during
the study." But he doesn't even document what stings or improvements
were made, if any.
Besides, Loftin also controlled for any potential changes in
all but weapons enforement with his non-gun homicide figures for
Washington D.C.
That leaves Suter with only his fairy tales about some
mysterious BATF weapons stings, that would have had to occur in
massive numbers AFTER the law passed, and none at all BEFORE the
law passed, in order to have any conceivable effect.
Without documenting these so-called BATF stings, Suter
is being dishonest.
******Justifiable and excusable homicides, including those by police
officers, were treated the same as murders and were not excluded
from the study.
RR: Simple logic defeats this argument. But I guess Suter doesn't
have any. How on earth could "justifiable homicides" have altered
Loftin's statistics showing gun-homicides went up, without also
having an effect on other types of homicides, which did not
go up? How on earth could "justifiable homicides" have altered
the conclusion that gun homicides were high before 1976, and
low after 1976?
For Suter to claim justifiable homicides made the difference,
he would have to come up with some mechanizm whereby the ratio of
justifiable gun-related homicides to non-justifiable gun-related
homicides was much greater before the law, than after the law.
He would also need a mechanizm to explain why the ratio
of justifiable gun-related homicides to non-justifiable
gun-related homicides would have had to be so much bigger than
the ratio of justifiable non-gun-related homicides compared to non
justifiable non-gun related homicides.
OK, Matthew T. Russotto, I've destroyed Dr. Suter. But
then he is easy. I've fried him before. You got anything
else?
Steve Hix
In article 18109602...@amiles.port.net, ami...@interport.net (alan miles) writes:
:In article <5463ls$3...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) wrote:
:
:>
:> After the gun laws passed, the number of murders stayed about the same,
:> despite a fall in population (ergo, the murder rate went up).
:
:I'm sure this is getting very boring to regular readers. DC has gun
:strict gun control. It's neighbor, Virginia, doesn't. External crime
:factors have changed too. Therefore NONE of us can generalize about the
:efficacy of gun control across the world based on the experience of DC.
:Yet so many of you thoughtless zealous do so. You really seem smarter
:than that. No?
:
:These arguments are so dull.
They might be a *bit* more interesting if the "DC gun law works" enthusiasts
were ever try to answer the question "Why are violent crime rates lower in
Virginia adjacent to DC?"
Sam A. Kersh
"Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Sam A. Kersh wrote:
>> >RR: What real statistics? The stats I've given here are from the Loftin
>> >study and from the FBI. Where are your so-called statistics? Frankly
>> >Greny, it appears you are into heavy Denial, big time.
>>
>> No stats but a peer review:
>>
>> Initial Evaluation of University of Maryland/CDC
>> Study of State Right to Carry Laws(1)
>>
>> by Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D.
>> (March 17, 1995)
>
>RR: This is Peer Review? What a joke. You must know, don't you, that Blackman
>is a hired gun of the National Rifle Association.
Certainly i know Prof. Blackman is on the NRA payroll. That doesn't
fault the review. But by the same token, CDC's "hired guns" decided the
outcome the produced the study. Dr. Rosenberg, one of many of CDC's
on-staff anti-gunners had more than once stated that CDC and its
researchers must treat firearms as a virus and "educate" the public in
the total eradication of all privately owned firearms. For years the
CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
this end.
But firearms isn't the only area CDC has lied to the public about. It
has produced copious amount of AIDS propaganda to scare the public
rather than tell the truth. AIDS was and still is a disease primarily
transmitted by homosexuals or druggies.
>RR: There. That's all the NRA guy has to say about the DC study. Pretty
>limp, wasn't he?
The only thing limp was your caterwauling.
RR
Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> For years the
> CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
> this end.
RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
> But firearms isn't the only area CDC has lied to the public about. It
> has produced copious amount of AIDS propaganda to scare the public
> rather than tell the truth. AIDS was and still is a disease primarily
> transmitted by homosexuals or druggies.
RR: That's a different topic, but I've never seen any lies from the CDC
about AIDS either. You got any specifics?
Soapy
In article <3269A6...@best.com>, Rockerboy <roc...@best.com> wrote:
>Robert L. Ray wrote:
>>
<snip>
>It is considerably more dangerous to assault someone with a knife than
a
>gun. Why? Because at close range, a gun requires little skill or
>strength. A knife requires both. Even a relatively new martial arts
>student could take on an unskilled knife wielding opponant and win
most
>of the time.
Ever tried it? get the smallest, most frragile member of your
household, a seven year old girl, for example, and get them to run at
you, slahing at you with a 12" knife as she advances.. Now disarm her
without getting hurt. Possible, yes. Likely? dream on!
all opinions are home grown...
Michael Zarlenga
RR (ki...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: > CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
: > this end.
: RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
Oh?! Tell me, is it HONEST or not to call a 20-year-old
a "child" when conducting a "study" of "children killed by
guns?"
Don Hunsinger
RR wrote:
>
> Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> > For years the
> > this end.
>
> RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
>
Kellerman's work (the CDC studies) have been VERY THOROUGHLY debunked as
the trash that they are. Just WHY do you think there has been so much
screaming about them?
Of course when HCI shill Charles Schumer tried the same thing with the
U. Of Chicago Lott study, the Olin Foundation published in the Wall
Street Journal a severe criticism and nigh well threatened to take the
matter into court. Of course the HCI & CDC can't say anything bad about
the study because it was a very thorough study that was PROPERLY PEER
REVIEWED and the anti-freed crowd was allowed full access to all the
info, something that Kellerman has never allowed to happen. In fact the
assertions that HCI and CDC make using the study are refuted in the fine
print of the study by Kellerman himself, but you wouldn't get HCI and
the CDC to admit as such.
So DON'T hand us the line about the CDC studies by Arthur Kellerman to
be valid studies and that no-one has debunked them, because either:
a) You have no idea WHAT you're talking about, and it READILY appearent
to those of use who know better.
OR
b) You DO know better and are lying out your *ss about it, in which case
YOUR credibility is taking a SERIOUS nose-dive...
Oh, and have a NICE (government approved, of course) day...
--
Don Hunsinger
Houston, TX
do...@bangate.compaq.com
dond...@ix.netcom.com
Rule #1: ALWAYS keep a sense of humor, warped as it may be.
Rule #2: REMEMBER it's ALL only temporary.
Rule #3: Yes, it REALLY does help when you actually know what you
are talking about.
Rule #4: HASN'T ANYONE HEARD OF USING ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA MODELS?
Ray
Steve Hix wrote:
> They might be a *bit* more interesting if the "DC gun law works" enthusiasts
> were ever try to answer the question "Why are violent crime rates lower in
> Virginia adjacent to DC?"
RR: Perhaps you have the statistics for Arlington and Alexandria??
Ray
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
> RR (ki...@interaccess.com) wrote:
> : > CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
> : > this end.
>
> : RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
>
> a "child" when conducting a "study" of "children killed by
> guns?"
RR: Still waiting for proof. There is NO CDC study listing
20 year olds as children.
Sam A. Kersh
RR <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Sam A. Kersh wrote:
>> For years the
>> CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
>> this end.
>
>RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
Only Prof. Gary Kleck, Don Kates, Profs Lott and Mustard, David Polsby,
Prof Paul Blackman, Prof Edgar Suter, Neil Schulman, Prof. H. Buckner or
any other person who has bothered to check CDC's methods and data. Two
of CDC's hacks, Gordon Smith and Henry Falk, in 'Closing the Gap: The
burden of Unnecessary Illness', Unintentional Injuries falsified cites
to the FBI UCR. It's bad enough to cherry-pick data as Kellerman has
consistently done, but to deliberately falsify a cite is something else.
>
>> But firearms isn't the only area CDC has lied to the public about. It
>> has produced copious amount of AIDS propaganda to scare the public
>> rather than tell the truth. AIDS was and still is a disease primarily
>> transmitted by homosexuals or druggies.
>
>RR: That's a different topic, but I've never seen any lies from the CDC
>about AIDS either. You got any specifics?
No, it goes to CDC's honesty and integrity or lack of either. I'll see
if I can trace down the specifics on CDC's lies re: AIDS this weekend.
Julius Chang
In article <3270d33...@news.i-link.net>,
sa...@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) wrote:
#RR <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
#
#>Sam A. Kersh wrote:
#>> For years the
#>> CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
#>> this end.
#>
#>RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
#
#Only Prof. Gary Kleck, Don Kates, Profs Lott and Mustard, David Polsby,
#Prof Paul Blackman, Prof Edgar Suter, Neil Schulman, Prof. H. Buckner or
#any other person who has bothered to check CDC's methods and data. Two
Don't forget the Kates, Schaeffer, Lattimer, Murray, and
Cassem article in the Tennessee Law Review, "Guns and
Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of
Propaganda?"
#of CDC's hacks, Gordon Smith and Henry Falk, in 'Closing the Gap: The
#burden of Unnecessary Illness', Unintentional Injuries falsified cites
#to the FBI UCR. It's bad enough to cherry-pick data as Kellerman has
#consistently done, but to deliberately falsify a cite is something else.
#>
#>> But firearms isn't the only area CDC has lied to the public about. It
#>> has produced copious amount of AIDS propaganda to scare the public
#>> rather than tell the truth. AIDS was and still is a disease primarily
#>> transmitted by homosexuals or druggies.
#>
#>RR: That's a different topic, but I've never seen any lies from the CDC
#>about AIDS either. You got any specifics?
#
#No, it goes to CDC's honesty and integrity or lack of either. I'll see
#if I can trace down the specifics on CDC's lies re: AIDS this weekend.
See the May 1, 1996 article in the Wall Street Journal titled
"AIDS Fight is Skewed by Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks".
-Julius
Ray
Julius Chang wrote:
>
> #>Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> #>> For years the
> #>> CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
> #>> this end.
> #>
> #>RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
> #
> #Only Prof. Gary Kleck, Don Kates, Profs Lott and Mustard, David Polsby,
> #Prof Paul Blackman, Prof Edgar Suter, Neil Schulman, Prof. H. Buckner or
> #any other person who has bothered to check CDC's methods and data. Two
>
> Don't forget the Kates, Schaeffer, Lattimer, Murray, and
> Cassem article in the Tennessee Law Review, "Guns and
> Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of
> Propaganda?"
>
> #of CDC's hacks, Gordon Smith and Henry Falk, in 'Closing the Gap: The
> #burden of Unnecessary Illness', Unintentional Injuries falsified cites
> #to the FBI UCR. It's bad enough to cherry-pick data as Kellerman has
> #consistently done, but to deliberately falsify a cite is something else.
RR: If you're going to supply alleged "proof," then let's hear some.
Don't just give us a laundry list of NRA lovers. Tell us exactly how
and why they believe a certain CDC study is faulty. For instance,
if Smith/Falk falsified cites, what were they? If Kellerman cherry-picked
data, which ones in which studies?(I have them all, so don't worry about
me not following along).
> #>RR: That's a different topic, but I've never seen any lies from the CDC
> #>about AIDS either. You got any specifics?
> #
> See the May 1, 1996 article in the Wall Street Journal titled
> "AIDS Fight is Skewed by Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks".
RR: Once again, Julius, exactly what did the Journal say was wrong
with CDC risk assessment of AIDS?
Ray
Don Hunsinger wrote:
>
> So DON'T hand us the line about the CDC studies by Arthur Kellerman to
> be valid studies and that no-one has debunked them, because either:
RR: My reply to Julius holds true for you too: Put up or shut up.
Julius Chang
From the 1992-1993 Virginia Statistical Abstract:
Table 4.3, Crime Rates for US, Virginia, and Surrounding States:
1982-1989 (per 100,000 population)
1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982
VA 4211 4177 3959 3860 3779 3784 3962 4256
DC 10293 9915 8452 8339 8007 8779 9453 10600
US 5741 5664 5550 5480 5207 5031 5175 5604
Table 4.4 Crime Rates in Virginia's Cities and Counties: 1982-1989
Arl 5877 6054 5606 5300 5192 5055 5042 5235
Alex 7393 6916 6901 6915 7375 7257 7712 8285
Table 4.7 Crimes Known to Police in Virginia's Cities and Counties:
1989
Murder and Non-Neg
Manslaughter
Arl 1
Alex 8
VA 479
Population Information (from Vital Facts for Virginia):
Arl - approx. 171,000
Alex - approx. 111,000
-Julius
Steve D. Fischer
SEE ARTICLE #3 below for an exhaustive treatment of anti-gun bias in
the medical literature.
==========================================================================
TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW
--------------------------
Volume 62, Number 3 (Spring, 1995), pp 443-822
==========================================================================
"A Second Amendment Symposium Issue"
ARTICLES:
(1) Foreward: Guns, Militias, and Oklahoma City. by Randy E. Barnett.
(2) A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, by Glenn Harlan Reynolds.
(3) Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of
Propaganda, by Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, John K. Lattimer,
George B. Murrya and Edwin W. Cassem.
(4) Congress Interprets the Second Amendment: Declarations by a Co-
Equal Branch on the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by
Stephen P. Halbrook.
(5) Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory
of the Second Amendment, by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF.
(6) "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, by
Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel.
(7) The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in
Religion and Reason, by Dan Gifford.
BOOK REVIEW:
Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the
Second Amendment, by Joyce Lee Malcolm.
==========================================================================
The entire volume can be purchased for a mere $10 by writing to:
University of Tennessee, College of Law
Tennessee Law Review
Dunford Hall
915 Volunteer Blvd.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4070
ATTN: Micki Fox, Business Manager
James F. Mayer
In <32736A...@interaccess.com> Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
>
>Don Hunsinger wrote:
>>
>> So DON'T hand us the line about the CDC studies by Arthur Kellerman
to
>> be valid studies and that no-one has debunked them, because either:
>
>RR: My reply to Julius holds true for you too: Put up or shut up.
Serious Flaws in Kellerman, et al (1993) NEJM
(December, 1993)
by Henry E. Schaffer, Ph. D.
Summary and Overview
The Kellerman, et al (1993) study in the NEJM attempts to use the
case-control method (CCM) to show that gun ownership increases homicide
in the home. The limitations of the CCM, and serious flaws in the
study
methodology, result in invalidation of the study's conclusions.
The CCM has a number of limitations in what it can accomplish, and
has a number of conditions (assumptions) which must be satisfied for it
to be able to satisfactorily accomplish even the limited goals for
which it is suitable. The biggest limitation is that the CCM can't
demonstrate causation. The CCM finds 'associations' between studied
factors and the 'outcome' which defines the 'cases'. These
'associations' may suggest that there is a causal relationship, and may
then be used to justify a study of causal relationships, but it is
incorrect to jump from the discovery of an association to a conclusion
of causation. Other weak points in the CCM have to do with
susceptibility to biases in the selection of the cases, and with
confounding factors which can affect the choice of the controls. These
can easily lead to spurious associations when there actually are none,
or to associations which are reversed in direction from what actually
exists.
The Kellerman, et al (1993) study has been widely quoted as
demonstrating that there is a causal relationship between handguns in
the home and homicides. The paper itself doesn't go that far, but it
uses suggestive language, which suggests that there is more than merely
an 'association'. The flaws in the paper are such as to make the the
reader suspicious of the association found. Showing flaws in the
methods does not prove that the paper is wrong, but it causes a loss of
confidence in the results. Conclusions which are not properly
supported must be considered invalid until proper support becomes
available, if ever. It is the responsibility of the authors to support
their conclusions. It isn't the responsibility of the readers to go
out to collect data to prove that the flaws in the paper lead to
incorrect conclusions.
The detailed treatment of these flaws, with supporting data,
examples and methods is necessarily quite long, but it does illustrate
that the Kellerman, et al paper is based on unsupported assumptions and
that the conclusions must be viewed with suspicion or rejected as being
unsupported.
Acknowledgement
I was helped in this project by the advice, criticism and
encouragement of Dan Day, Fran Haga, Steve Holland and Paul Stoufflet.
Many other people on the net also helped. I have full responsibility
for any defects.
Detailed Examination
Subgroups and confounding factors
The methods used in Kellerman, et al do not take into account
subgrouping or stratification in our society, and this can be shown to
be able to cause a spurious association comparable to the one found.
The case-control method (described in an Appendix) has an
assumption of homogeneity for all relevant variables which are not
taken into account in the study. If this is violated, it is possible
to have an 'apparent association' result when there is actually no true
association. Technically this would probably be considered to be
"confounding" due to whatever factors were heterogeneous. Unlike other
types of studies in which randomization is used to protect against
unaccounted for variation, the case-control remains susceptible.
Here are some simple examples of an association in the overall
data:
I) when there is no association in two subgroups, and
II) when the association in the subgroups is actually of the opposite
direction (i.e. where gun posession has a protective effect.)
The computation of association is shown in an Appendix.
I) No association in subgroups - spurious harmful association overall
Consider that the population is composed of a minority subgroup
which has a high risk of homicide, and a relatively high gun ownership
rate. This subgroup is composed of 'career criminals', gang members
and others who have a repeated history of criminal activity. The
majority subgroup has a low risk of homicide and a lower gun ownership
rate. This majority is the general law-abiding public. This type of
subgrouping does occur in the US, and is discussed in an Appendix.
Subgroup sizes of 10%/90% are used in this example to be in the range
of numbers found in the studies cited in the Appendix. There is no
causal relationship between homicide and gun ownership in either
subgroup.
No causal effect in subgroups - spurious harmful association overall:
Gun High Risk Low Risk
Ownership dead alive dead alive
Own gun 165 665,000 27.5 2,992,500
No gun 165 665,000 82.5 8,977,500
--- -------- ----- ----------
Totals 330 1,330,000 110 11,970,000
(Population Total 13,3000,000, total dead-in-home 440)
The 'odds ratio' measure of association is 1.0 in each case
indicating a lack of association of gun ownership with homicide.
However, when we put these two groups together into the single
population which they compose we get the data:
Gun Total Population
Ownership dead alive
Own gun 192.5 3,657,500
No gun 247.5 9,642,500
The 'odds ratio' now is 2.0 which indicates an association of gun
ownership with homicide. This is not due to gun ownership having a
causal effect, but rather there is a 'confounding' variable of subgroup
membership and gun ownership is associated with subgroup. So the
association of gun ownership with homicide would be called an 'apparent
association' in the literature.
II) Protective effect in subgroups - spurious harmful association
overall
Since the 2.0 odds ratio in (I) above is fairly large (it is
comparable to the 1.6 odds ratio found in the paper,) it is clear
that the same type of apparent harmful association can arise even when
there is a protective effect of ownership within each of the subgroups.
Arbitrarily modifying the example numbers above to introduce a similar
protective effect in each subgroup produces:
Gun High Risk Low Risk
Ownership dead alive dead alive
Own gun 151 665,000 24 2,992,500
No gun 179 665,000 86 8,977,500
These show an odds ratio of .84 for each of these subgroups. Note
that odds ratios < 1 represent protective associations. However, when
we put these two groups together into the single population which they
compose we get the data:
Gun Total Population
Ownership dead alive
Own gun 165 3,657,500
No gun 265 9,642,500
The odds ratio is now 1.64 which is a (spurious) harmful
association. This must be considered to be an "apparent association"
of gun ownership with homicide because it has resulted from data in
which there was a clear protective effect, and yet it resulted in a
spurious indication of harm comparable to the 1.6 value given in the
paper.
Note that all the above has used the entire population in the
calculation - but since the odds ratio is unaffected by dividing a
column by a constant, the exact same odds ratios would be produced if
a sample was taken from the "alive" column (corresponding to the choice
of 'alive' controls.) In this case the table immediately above would
be:
Gun Total Population
Ownership dead alive
Own gun 165 121
No gun 265 319
which produces the identical 1.64 odds ratio.
The Kellerman, et al (1993) study in the NEJM didn't use the same
calculation that is shown above. They used the "Mantel-Haenszel
chi-square analysis for matched pairs" but didn't give any analysis.
This analysis is able to adjust for differences in stratified data *if*
the stratification (subdivision of the overall population into the two
subgroups) is known and is taken into account when matching..
Matching control pairs is an attempt to get the each case and
matched control be in the same subgroup - when the population is
divided into subgroups. If this is done, then it appears that the
Mantel-Haenszel analysis will produce an association calculation which
is free of the confounding demonstrated above. However it is not clear
that the Kellerman, et al matching does select controls from the same
subgroups as the cases. The control selection was done using a random
selection starting outside a "one-block avoidance zone" away from the
case homicide, and the matching criteria did not include any life-style
or related indicators.
If the population is composed of subgroups which differ in
homicide rates, then the matching procedure would be hoped to select
the matching control from the same subgroup as the case it is supposed
to match. This could happen with the matching method used if the
subgroups were settled in distinct different large geographic areas.
Because of the avoidance method used these areas would have to be
larger than one-block in size (how much larger is hard to tell, since
the paper doesn't say how far outside the zone it was necessary to
travel to find a matching control who would agree to cooperate.) But
it doesn't appear that risk sub-groups are distributed in such a
coarse-grain manner. I discussed this with a colleague who is a
sociologist/ criminologist who pointed out that risk subgroup factors
(drug dealing, violent criminal events, violently abusive family
relationships, etc.) often are fine-grained. They vary between
different families in one apartment building, and certainly vary
between different families in a block. Therefore choosing a control
who lives 1 or more blocks away will not assure matching with respect
to the sub-group. For a minority sub-group (e.g. the 10% "High Risk"
group in the examples above) the chances good are that homicides in the
high risk group will be matched with low risk group controls.
The Kellerman, et al paper presented all of its data in terms of
the overall group numbers, similar to the total population information
presented in the examples above. Therefore there is no way to rework
the analyses and check on the Mantel-Haenszel analysis results.
Without proper within-sub-group matching the Mantel-Haenszel result
would be affected by confounding and therefore produce incorrect
results just as found by the odds ratio analysis used in the above
examples.
This can be shown by using two situations based on (I) above. We
take, as before, the High Risk subgroup as 10% of the population and
the
Low Risk group as the other 90%. We have the same 440 cases as
in (I) above, and they will be matched in two ways.
A) will be with controls selected without consideration of subgroup
membership.
B) will be with controls selected to be in the same subgroup as the
case.
The 440 case individuals are
High-Risk with gun 110
High-Risk without Gun 110
Low-Risk with gun 55
Low Risk without Gun 165
The population as a whole is
High-Risk with gun 5.0%
High-Risk without gun 5.0%
Low-Risk with gun 22.5%
Low-Risk without gun 67.5%.
The population figures result from 10% High-Risk of which 50% are with
gun and 50% without gun. The 90% Low-Risk is 25% with gun, and 75%
without gun.
A) Working out the expected numbers of the four types of matched
case-control pairs when the controls are selected *without*
consideration of subgroup membership:
case with gun case with gun case without gun case without gun
control with control without control with control without
45.375 119.625 75.625 199.375
The odds ratio is 119.625/75.625 = 1.58
Remember that there is no association within each of the
subgroups,
and therefore this is a spurious association comparable to the 1.6
found.
B) Working out the expected numbers of the four types of matched
case-control pairs when the control are selected from within the same
subgroup as the case.
case with gun case with gun case without gun case without gun
control with control without control with control without
68.75 96.25 96.25 178.75
The odds ratio is 96.25/96.25 = 1.
This is the same (no association) result which is found within
each
subgroup. This indicates that the Mantel-Haenszel method correctly
compensates for stratification only when the stratification is
recognized.
Therefore it can be seen that this type of subgrouping could, by
itself, account for the results of the study.
Bias due to failure to respond honestly
The cases and the controls were asked about gun ownership in the
home. The raw results were that 174 of the cases (45.4%) said that
there was ownership and 139 (35.8%) said that, for a crude odds ratio
of 1.6. Might there be a bias in these responses? Considering that
each of the cases was a homicide reported to the police, we can expect
that there was a police investigation and not only was a gun found if
there was one in the home, but that there would be little reluctance to
admit the fact. What about the controls?
The authors refer to "a pilot study of homes listed as the
addresses of owners of registered handguns confirmed that respondents'
answers to questions about gun ownership were generally valid." (This
study by Kellerman, et al, 1990 is cited below.) This sounds
impressive - until considering what "generally" means. In the study
referred to, the authors found that 97.1% of the families (34 of 35)
which were listed as being the location of a registered handgun
admitted to having guns in the home, either at the time or recently.
This sounds very impressive until the numbers are placed in
perspective. 75 homes were chosen, but due to difficulties in address
records, only 55 could be found, and of these only 35 consented to the
interview. Therefore we can only conclude that 31 of the 55 homes
contacted (56.4%) and 31 of the total of 75 homes (41.3%) admitted to
gun ownership. This is considering only *registered* owners. One might
plausibly think the difficulties in finding 20 (= 26.7%) of the
registered owners might be related to their unwillingness to be
connected with ownership. The refusal to be interviewed might have the
same cause, and owners of unregistered guns would be even more
reluctant to admit to ownership. Criminals and owners of illicit guns
are likely to refuse to be interviewed, let alone admit to ownership.
Therefore it appears that Kellerman is quoting his own previous work in
a way which overstates its conclusion.
The reason this % is important can be seen by looking at the
amount by which gun ownership is stated to be lower in the controls
than in the cases. This is the root of the 'association' which is
claimed to exist between gun ownership and homicide. It would take
only 37 controls who possessed guns, but denied possession, to make the
control ownership exactly equal to the cases (and produce a crude odds
ratio of 1.0.) Note that the chance of lying in denial is raised by
the
fact that most of the time (51.7% of the time) the control, instead of
a proxy, was interviewed, and therefore there could be maximum personal
interest in denying gun ownership. If 45% of the control actually
owned guns, this 'deficit' of 37 would represent a 21.1%
'false-denial-rate.' Such a rate is quite consistent with the results
of the pilot study, even though the authors do not admit to it.
Therefore this bias could, by itself, account for the results of
the study.
(The study is Kellermann, A. L., F. P. Rivara, J. Banton, D. Reay,
and C. L. Feigner. Validating survey responses about gun ownership
among owners of registered handguns. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 131:1080-4.)
Selection Bias and Response Bias
A major point is made in this study that *all* of the homicides
meeting the study's 'in the home' criterion were included. This is a
benefit to a CCM study since it eliminates the possibility of case
'selection bias' affecting the results. However, upon closer
inspection, it appears that there is far from total inclusion and that
there is room for selection bias to act. The authors try to give the
impression that there was a very high response - they do this by giving
'partial' percentages several times, rather than stating the end
result. There were 444 homicides meeting the 'home' criterion. 24
were excluded for "various reasons" leaving 94.6%. But then 7% were
dropped because of failure to interview the proxy, and an additional 1%
due to failure to find a control, leaving 388 matched pairs. This is
down to 87.4%. The authors state, "Although case-control studies offer
many advantages over ecologic studies, they are prone to several
sources of bias. To minimize selection bias, we included *all* cases of
homicide in the home and rigorously followed an explicit procedure for
randomly selecting neighborhood control subjects. High response rates
among case proxies (92.6 percent) and matching controls (80.6 percent)
minimized nonresponse bias." (emphasis added)
Are the authors overstating their case? Perhaps just a little,
but
many would be willing to allow 87.4% to be described as "all".
However,
this is not the end - even though there were 388 matched pairs, it
appears that the study did not obtain complete data on all of them, and
the multivariate analyses used require complete data, and so there were
only 316 matched pairs used in the final analyses. This represents
71.2% of the 444 homicides. It is very difficult to accept that "all"
fairly describes this 71.2%.
This does not prove that there was any selection or response bias
in this study, it just shows that there was room for such biases to
act. It also shows that the authors avoided coming to grips with this
issue and misled the readers into thinking that there could be little
or no such bias.
APPENDICES
Appendix on the Case Control method.
The case control technique is described in:
Designing Clinical Research
Stephen B. Hulley & Steven R. Cummings, editors
Williams & Wilkins 1988
Here are some quote from relevant sections, with some notes of mine on
how it applies to the current topic.
Chapter 8 Designing a New Study: II. Cross-sectional and Case-control
Studies by Thomas B. Newman, et al.
Case-control Studies are covered on pages 78 - 86
Emphasis marked with _ _ is in the original. [My comments are in square
brackets.]
" ... case-control studies are generally _retrospective_. They
identify
groups of subjects with and without the disease, then look backward in
time to find differences in predictor variables that may explain why
the
cases got the disease and the controls did no." (footnote "The terms
"predictor" and "outcome" variable can be confusing in a case-control
study. From a statistical viewpoint, the search for associations in
these studies uses the presence or absence of the disease as the
predictor and the level of various risk factors as the outcome.
However, this reverses the biological meaning of these terms, and we
have elected to continue the convention of using predictors and
outcomes
to reflect the putative cause and effect relationships.)
"The design of a case-control study is challenging because of the
increased opportunities for bias, but there are many examples of
well-designed studies that have yielded important results ..."
Strengths of Case-Control Studies - two are discussed:
Efficiency for rare outcomes
Usefulness for generating hypotheses
Weaknesses of case-control studies
"Case control studies are a cheap and practical way to investigate
risk factors for rare diseases, or to generate hypotheses about new
diseases or unusual outbreaks. These are great strengths, but they are
achieved at a considerable cost." ... "But the biggest weakness of
case-control studies is their _increased_susceptibility_to_bias. This
bias comes chiefly from two sources: the separate sampling of the cases
and controls, and the retrospective measurement of the predictor
variables."
"In general, sampling bias is important when the sample of cases is
unrepresentative _with_respect_to_the_risk_factor_being_studied."
[Note that this is a tricky concept. In Kellerman, et al, they took
all
of the in-home homicides in those locales/times - and so it might be
though that there was no sampling and therefore no possible bias for
cases. But there are several ways in which there could be a sampling
bias. 1) Not all of the homicides got into the analysis - 444 cases
were reduced to 420 for the study, then to 405 because of lack of
controls, then to 388 - of which only 357 had controls matched for all
four matching characteristics. But then they only used 316 of matched
pairs in the final multivariate analysis, in order to only include
pairs
for thich they had data on "the six variables of interest". They
didn't
say what number of these 316 were matched for all four characteristics.
So instead of a 100% sample which has no selection and therefore can't
be biased, there was a 71% sample which allows for the existence of
bias.
2) Only 3 counties in the US were used, and the study is being used to
reach conclusions about the whole US - therefore this raises the
question
whether these 3 counties are an unbiased sample of the US. Note that
the homocide rate in these counties was approximately 50% greater than
the
overall U.S. rate. This then brings into question whether the results,
even without question of procedural flaws, could be representative of
the U.S. population. 3) The cases were selected by the criterion of an
in-home homicide, but the risk factor most discussed is the keeping of
a
gun for purposes of protection. There is nothing to show that the
homicide cases studied are representative of the households which keep
a
gun for protection.]
"The more difficult decisions faced ... usually relate to the more
open-ended task of _selecting_the_controls. The general goal is to
find
an accessible population at risk of the disease who otherwise represent
the same population as the cases, and there are four main strategies
for
achieving this goal."
"1. Sampling the cases and controls in the same way: One strategy is
to choose a control group that _compensates_ for an unrepresentative
sample of cases by being unrepresentative in the same way."
"2. Matching: Matching is a simple method of ensuring that cases and
controls are comparable with respect to major factors that are related
to the disease but not of interest to the investigator."
"Differential measurement bias, and how to control it: The second
particular problem of case-control studies is bias that affects one
group more than the other caused by the retrospective approach to
measuring the predictor variables. [e.g. "_differential_ recall bias"
in which one group, case or control, is more likely to remember or
report risk factors. In particular, any difference in reporting gun
ownership would cause a bias in the Kellerman, et al study.]
"... there are two specific strategies for avoid bias in measuring
risk factors in case-control studies."
"1. Use of data recorded before the outcome occurred: ..."
"2. Blinding: ... "Ideally, neither the study subjects nor the
investigators should know which subjects are cases and which are
controls. ... In practice, this is often difficult. The subjects know
whether they are sick or well, ..." [In the Kellerman, et al study,
there is a distinction of whether or not a homicide occurred at home -
which doesn't seem to be amenable to blinding.]
Measures of association (Appendix 8A)
Predictor variable Outcome variable
present absent
present a b
absent c d
Relative risk ~~ Odds ratio = ad/bc [~~ is used for wavy =]
[Appendix 8B is "Why the odds ratio can be used as an estimate for
relative risk in a case-control study"]
[Appendix 10A is "Hypothetical example of confounding" in which an
apparent association between coffee drinking and MI is shown to result
from an actual zero association of coffee drinking but instead from a
high association of smoking with coffee drinking.]
[This is a very relevant example, because overlooking confounding
variables (such a membership in a high-risk group) can easily produce
significant but spurious associations in the results. This is easy to
demonstrate.]
Appendix - calculation of odds ratio
Gun Outcomes
Ownership dead alive
Own gun a b
No gun c d
The odds ratio is ad/bc.
Appendix - The Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square analysis for matched pairs
is a special case of their analysis for a stratified sample in
case-control studies.
The odds ratio is
B/C where B is the number of pairs where the
case has gun ownership and the control doesn't and
C is the opposite (disjoint pairs)
Appendix - Justification for existence of sub-group/stratification.
A sociologist colleague lent me a copy of a textbook, Criminology,
2nd ed. by John E. Conklin, 1986, Macmillin Pub. Co. It has a Chapter
on "Criminal Careers" about people who commit crimes repeatedly. In
this chapter, a section on 'Delinquent Careers' (starting on pg. 308)
gives some direct data on subgrouping. Two research studies in
different cities are discussed.
A study of a birth cohort (Delinquency in a Birth Cohort,
Wolfgang,
Figlio and Sellin, 1972) covering males 10 - 18 years old in
Philadelphia showed the following results:
Type of Offender % of Cohort % of all of Cohort's
Police Contacts
Nondelinquents 65.1 0
One-time offenders 16.2 15.8
Nonchronic offenders 12.4 32.3
Chronic offenders 6.3 51.9
Less than 5 contacts counts as nonchronic. They point out that the
one-time offender group usually were involved in relatively trivial
offenses. Note that 10% of the offenders would account for roughly 2/3
of all police contacts.
Another cohort study in Racine, Wisc. of juveniles and young
adults
(Shannon, 1982) showed similar concentration with
5 - 7 % accounted for over 1/2 of all non-traffic police contacts
~20% " " " 80% " " " "
5 - 14% " " ALL of the felony arrests.
These are cohort studies, and are therefor not susceptible to
sampling bias and other such problems as many of the other (easier to
run) studies. We have the inescapable conclusion that there is
subgrouping in the population, with a small fraction of the population
accounting for a large portion of serious criminal behavior.
Appendix - population figures
County population dates of study duration pop-years
(1990 census)
Cuyahoga 1412140 1/1/90-10/23/92 2.81 years 3,970,000
Shelby 826330 10/23/87-92 4 years 3,305,000
King 1507319 " " " " 6,030,000
Total pop-years: ~13,300,000
--------------
--henry schaffer
--
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of
its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose
creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take
measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency
may suggest and prudence justify. #33
Dole/Kemp for President & VP in '96 Mark Sharpe for Congress
KE4MVU KOH 0767
Ray
Steve D. Fischer wrote:
> SEE ARTICLE #3 below for an exhaustive treatment of anti-gun bias in
> the medical literature.
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW
> --------------------------
>
> Volume 62, Number 3 (Spring, 1995), pp 443-822
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> "A Second Amendment Symposium Issue"
>
> ARTICLES:
>
> (1) Foreward: Guns, Militias, and Oklahoma City. by Randy E. Barnett.
>
> (2) A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, by Glenn Harlan Reynolds.
>
> (3) Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of
> Propaganda, by Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, John K. Lattimer,
> George B. Murrya and Edwin W. Cassem.
RR: Thanks for the cite, I'll look it up and get back to you. But
have YOU read it? If so, please tell us what it says..
Ray
RR: Thanks Julius... these are stats I'll archive in my Guns File. You are
correct, of course, that DC's crime rate is higher than Virginia's. But
I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
that of the Capital. Crime, I'm sure we'll all agree, is driven by many
factors. Gun availability would be just one of them.
Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
river. It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home. That's why
we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
cross the state lines and get them.
In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
in Virginia time after time.
So in an effort to clean up its image, Virginia passed a law in 1993
limiting gun purchases to one a month. The hope was that criminals wouldn't
"encourage" some gun-loving Virginian to buy a car-load of guns for them,
which they'd ship back home to the hood, so to speak.
And you know what? This gun-control law actually worked! Yes, it's
documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
of firearms."
Julius Chang
>>
>> So DON'T hand us the line about the CDC studies by Arthur Kellerman to
>> be valid studies and that no-one has debunked them, because either:
>
>RR: My reply to Julius holds true for you too: Put up or shut up.
I've "put up" by giving you the references. You claim that
you "have them all, so don't worry about me not following along"
with regards to Kellerman's works. Well, you don't seem to
be "following along". Go to a library and look up the Tennessee
Law Review and the Wall Street Journal articles.
Your challenge of "put up or shut up" doesn't carry any weight
when you are unwilling to expend the minor effort to do some
scholarly research when given the references and authors.
-Julius
Bruce Showalter
"Robert L. Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
Well, I think it was Mark Twain who said something like "Figures don't lie but
liars figure." You can take your numbers and rub them until they give you a
rash, but the bottom line remains the same..... Washington DC has the most
restrictive gun controls in the US and still has a violent crime rate that is
off the scale. Gun Control is a warm-fuzzy-feel-good and is totaly useless in
the real world.
Regards
Bruce
Julius Chang
In article <327402...@interaccess.com>, Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Julius Chang wrote:
>> Table 4.7 Crimes Known to Police in Virginia's Cities and Counties:
>> 1989
>>
>> Murder and Non-Neg
>> Manslaughter
>> Arl 1
>> Alex 8
>> VA 479
>>
>> Population Information (from Vital Facts for Virginia):
>> Arl - approx. 171,000
>> Alex - approx. 111,000
>RR: Thanks Julius... these are stats I'll archive in my Guns File. You are
>correct, of course, that DC's crime rate is higher than Virginia's. But
>I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
>that of the Capital. Crime, I'm sure we'll all agree, is driven by many
By "the Capital", I assume you mean DC. The murder rate in Alexandria
is about 7.2 per 100,000. The murder rate in DC is about 10X higher.
>factors. Gun availability would be just one of them.
> Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
>circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
Federal law prohibits this. The VA instant background check,
which has been around well before Brady, enforces this.
>river. It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home. That's why
>we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
Murder is already illegal in the US. Interstate purchase of
a handgun by a non-FFL is illegal in the US. Strawman purchases
are illegal. I can go on. Just what other Federal laws do you
want to pass and why should criminals pay attention to those new laws?
>cross the state lines and get them.
> In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
>became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
>States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
>in Virginia time after time.
Tracing is not a statistically accurate way to track firearms.
> So in an effort to clean up its image, Virginia passed a law in 1993
>limiting gun purchases to one a month. The hope was that criminals wouldn't
>"encourage" some gun-loving Virginian to buy a car-load of guns for them,
>which they'd ship back home to the hood, so to speak.
FFLs already had to report multiple handgun sales to the BATF
well before the one-gun-per-month law took effect. Thus, the
Feds had plenty of information available to track these illegal
sales.
> And you know what? This gun-control law actually worked! Yes, it's
>documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
>Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
>Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
But if firearms were so easy to get, then why is the
murder rate in VA so much lower compared to these
apparent problem areas? It appears that something
else is operating, not mere firearms availability.
> The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
>back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
>guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
>dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
Think about what might initiate a trace and how non-uniformities
can affect the validity of making any conclusions based on traces.
> And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
>gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
>one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
>After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
> The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
>month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
>of firearms."
So why aren't guns coming from other NE states that don't have
one-a-month limits? Why wasn't VT a big source of firearms
pre-Brady since there was no waiting period required there?
All you needed to do was present the cash and a valid ID.
It seems that a one-a-month limit isn't the only operating
factor controlling illegal gun-running.
-Julius
Ray
Julius Chang wrote:
> I've "put up" by giving you the references. You claim that
> you "have them all, so don't worry about me not following along"
> with regards to Kellerman's works. Well, you don't seem to
> be "following along". Go to a library and look up the Tennessee
> Law Review and the Wall Street Journal articles.
RR: Patience, Julius, patience. You'll raise your blood pressure, and that
isn't good. I said I had the Kellermann references, not these
interlopers you've cited (but which you have not quoted from, I might add).
So it will take a little more time, and patience.
Sam A. Kersh
RR <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Sam A. Kersh wrote:
>> For years the
>> CDC has worked hand in hand with HCI to produce phony "studies" toward
>> this end.
>
>RR: Problem is, no one has proved them to be "phony."
Noone? Try Don Kates, Prof Gary Kleck, David Polsby, Prof Blackman,
Shaffer, Suter, et al...
>
>> But firearms isn't the only area CDC has lied to the public about. It
>> has produced copious amount of AIDS propaganda to scare the public
>> rather than tell the truth. AIDS was and still is a disease primarily
>> transmitted by homosexuals or druggies.
>
>RR: That's a different topic, but I've never seen any lies from the CDC
>about AIDS either. You got any specifics?
No, this has to do with CDC's integrity and honesty. The article
started on the front page of of the Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1996...
Nosy
< RR: Thanks Julius... these are stats I'll archive in my Guns File. You are
< correct, of course, that DC's crime rate is higher than Virginia's. But
< I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
< that of the Capital. Crime, I'm sure we'll all agree, is driven by many
< factors. Gun availability would be just one of them.
Some of us have been saying that for a while....
<Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
< circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
< river.
Rubbish, utter rubbish.
Ray is posting blatantly false information.
<It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home.
Oh, really? Perhaps Ray would be so kind as to explain
exactly how this works, in detail?
Prediction: He can't and won't.
< That's why
< we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
< cross the state lines and get them.
So Ray is asking for a Federal law to ban interstate sales
of handguns?
Has Ray ever heard of "The Gun Control Act of 1968", perhaps?
He might like to skim it sometime, with special attention
on the section regarding interstate sales of firearms.
<In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
< became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
< States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
< in Virginia time after time.
"Tracing" studies are a classic example of "cherry picked" data.
< So in an effort to clean up its image, Virginia passed a law in 1993
< limiting gun purchases to one a month. The hope was that criminals wouldn't
< "encourage" some gun-loving Virginian to buy a car-load of guns for them,
< which they'd ship back home to the hood, so to speak.
The "gun per month" law was passed long after Virginia
set up the "instant" check.
< And you know what? This gun-control law actually worked! Yes, it's
< documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
< Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
< Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
Nonsense. The "instant" check system was the key element,
not the "one gun per month" system.
But trust Ray to cite those famous criminologists at the
American Medical Association. No doubt he goes to the police
for medical attention, too.
< The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
< month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
< of firearms."
From a false premise, no useful conclusions can be obtained.
Scout
In article <327402...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>Julius Chang wrote:
>>
>> In article <32736A...@interaccess.com>, Ray <ki...@interaccess.com>
wrote:
>> >>They might be a *bit* more interesting if the "DC gun law works"
enthusiasts
>> >>were ever try to answer the question "Why are violent crime rates lower
in
>> >>Virginia adjacent to DC?"
>> >
>> >RR: Perhaps you have the statistics for Arlington and Alexandria??
>>
>> From the 1992-1993 Virginia Statistical Abstract:
>>
>> Table 4.3, Crime Rates for US, Virginia, and Surrounding States:
>> 1982-1989 (per 100,000 population)
>>
>> 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983
1982
>>
>> VA 4211 4177 3959 3860 3779 3784 3962
4256
>> DC 10293 9915 8452 8339 8007 8779 9453
10600
>> US 5741 5664 5550 5480 5207 5031 5175
5604
>>
>> Table 4.4 Crime Rates in Virginia's Cities and Counties: 1982-1989
>>
>> Arl 5877 6054 5606 5300 5192 5055 5042
5235
>> Alex 7393 6916 6901 6915 7375 7257 7712
8285
>>
>> 1989
>>
>> Murder and Non-Neg
>> Manslaughter
>> Arl 1
>> Alex 8
>> VA 479
>>
>> Population Information (from Vital Facts for Virginia):
>> Arl - approx. 171,000
>> Alex - approx. 111,000
>>
>
>RR: Thanks Julius... these are stats I'll archive in my Guns File. You are
>correct, of course, that DC's crime rate is higher than Virginia's. But
>I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
>that of the Capital.
Actually it's (for this data set) 108%-143% higher. This with much tighter gun
control than Alex.
The average is 125% higher. Which I would NOT call 'not much'.
> Crime, I'm sure we'll all agree, is driven by many
>factors.
Agreed.
>Gun availability would be just one of them.
Hmmm. Looking at the data, it seems to be a best a minor or even insignificant
factor. Since the easier gun availability of Alex doesn't result in higher
crime than in the harder gun availability of DC.
> Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
>circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
>river. It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home. That's why
>we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
>cross the state lines and get them.
Hmmmm. I thought that it was ILLEGAL to transport firearms across state lines
(that includes between VA and DC) for illegal purposes, or to avoid gun
control restrictions.
So exactly what type of law are you asking for?
What makes you think it will work any better than the laws you state are being
ignored?
> In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
>became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
>States.
ROFL. You want an easy place to buy guns try Vermont. Sorry, VA isn't
particularly easy if you're a criminal, nor for those in the business of gun
running. Interesting since the only gun runners I've ever heard about
convicted in VA were put into operation by the BATF.
> Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
>in Virginia time after time.
Yep, I'm aware of that particular study. What they don't tell you was only
selected weapons were traced, and the bulk of those traced to VA came from a
single outlet in Norfolk. An outlet the BATF was encouraging to sell to the
gun runners. Whom have never been charged or arrested to my knowledge. So if
you throw out this faulty datum (since the gun dealer didn't want to sell to
these people, and finally told the BATF to stuff it, much to his regret). You
find VA to be no particular source of guns.
> So in an effort to clean up its image, Virginia passed a law in 1993
>limiting gun purchases to one a month.
Soley as a result of the faulty study in NYC and activities by the BATF.
>The hope was that criminals wouldn't
>"encourage" some gun-loving Virginian to buy a car-load of guns for them,
>which they'd ship back home to the hood, so to speak.
And how many federal crimes would such activity violate?
How many people have ever been caught doing so?
Why can't the BATF use the multiple gun purchase forms to trace anyone engaged
in such activities?
> And you know what? This gun-control law actually worked!
Yep, it worked because the gun dealer in Norfolk would no longer consent to
sell guns to this particular group of gun runners. The BATF then launched an
'investigation' against the dealer, attempted to claim they never authorized
such sales, called in the IRS, made harrassing phone calls, and finally drove
the man to kill himslef. All while NEVER charging or arresting the actual gun
runners. Once you know the facts, the BS sounds more like a program to get VA
to increase it's restrictions by allowing and encouraging criminals to operate
in such a fashion. Tell me what purpose did allowing continued gun running do
for the BATF, particularly when then never even charged the suspects?
> Yes, it's
>documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
>Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
>Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
Which of course we all know is the absolute source of criminalogy data.
Is this the same Journal that has published such often refuted studies as the
43-1 study, and such like?
> The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
>back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
>guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
>dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
Interesting, you're telling me that the number of VA guns owned by criminals
dropped in a short period by 8%. Just a though how long would it take for a
reduction in supply to be felt by criminals that already owned their weapons?
I've seen the data for the sales in VA (it came out during the 1-gun-a-month
BS) and I don't see how VA even assuming ALL sales were illegal could supply
even 19% of criminals with firearms in a year.
I find it amazing that little olde VA can manage to supply guns to 27% of the
ENTIRE nations criminal. Why don't I ever see truckloads of guns headed for
California?
> And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
>gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
>one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
>After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
Yep, those guns already owned just dried up and weren't good anymore. Sorry,
but even if this law were to have an effect it would take YEARS if not decades
for such a drop to become felt. I suspect the manner of data collection is
faulty and once against the medical community has published a flawed and
self-serving study.
> The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
>month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
>of firearms."
Hmmmm, I would think that laws declaring illegal transport of firearms across
interstate lines would be just as effective. Opps, but then we already have
that law, and the BATF can't seem to ever arrest those people.
--
Scout
Ray
Scout replies:
> Actually it's (for this data set) 108%-143% higher. This with much tighter gun
> control than Alex.
RR: Where do you get 108%-143%??? Just take the most recent year. DC's rate
was 10293 and Alexandria's was 7393. That's just a 40% difference, not
108%!!!
> Hmmmm. I thought that it was ILLEGAL to transport firearms across state lines
> (that includes between VA and DC) for illegal purposes, or to avoid gun
> control restrictions.
RR: Maybe for illegal purposes sure. Don't know about avoiding gun control
restrictions. Illegal or not though, it happens, because we don't have
federal legislation.
> So exactly what type of law are you asking for?
RR: A federal one gun a month law would certainly cut into the gun smuggling
market.
> > Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
> >in Virginia time after time.
>
> Yep, I'm aware of that particular study. What they don't tell you was only
> selected weapons were traced, and the bulk of those traced to VA came from a
> single outlet in Norfolk. An outlet the BATF was encouraging to sell to the
> gun runners. Whom have never been charged or arrested to my knowledge. So if
> you throw out this faulty datum (since the gun dealer didn't want to sell to
> these people, and finally told the BATF to stuff it, much to his regret). You
> find VA to be no particular source of guns.
RR: This is a pleasant fiction from the NRA, but it's preposterous on its face.
In a way, it rivels defense claims in the Simpson trial that the entire
LA police dept was planting and altering evidence on purpose.
Let's see, in 1990. Virginia was one of four states identified as
major sources in NYC. Another study in 1991 turned up 41% of guns to be
from Virginia. They sampled again in 1992.. 26% came from Virginia.
In fact, the traces date back to 1985. So it wasn't just one "particular study."
Are you really trying to tell me that ONE STORE was forced to provide
all these guns for all those years to criminals who took them to NYC and
elsewhere?
Please, for such a huge conspiracy story as this... provide some
facts and sources... not just NRA propaganda.
> Why can't the BATF use the multiple gun purchase forms to trace anyone engaged
> in such activities?
RR: How? BEfore one-gun-a-month.. there were thousands of Virginians making
multiple buys, the vast majority of them legit. Would you waste precious tax
money by requiring the BATF to trace down every multiple purchase just to
find the very few that funneled illegal guns to other states?
And how far would such a trace go? Since private sales did not
require paperwork from the seller, the trail would be lost after the first
private sale.
>> it's
> >documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
> >Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
> >Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
>
> Which of course we all know is the absolute source of criminalogy data.
RR: At least I provide a source. Where's your's?
> > The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
> >back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
> >guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
> >dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
>
> Interesting, you're telling me that the number of VA guns owned by criminals
> dropped in a short period by 8%. Just a though how long would it take for a
> reduction in supply to be felt by criminals that already owned their weapons?
> I've seen the data for the sales in VA (it came out during the 1-gun-a-month
> BS) and I don't see how VA even assuming ALL sales were illegal could supply
> even 19% of criminals with firearms in a year.
RR: 19% represented just 519 guns, over a nearly 2 year period.
519 guns sold by Virginia gun dealers over two years does not seem
to be that many.
But of course it certainly WOULD BE a huge number of guns coming
from just ONE store. Sort of blows that NRA fiction out of the water,
doesn't it?
> I find it amazing that little olde VA can manage to supply guns to 27% of the
> ENTIRE nations criminal. Why don't I ever see truckloads of guns headed for
> California?
RR: These were guns supplied to these states over nearly
a four year period before the law passed... not all in one year.
> even if this law were to have an effect it would take YEARS if not decades
> for such a drop to become felt.
RR: Not if there is a relatively fast turn-over of illicit guns in the
criminal community.
> Hmmmm, I would think that laws declaring illegal transport of firearms across
> interstate lines would be just as effective. Opps, but then we already have
> that law, and the BATF can't seem to ever arrest those people.
RR: Come on, Scout, get serious. The old laws were relatively ineffective
because you can't set up BATF border crossings on state lines.
By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
the illegal gun trade at the source.
Scout
In article <3276D6...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>Scout wrote:
<Stuff Snipped to save space>
>> >correct, of course, that DC's crime rate is higher than Virginia's. But
>> >I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
>> >that of the Capital.
>
>Scout replies:
>> Actually it's (for this data set) 108%-143% higher. This with much tighter
gun
>> control than Alex.
>
>RR: Where do you get 108%-143%??? Just take the most recent year. DC's
rate
>was 10293 and Alexandria's was 7393. That's just a 40% difference, not
>108%!!!
Right. 10293/7393=1.39226 or 139% higher than our base crime rate of Alex.
The low came from 1985, where DC = 8007 and Alex = 7375 giving an increase of
108% (or 8% difference)
The high occured in 1988, where DC = 9915 and Alex = 6916 giving an increase
of 143%. (or 43% difference)
>> Hmmmm. I thought that it was ILLEGAL to transport firearms across state
lines
>> (that includes between VA and DC) for illegal purposes, or to avoid gun
>> control restrictions.
>
>RR: Maybe for illegal purposes sure. Don't know about avoiding gun control
>restrictions.
Sorry, but that is federal law.
> Illegal or not though, it happens, because we don't have
>federal legislation.
Sorry, but federal law makes it illegal, as well as various state, and local
laws. So what more do you want?
You claim that laws can make the difference, when shown that such activities
are illegal, you seem to want to ignore that.
Nor have you explained by DC's crime is so much higher than Alex in the 'gun
crazy' state of VA. If guns make any real difference then Alex should have a
crime rate higher than DC's, yet it doesn't. When will you explain this
conflict in your predictions?
>> So exactly what type of law are you asking for?
>
>RR: A federal one gun a month law would certainly cut into the gun smuggling
>market.
Why? How many criminals engage in gun running using retail outlets? Why should
further laws limit this already illegal activity? In fact it would seem that
NOT having such a limit would make tracing easier, since multiple gun
purchases require addition paperwork, as well as notification of the BATF
within 24 hours of the sale. Should be easy enough to follow up on these
characters. Excuse me, but 2 weeks ago you bought x guns from store y. Where
are they? If the person can't produce them, then you have reasonable proof of
illegal activity. Since you can only transfer so many guns a month w/o being a
FFL. You could also be required to provide names and addresses of those you
transfered any arms to. The problem is not with the law, but with enforcement
by the BATF.
>> > Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
>> >in Virginia time after time.
>>
>> Yep, I'm aware of that particular study. What they don't tell you was only
>> selected weapons were traced, and the bulk of those traced to VA came from
a
>> single outlet in Norfolk. An outlet the BATF was encouraging to sell to the
>> gun runners. Whom have never been charged or arrested to my knowledge. So
if
>> you throw out this faulty datum (since the gun dealer didn't want to sell
to
>> these people, and finally told the BATF to stuff it, much to his regret).
You
>> find VA to be no particular source of guns.
>
>RR: This is a pleasant fiction from the NRA, but it's preposterous on its
face.
Sorry, but none of this came from the NRA, but Norfolk newspapers. Actions of
the BATF often seem preposterous to most people when informed of the facts.
Such as intentionally misinforming people who call for clarification of
firearm laws, so they wont be in violation. Then the BATF sents out an agent
to arrest the person when they follow the advice of the BATF.
>In a way, it rivels defense claims in the Simpson trial that the entire
>LA police dept was planting and altering evidence on purpose.
I don't know about the entire LA police dept., but it seems quite clear that
at least part of it was, and did.
> Let's see, in 1990. Virginia was one of four states identified as
>major sources in NYC. Another study in 1991 turned up 41% of guns to be
>from Virginia. They sampled again in 1992.. 26% came from Virginia.
>In fact, the traces date back to 1985. So it wasn't just one "particular
study."
> Are you really trying to tell me that ONE STORE was forced to provide
>all these guns for all those years to criminals who took them to NYC and
>elsewhere?
For a period of at least 6 months. With levels of at least several hundred
total. That's a LOT of arms for criminals.
However, let's grant the point. What difference does it make if gun runners
work out of VA, why can't federal law enforcement deal with the issue? After
all there are federal laws against it. It's not as if they don't know who's
making these purchases, or not being informed of them in a timely fashion.
Why should I have to deal with restrictions on my freedoms, because the BATF
can't do their jobs?
> Please, for such a huge conspiracy story as this... provide some
>facts and sources... not just NRA propaganda.
Try local Norfolk newspapers during the period of, oh, about 1988-1990. I'm
not sure of the specific dates, as at that time, it was only a minor point of
interest. Should be easy to locate the specific date, as most papers carried a
front page article on it.
>> Why can't the BATF use the multiple gun purchase forms to trace anyone
engaged
>> in such activities?
>
>RR: How? BEfore one-gun-a-month.. there were thousands of Virginians
making
>multiple buys, the vast majority of them legit.
Sorry, but in a year VA had less than 300 multiple gun purchases. Most of them
were legit, but when you have a name consistantly showing up, that would be
worth a quick check don't you thin?. Even an 'exessive' purchase level would
be worth a least a brief visit, don't you think?
> Would you waste precious tax
>money by requiring the BATF to trace down every multiple purchase just to
>find the very few that funneled illegal guns to other states?
Oh, so now it's very few. Look either VA supplies a lot of guns through retail
outlets or it doesn't. Can you make up your mind?
Let's see. Either VA supplies a lot of guns through retail outlets, which the
one-gun-a-month law would effect, but should also be easy for the BATF to
trace, or VA doesn't which means the one-gun-a-month has no or limited effect.
You can't have both.
> And how far would such a trace go? Since private sales did not
>require paperwork from the seller, the trail would be lost after the first
>private sale.
However, you can't transfer a large number of guns through private transfers,
since there is a federal limit on the number an individual can engage in
without being an FFL.
So if they can't produce the arms, then federal law has been violated. Fairly
simple court case.
>
>>> it's
>> >documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
>> >Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
>> >Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
>>
>> Which of course we all know is the absolute source of criminalogy data.
>
>RR: At least I provide a source. Where's your's?
See above. Limited sources I admit, but since this is just a side issue, it's
not particularly important to the discussion.
>> > The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
>> >back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
>> >guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
>> >dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
>>
>> Interesting, you're telling me that the number of VA guns owned by
criminals
>> dropped in a short period by 8%. Just a though how long would it take for a
>> reduction in supply to be felt by criminals that already owned their
weapons?
>> I've seen the data for the sales in VA (it came out during the
1-gun-a-month
>> BS) and I don't see how VA even assuming ALL sales were illegal could
supply
>> even 19% of criminals with firearms in a year.
>
>RR: 19% represented just 519 guns, over a nearly 2 year period.
>519 guns sold by Virginia gun dealers over two years does not seem
>to be that many.
No it certainly doesn't. Seems almost that with numbers so low that how many
guns were traced, or what type, or other fluctuations could cause your error
level to exceed your difference.
> But of course it certainly WOULD BE a huge number of guns coming
>from just ONE store. Sort of blows that NRA fiction out of the water,
>doesn't it?
Not really, since this one store with encouragement from the BATF supplied at
least several hundred. With a sample of only 519, that could account for a
major fraction of those traced to VA. Nor does the trace mention how long it
has been since the firearm was sold in VA (an valid datum I would think) nor
if it had been reported stolen (another).
>> I find it amazing that little olde VA can manage to supply guns to 27% of
the
>> ENTIRE nations criminal. Why don't I ever see truckloads of guns headed for
>> California?
>
>RR: These were guns supplied to these states over nearly
>a four year period before the law passed... not all in one year.
So I would expect it to take at least 4 years before a result was noticed.
>> even if this law were to have an effect it would take YEARS if not decades
>> for such a drop to become felt.
>
>RR: Not if there is a relatively fast turn-over of illicit guns in the
>criminal community.
Hmmmm. I see a gun wears out quickly. It only lasts a couple of muggings then
you need a new one.
>> Hmmmm, I would think that laws declaring illegal transport of firearms
across
>> interstate lines would be just as effective. Opps, but then we already have
>> that law, and the BATF can't seem to ever arrest those people.
>
>RR: Come on, Scout, get serious.
I am.
> The old laws were relatively ineffective
>because you can't set up BATF border crossings on state lines.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean you can't investigate, capture, and prosecute
those that practice this illegal activity? Oh, Yes, the BATF can set up border
crossings for a particular vehicle if they have probable cause.
> By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
>the illegal gun trade at the source.
Agreed, and that source is not retail outlets, but theft.
--
Scout
Ray
Nosy wrote:
Ray wrote:
> <Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
> < circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
> < river.
Nosy wrote:
> Rubbish, utter rubbish.
> Ray is posting blatantly false information.
> <It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home.
> Oh, really? Perhaps Ray would be so kind as to explain
> exactly how this works, in detail?
> Prediction: He can't and won't.
RR: Nosy, yea of little faith. Of course I can and will. Haven't you learned
yet that I can document what I say? You haven't been reading my posts enough,
I guess. Anyway, here goes:
I pointed out how easy it was for WAshington criminals to get their guns
across the river in gun happy Virginia. This is not "false information." It's
the truth.
In the first half of 1992, BATF agents traced guns confiscated from
criminals in WAshington D.C. Of all the places where such guns
could come from, Virginia topped the list, supplying an astounding
36% of all criminal guns traced in D.C. Read it for yourself in the
New York Times, 12/25/92, p. A8
So how did it work? Easy. According to the same NYT article, gunrunners
got around Virginia's resident-only law by paying Virginians to buy their
mass quantities of guns for them. Another way was to falsify a driver's
license. Virginia's gun laws were so ludicrously easy, that all you needed
was a driver's license to establish your identity.
> < That's why
> < we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
> < cross the state lines and get them.
>
> So Ray is asking for a Federal law to ban interstate sales
> of handguns?
RR: No, I'm asking for a federal one-gun a month law. Wasn't that obvious?
Didn't you absorb what I posted? Tsk, Tsk, Nosy, sometimes I wonder about you.
> "Tracing" studies are a classic example of "cherry picked" data.
RR: Prove it. Don't just repeat the NRA mantra.
Ray
Scout wrote:
> >RR: Where do you get 108%-143%??? Just take the most recent year. DC's
> rate
> >was 10293 and Alexandria's was 7393. That's just a 40% difference, not
> >108%!!!
>
> Right. 10293/7393=1.39226 or 139% higher than our base crime rate of Alex.
RR: Wrong Scout. Consult a math book. If indeed it was 139% then the
10293 figure would have to be more than double the 7393 (100% of something
is double, right?).
What you need to do is get the difference between the two figures
(10293 minus 7393 = 2900) and then figure 2900/7393 and you get 40%.
> >RR: Maybe for illegal purposes sure. Don't know about avoiding gun control
> >restrictions.
>
> Sorry, but that is federal law.
RR: Isn't against the law to just avoid a restriction (like going to the
suburbs of Chicago to buy your gun). Perhaps you mean it's against the
law to violate gun control restrictions (something quite different).
> Why? How many criminals engage in gun running using retail outlets? Why should
> further laws limit this already illegal activity? In fact it would seem that
> NOT having such a limit would make tracing easier, since multiple gun
> purchases require addition paperwork, as well as notification of the BATF
> within 24 hours of the sale.
RR: It's tougher when you have to trace ALL multiple gun buys, when
only a few would be illegal. That's a waste of time and tax money.
It's much easier to stop multiple sales, thus eliminating the profit
motive for criminals to travel to get large quantities of guns.
Besides, while few felons buy guns over the counter, usually the
people who buy the guns for the felons are law abiding citizens. So the
statistics showing few criminal buys are misleading.
And we're not just talking about "stores." We're also talking about
all gun dealers... of which many include mom and pop kitchen counter
operations.
> >RR: This is a pleasant fiction from the NRA, but it's preposterous on its
> face.
>
> Sorry, but none of this came from the NRA, but Norfolk newspapers.
RR: Please supply a citation for this. I've only seen it mentioned in NRA
propaganda. Since you are spinning this yarn, you are responsible for
backing it up with proper references.
> > Are you really trying to tell me that ONE STORE was forced to provide
> >all these guns for all those years to criminals who took them to NYC and
> >elsewhere?
>
> For a period of at least 6 months. With levels of at least several hundred
> total. That's a LOT of arms for criminals.
RR: But I had just cited you YEARS of gun running from Virginia. Your NRA
yarn only covers 6 months? How can you claim this one store was thus
responsible?
> > And how far would such a trace go? Since private sales did not
> >require paperwork from the seller, the trail would be lost after the first
> >private sale.
>
> However, you can't transfer a large number of guns through private transfers,
> since there is a federal limit on the number an individual can engage in
> without being an FFL.
RR: This is a very murky legal area, I'm told. There's no legal limit of
exactly how many guns can be sold at one time. And what if you just sold
a couple of your guns a week? Besides, how could the BATF prove anything.
The seller doesn't have to fill out paperwork.
Are you beginning to see how ludicrously lax our nation's gun control
laws actually are???
> So if they can't produce the arms, then federal law has been violated. Fairly
> simple court case.
RR: Can't produce the arms? The feds wouldn't have a right to search your
home for your private guns. EVen if they did, it wouldn't prove you weren't
storing them elsewhere. Private gun owners are not required by law to
produce their private guns on demand.
Personally I think all private gun owners should be required to produce
their guns once a year at the police station, just to show they haven't been
stolen by criminals.
> >RR: Not if there is a relatively fast turn-over of illicit guns in the
> >criminal community.
>
> Hmmmm. I see a gun wears out quickly. It only lasts a couple of muggings then
> you need a new one.
RR: I've read (but can't source at this time) that criminals truely LOVE
to have the newest guns possible. It's sort of a gansta Pride thing!
> > By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
> >the illegal gun trade at the source.
>
> Agreed, and that source is not retail outlets, but theft.
RR: see above, about strawman buys and their effect on this statistic.
But theft is also a big problem. We should have laws requiring safe
storage.
Todd Lofton
Ray (ki...@interaccess.com) wrote:
[snip]
: RR: Nosy, yea of little faith. Of course I can and will. Haven't you learned
: yet that I can document what I say? You haven't been reading my posts enough,
: I guess. Anyway, here goes:
Oh, this is really too much. RR seems to think strawman purchases are
legal. RR, why don't you read through DejaNews for a while and try to
come up with a new falsehood, eh?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* Todd Lofton *
* University of Nebraska - Lincoln *
* -> These opinions I express are mine and have absolutely <- *
* -> nothing to do with who I work for, with, or against. <- *
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"So once again politicians will quietly go about the business of
gathering patronage for the few."
-- The Cornhusker, 1934
Steve D. Fischer
>>
>> In article <32736A...@interaccess.com>, Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> >Steve Hix wrote:
>> >>They might be a *bit* more interesting if the "DC gun law works" enthusiasts
>> >>were ever try to answer the question "Why are violent crime rates lower in
>> >>Virginia adjacent to DC?"
>> >
>> >RR: Perhaps you have the statistics for Arlington and Alexandria??
>>
>>
>> Table 4.3, Crime Rates for US, Virginia, and Surrounding States:
>> 1982-1989 (per 100,000 population)
>>
>> 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982
>>
>> VA 4211 4177 3959 3860 3779 3784 3962 4256
>> DC 10293 9915 8452 8339 8007 8779 9453 10600
>> US 5741 5664 5550 5480 5207 5031 5175 5604
>>
>> Table 4.4 Crime Rates in Virginia's Cities and Counties: 1982-1989
>>
>> Arl 5877 6054 5606 5300 5192 5055 5042 5235
>> Alex 7393 6916 6901 6915 7375 7257 7712 8285
>>
>> Table 4.7 Crimes Known to Police in Virginia's Cities and Counties:
>> 1989
>>
>> Murder and Non-Neg
>> Manslaughter
>> Arl 1
>> Alex 8
>> VA 479
>>
>> Population Information (from Vital Facts for Virginia):
>> Arl - approx. 171,000
>> Alex - approx. 111,000
>>
>> -Julius
>
>RR: Thanks Julius... these are stats I'll archive in my Guns File. You are
>I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
>factors. Gun availability would be just one of them.
You know, it's quite likely that much of Arlington and Alexandria's
crime problem flows across the Potomac from DC. There are no U.S. Customs
checkpoints to cross from DC to VA. :-)
> Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
>circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
>river. It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home. That's why
>we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
>cross the state lines and get them.
Wait just a damned minute here! First of all, only VA *RESIDENTS*
can legally buy a gun in VA. If you fake a VA ID, you've just committed
a crime. No extra legislation needed here!
Secondly, when you bring that illegal gun back to DC you've just
committed another crime. No extra legislation needed here!
If you buy a gun on the streets of DC from ANYONE, you've committed
a crime. What extra legislation is needed? Just enforce the existing
laws!
> In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
>became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
>States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
>in Virginia time after time.
Those guns were not *BOUGHT* illegally. They were legally bought
by VA residents. Had the person(s) who bought them simply kept them for
their own use, no one would be upset. It's when they *RE-SELL* them in a
different state, illegally, that the trouble begins. It is not illegal
to take a legally owned gun out of the state of VA. It may be illegal
to transport (?) a gun through certain states, however, and it certainly
won't be legal in MOST states to sell a gun on the streets of another
state. If you know of a state in which it IS legal to sell a gun bought
in VA on its streets, then please name that state.
> So in an effort to clean up its image, Virginia passed a law in 1993
>limiting gun purchases to one a month. The hope was that criminals wouldn't
>"encourage" some gun-loving Virginian to buy a car-load of guns for them,
>which they'd ship back home to the hood, so to speak.
That law doesn't offend me, particularly. I don't generally buy
one gun a year.
> And you know what? This gun-control law actually worked! Yes, it's
>documented in a new study in the Journal of the American Medical
>Association: "Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate
>Transfer of Arms," 6/12/96.
> The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
>back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
>guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
>dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
Hmmm. That could simply be sampling bias. Gun traces are not
the most reliable indicators of yearly trends. I'd have to see several
more years of consecutive data to feel confident that the trend is real.
Nonetheless, as I said, I have no particular objection to that law.
> And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
>gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
>one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
>After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
Do you have that paper? If so, give more detail. How many states
were examined? How was the sampling for tracing done? Was it based on
persons being arrested with a gun in their possession? Who were the
authors?
> The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
>month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
>of firearms."
Could be. We'll see. Forgive me if I don't take JAMA's word for it.
They're notoriously anti-gun. I'd like to see confirmation from another
source.
Ray
Todd Lofton wrote:
>
> Oh, this is really too much. RR seems to think strawman purchases are
> legal. RR, why don't you read through DejaNews for a while and try to
> come up with a new falsehood, eh?
RR: Todd, you've lost the thread here. I don't think strawman purchases
are legal, never have. What Nosy and I have been talking about was
my original statement that Virginia's easy as pie gun laws made it easy
for criminals in Washington D.C. to "circumvent" the law and get their
guns in Virginia.
Ray
Steve D. Fischer wrote:
RR> > Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
> >circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
> >river. It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home. That's why
> >we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
> >cross the state lines and get them.
>
> Wait just a damned minute here! First of all, only VA *RESIDENTS*
> can legally buy a gun in VA. If you fake a VA ID, you've just committed
> a crime. No extra legislation needed here!
> Secondly, when you bring that illegal gun back to DC you've just
> committed another crime. No extra legislation needed here!
RR: Of course you're correct. But my point was not to imply that gun running
across the state line was legal (perhaps that was misunderstood). My point was
that what law exist are so puny, that it's too easy for criminals to
circumvent them.
If someone commits a crime, but the law doesn't work, then it's time
for a new law.
> > In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
> >became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
> >States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
> >in Virginia time after time.
>
> Those guns were not *BOUGHT* illegally. They were legally bought
> by VA residents. Had the person(s) who bought them simply kept them for
> their own use, no one would be upset. It's when they *RE-SELL* them in a
> different state, illegally, that the trouble begins. It is not illegal
> to take a legally owned gun out of the state of VA.
RR: Yes some of them were bought illegally. As I've posted, some were
bought with fabricated drivers' licenses. Others were bought by Virginians,
paid by the smugglers to do so. This in itself is not illegal, but as has
been mentioned, it would be illegal to re-sell them on a "mass" basis, either
in Virginia or elsewhere, although that is another crime that is difficult
to prove.
> > And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
> >gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
> >one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
> >After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
>
> Do you have that paper? If so, give more detail. How many states
> were examined? How was the sampling for tracing done? Was it based on
> persons being arrested with a gun in their possession? Who were the
> authors?
RR: Authors were Douglas Weil, Rebecca Knox, from the gunner's favorite
organization (g), Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Can't retype the whole thing, but here's the abstract:
"Objective- To determine the effect of limiting handgun purchases to one per
month on the illegal movement of firearms across state lines.
"Design- Data from the BATF firearms trace database were obtained for traces
requested for firearms recovered in connection with criminal investigation.
The analysis incorporates data on date and location of purchase for
14606 firearms purchased prior to (September 1989 through June 1993) and
after (July 1993 through March 1995) enactment of a Virginia law limiting
handgun purchases to one per month.
"Main Outcome Measures- Odds of tracing a firearm acquired prior to
implementation of the law to Virginia vs another state in the Southeast
compared with the odds for firearms acquired after the law took effect.
"Results- For firearms recovered anywhere in the US, 3201 (27%) of
11376 acquired prior to the implementation of the law and 519 (19%)
of 2730 purchased after the law was enacted were traced to Virginia
(odds ratio .64; 95% confidence interval, .58-.71). For traces
initiated in the northeast corridor (NY, NJ, Conn., RI, and Mass)
1103 (34.8%) of 3169 of the firearms acquired before the one gun
a month law took effect and 142 (15.5%) of 919 firearms purchased after
implementation were traced to Virginia (OR, .34; CI, .28-.41).
"Conclusion- Gun control policies involving licensing, registration and
restricting the number of purchases represent efforts to limit the supply
of guns available in the illegal market. This study provides evidence that
restricting handgun purchases to one per month is an effective means of
disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms."
(JAMA, 6/12/96, p. 1759)
Sam A. Kersh
Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>> >> From the 1992-1993 Virginia Statistical Abstract:
Alex - approx. 111,000
>> >>
>> >> -Julius
>> >
>> >RR: Thanks Julius... these are stats I'll archive in my Guns File. You are
>> >correct, of course, that DC's crime rate is higher than Virginia's. But
>> >I'm sure you've noticed that Alexandria's crime rate is not much below
>> >that of the Capital.
>
>Scout replies:
>> Actually it's (for this data set) 108%-143% higher. This with much tighter gun
>> control than Alex.
>
>RR: Where do you get 108%-143%??? Just take the most recent year. DC's rate
>was 10293 and Alexandria's was 7393. That's just a 40% difference, not
>108%!!!
>
10,293 ÷ 7,393 x 100 = 139.2%
From 1994 FBI UCR:
Crime
Index Violent
Total Rate Crime Rate Homicide Rate
Washington, D.C. 63,144 11,078 15,177 2,663 399 70.0
Alexandria, VA 7.317 6,312 705 608 9 7.8
Taken from 1994 FBI UCR, pp 104 & 152
>> Hmmmm. I thought that it was ILLEGAL to transport firearms across state lines
>> (that includes between VA and DC) for illegal purposes, or to avoid gun
>> control restrictions.
>
>RR: Maybe for illegal purposes sure. Don't know about avoiding gun control
>restrictions. Illegal or not though, it happens, because we don't have
>federal legislation.
>
Sure you've got federal legislation re: crossing state lines and purchasing firearms. The GCA of
1968 prohibits out of state purchase.
>> So exactly what type of law are you asking for?
>
>RR: A federal one gun a month law would certainly cut into the gun smuggling
>market.
>
Excuse me, but if firearms are being illegally bought in another state, who is restricting sales
going to affect anyone other than an honest citizen? Anser, it won't stop crime, just be one more
law that interfers with honest people. But you knew that.
>> > Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
>> >in Virginia time after time.
>>
>> Yep, I'm aware of that particular study. What they don't tell you was only
>> selected weapons were traced, and the bulk of those traced to VA came from a
>> single outlet in Norfolk. An outlet the BATF was encouraging to sell to the
>> gun runners. Whom have never been charged or arrested to my knowledge. So if
>> you throw out this faulty datum (since the gun dealer didn't want to sell to
>> these people, and finally told the BATF to stuff it, much to his regret). You
>> find VA to be no particular source of guns.
>
>RR: This is a pleasant fiction from the NRA, but it's preposterous on its face.
No, you need to read the GOA report on Brady. Four convictions involving gun trafficing into NY
using phony ID to purchase firearms in West Virginia (GAO report "Gun Control: Implementation of
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act", January, 1996, p 44).
>In a way, it rivels defense claims in the Simpson trial that the entire
>.................deletions for brevity..............................
>all these guns for all those years to criminals who took them to NYC and
>elsewhere?
> Please, for such a huge conspiracy story as this... provide some
>facts and sources... not just NRA propaganda.
>
RR, who about you providing some "evidence" instead of HCI propaganda.
Sam A. Kersh
CSM, USA (ret)
NRA Life Member
TSRA
================================================
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
James F. Mayer
What makes you think that criminals won't circumvent the federal
law by setting up a black market that imports guns from out of the
country or set up an underground manufacturing capability? Criminals,
by definition, circumvent or ignore the law.
"Virginia's easy as pie gun laws" scenerio has also been attributed
to Florida as an easy source for D. C. guns. How can the distance from
Florida th D. C. make it "easier" to get guns in D. C.? Or was this
some HCI or other anti-gun organization's manufactured myth to coerce
Florida into a "one gun a month" or other restrictive law?
Eric Williams
In a previous post, Ray (ki...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: Todd Lofton wrote:
: >
: > Oh, this is really too much. RR seems to think strawman purchases are
: > legal. RR, why don't you read through DejaNews for a while and try to
: > come up with a new falsehood, eh?
: RR: Todd, you've lost the thread here. I don't think strawman purchases
: are legal, never have. What Nosy and I have been talking about was
: my original statement that Virginia's easy as pie gun laws made it easy
: for criminals in Washington D.C. to "circumvent" the law and get their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: guns in Virginia.
I think RR has tripped over the truth here and didn't realize it. It's
not the GUNs in DC, it's the CRIMINALS. (Sound familiar?) The guns in
VA aren't causing a problem there, and they wouldn't be a problem in DC
if they weren't in the hands of criminals. Why the logical conclusion
that DC should spend more effort on controlling criminals and less on
trying (and failing) to control guns isn't obvious to everyone
completely escapes me
--
Eric Williams | wd6...@netcom.com | WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Dost Thou know that the ages will pass, and humanity will proclaim by
the lips of their sages that there is no crime, and therefore no sin;
there is only hunger? In the end they will lay their freedom at our
feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us!" They will
understand themselves at last, that freedom and bread enough for all
are inconceivable together.
-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Peter H. Proctor
In article <327a2802...@news.i-link.net> sa...@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) writes:
>From: sa...@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh)
>Subject: Re: DC gun law Effect
>Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 17:12:52 GMT
>Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> Personally I think all private gun owners should be required to produce
>>their guns once a year at the police station, just to show they haven't been
>>stolen by criminals.
>>
>The police would just love that. Give them an excuse not to bother with minor
>details like real crime while they took care of all the new paper work....
>>> >RR: Not if there is a relatively fast turn-over of illicit guns in the
>>> >criminal community.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. I see a gun wears out quickly. It only lasts a couple of muggings then
>>> you need a new one.
>>
>>RR: I've read (but can't source at this time) that criminals truely LOVE
>>to have the newest guns possible. It's sort of a gansta Pride thing!
>>
>No, it's so there wont be "a body attached" i.e. someone else's murder...
Fact is: Guns last forever unless they are abused. I've got a bunch of 100
year-old antiques that shoot as good as new-- some of those old revolvers
have really fine trigger actions. And, the ballistics of pistol
ammunition haven't changed in at least that long. Once they are out
there, they do not go away or wear out. So good luck in trying to control
them.
Dr. P
Eric Williams
In a previous post, Steve D. Fischer (str...@crl.com) wrote:
: Those guns were not *BOUGHT* illegally. They were legally bought
: by VA residents. Had the person(s) who bought them simply kept them for
: their own use, no one would be upset. It's when they *RE-SELL* them in a
: different state, illegally, that the trouble begins. It is not illegal
: to take a legally owned gun out of the state of VA. It may be illegal
: to transport (?) a gun through certain states, however, and it certainly
: won't be legal in MOST states to sell a gun on the streets of another
: state. If you know of a state in which it IS legal to sell a gun bought
: in VA on its streets, then please name that state.
Well, if you move to another state, it would be legal in most of them
to sell your gun to another resident "on the street". (Though I'm sure
the residents would prefer you use a more formal transaction environment.)
: > The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
: >back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
: >guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
: >dropped like a rock, to just 19%.
: Hmmm. That could simply be sampling bias. Gun traces are not
: the most reliable indicators of yearly trends. I'd have to see several
: more years of consecutive data to feel confident that the trend is real.
: Nonetheless, as I said, I have no particular objection to that law.
That study was overwhelming influenced by sales from a single Virginia
gun store (Virginia Police Supply in Richmond) which reported the
volume sales to the BATF along with the owner's suspicions that the
guns were illegally being transported out of the state. The BATF
encouraged the continued sales despite the objections of the store
owners who didn't want any involvement in the shady dealings, since the
BATF wanted to continue to trace the sales. After the owners quit
selling more than two guns per customer on their own, the BATF charged
them with firearms violations and put them out of business.
: > The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
: >month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
: >of firearms."
: Could be. We'll see. Forgive me if I don't take JAMA's word for it.
: They're notoriously anti-gun. I'd like to see confirmation from another
: source.
The BATF already flags purchases of more than one firearm. As far as I
know, nobody in local law enforcement mades use of this available
information. Seems to me we ought to use the tools we have before passing
more restrictive laws that may or may not work.
Sam A. Kersh
Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>> >RR: Where do you get 108%-143%??? Just take the most recent year. DC's
>> rate
>> >was 10293 and Alexandria's was 7393. That's just a 40% difference, not
>> >108%!!!
>>
>> Right. 10293/7393=1.39226 or 139% higher than our base crime rate of Alex.
>
>RR: Wrong Scout. Consult a math book. If indeed it was 139% then the
>10293 figure would have to be more than double the 7393 (100% of something
>is double, right?).
No, 100% of something is that same amount. To double a number you need 200%
or:
(7,393 x 200%) ÷ 100 = 14,786..
but in this case:
7393 x 1.392 = 10,291 or ą 10,293
Or as a percentage, 139% of 7,393.....
> What you need to do is get the difference between the two figures
>(10293 minus 7393 = 2900) and then figure 2900/7393 and you get 40%.
>
>> >RR: Maybe for illegal purposes sure. Don't know about avoiding gun control
>> >restrictions.
>>
>> Sorry, but that is federal law.
>
>RR: Isn't against the law to just avoid a restriction (like going to the
>suburbs of Chicago to buy your gun). Perhaps you mean it's against the
>law to violate gun control restrictions (something quite different).
>
Chicago's ordinance bas sale, not possession and going to the suburbs is not
crossing a state line which would place you in violation of the GCA of 1968.
Jimminy, RR, is you HCI handbook that far out of date?
>.....................deletions.................
>
>RR: Can't produce the arms? The feds wouldn't have a right to search your
>home for your private guns. EVen if they did, it wouldn't prove you weren't
>storing them elsewhere. Private gun owners are not required by law to
>produce their private guns on demand.
Not yet. But the provisions of Brady II may "cure" that small problem... A $10
brick of .22lr ammo is enough under Brady II to force a gun owner to become a
licensed "armory" and subject to yearly inspections by ATF. Thank you,
Chuckles Schumer!
> Personally I think all private gun owners should be required to produce
>their guns once a year at the police station, just to show they haven't been
>stolen by criminals.
>
The police would just love that. Give them an excuse not to bother with minor
details like real crime while they took care of all the new paper work....
>> >RR: Not if there is a relatively fast turn-over of illicit guns in the
>> >criminal community.
>>
>> Hmmmm. I see a gun wears out quickly. It only lasts a couple of muggings then
>> you need a new one.
>
>RR: I've read (but can't source at this time) that criminals truely LOVE
>to have the newest guns possible. It's sort of a gansta Pride thing!
>
No, it's so there wont be "a body attached" i.e. someone else's murder...
>> > By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
>> >the illegal gun trade at the source.
>>
>> Agreed, and that source is not retail outlets, but theft.
>
>RR: see above, about strawman buys and their effect on this statistic.
>But theft is also a big problem. We should have laws requiring safe
>storage.
Of guns or criminals???
Ray
Scout wrote:
RR wrote:> > If indeed it was 139% then the
> >10293 figure would have to be more than double the 7393 (100% of something
> >is double, right?).
>
> Wrong. 50% would be half, 100% would be that same, 200% would be double.
>
> If I have 100% of the pie. I have the whole pie. I don't have 2 pies.
RR: But we were talking about increases, not pies. 10293 represents a
40 percent increase over 7393. Look at it another way. The difference
between the two figures is 2900. That difference is, in fact, the numeric
increase between the lower figure and the upper figure. Therefore, the
percentage of increase is found by discovering what percentage 2900 is
of the base amount, 7393.
If, on the other hand, you were correct, then all scientific
literature would be grossly in error when it talks of a 10% increase,
or a 50% increase. Because, according to you, anything below 100%
would be less than the whole. So a 10% increase, to you, would have
to actually be a "decrease."
So the next time you get a 4% pay increase at work, then, you better
check your wallet. According to you, you'd be Losing Money! (g)
But enough of this.. it's taken up too much time as it is. DC's
crime rate is 40% higher than Alexandria's. Given the wide difference
in demographics... it think personally that DC would have an even higher
crime rate.. had it not been for that city's gun law.
> >RR: it isn't against the law to just avoid a restriction (like going to the
> >suburbs of Chicago to buy your gun).
>
> Sorry, but going to a different jurisdiction to avoid gun control regulations
> of your residence jurisdiction is against the law.
RR: Nope. You cannot buy or possess a gun (unless grandfathered)
in Chicago. That's the law. But you can legally purchase a gun outside
Chicago's city limits, and as long as you don't store it back home, you
would not be breaking the law. You would, in fact, have avoided Chicago's
gun control law, but done it legally.
There is nothing in Illinois law that requires you to purchase a gun
in the town where you live.
>. Even following up ALL multiple gun purchases wouldn't be as time
> consuming as Brady.
RR: Brady time consuming? Don't make me laugh. In Frank v. US (1996) the
appeallate court discovered that a national background information check
took the National Crime Information Center only about 15 minutes to perform..
with results being faxed to the authority doing the Brady checks.
If a local sheriff wanted to spend more time on it himself, he could.
But it wouldn't be required. The law only requires him to make a "reasonable
effort" which the court ruled is up to the sheriff's discretion.
> Except that few gun runners buy their firearms through retail outlets. It
> doesn't make economic sense. See the street value, even in jurisdications with
> a total ban, is almost always lower that their retail price.
RR: Why is that? Perhaps because some of the guns on the street are old and
of poor quality? Or because some law abiding but irresponsible owner allowed
his gun to be stolen?
The fact is... many confiscated guns in NYC were purchased in Virgina
retail outlets. The trace studies don't lie.
> > Since you are spinning this yarn, you are responsible for
> >backing it up with proper references.
>
> Agreed. Personally, I don't care enough about it to find a citation what
> you'll ignore anyway. Reference-NRA propaganda mentioned above.
RR: Then this whole discussion is irrelevant to you? I guess so. If you
have no documentation for your assertions, then they count for nothing. Don't
forget, that you agreed that you had the responsibility to back up the claim,
since you were the one who made it.
I have provided proper citation and documentation for my statistics.
Case closed.
> However, as I mentioned before. None of this has a real bearing on the main
> issue. Given that DC and NYC both have high restrictions on guns, and have a
> crime rates way above that in VA, or even areas of VA. What indicates that gun
> control laws have significantly reduced crime?
RR: Sigh.. read Loftin for the DC study. "New England Journal of Medicine"
12/5/91, p. 1615
> >RR: This is a very murky legal area, I'm told. There's no legal limit of
> >exactly how many guns can be sold at one time.
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry. There is a federal limit on how many firearms can be
> transfered within a given period of time without being an FFL by federal law.
> Care to try again?
RR: There you go again.... (g). Where's your citation? Which law? How many
guns? I haven't seen any such thing. I don't believe it exists, including
your additional claim that one must own a gun for a year before selling it.
> > EVen if they did, it wouldn't prove you weren't
> >storing them elsewhere.
>
> Nope, but it would be enough to bring charges against you.
RR: How would a warranted search of your home for illegal guns which
turned up NO illegal guns (because you stored them elsewhere) possibly
lead to charges? Where's the evidence?
> Fact - You bought them
> Fact - You couldn't have legally transfered them
> Fact - You can't produce them in court.
> Result - you broke the law.
RR Your problem is with line #2. Who's to say you didn't legally transfer
them? You don't need paperwork to sell 'em. You admitted that.
How's the BATF going to find out?
> > Personally I think all private gun owners should be required to produce
> >their guns once a year at the police station, just to show they haven't been
> >stolen by criminals.
>
> Hmmmm. I thought there was already a law someplace that stated you have to
> report the loss, theft, or destruction of a firearm to the BATF?
RR: I haven't read that one either. Maybe someone else has, but I don't think
it exists.
> >> > By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
> >> >the illegal gun trade at the source.
> >>
> >> Agreed, and that source is not retail outlets, but theft.
RR: The Original source for all illegal guns is retail sales. A few are
illegal, but most begin being legal, then the law-abiding citizen who bought
the gun screws up and either loses it, lets it be stolen, or sells it
to a bad guy. We've got to make such citizens more accountable for
these lethal weapons.
Scout
In article <327841...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>Scout wrote:
>> >RR: Where do you get 108%-143%??? Just take the most recent year. DC's
>> rate
>> >was 10293 and Alexandria's was 7393. That's just a 40% difference, not
>> >108%!!!
>>
>> Right. 10293/7393=1.39226 or 139% higher than our base crime rate of Alex.
>
>RR: Wrong Scout. Consult a math book.
Sorry, but I think YOU better consult a math book.
> If indeed it was 139% then the
>10293 figure would have to be more than double the 7393 (100% of something
>is double, right?).
Wrong. 50% would be half, 100% would be that same, 200% would be double.
If I have 100% of the pie. I have the whole pie. I don't have 2 pies.
> What you need to do is get the difference between the two figures
>(10293 minus 7393 = 2900) and then figure 2900/7393 and you get 40%.
Which is the same as saying that DC has a crime rate 139% of Alex.
ie. Take 7393 * 1.39 = 10276.3
Number is lower due to rounding off of precentage, but since I rounded off in
your favor, what's that problem?
However, whichever way you want to put it. It still indicates that DC's crime
rate is WAY WAY WAY above that of Alex. and it's 'lax' VA gun laws.
So care to get back to the main issue. And explain how gun control affects
crime in DC?
>> >RR: Maybe for illegal purposes sure. Don't know about avoiding gun
control
>> >restrictions.
>>
>> Sorry, but that is federal law.
>
>RR: Isn't against the law to just avoid a restriction (like going to the
>suburbs of Chicago to buy your gun).
Sorry, but going to a different jurisdiction to avoid gun control regulations
of your residence jurisdiction is against the law.
> Perhaps you mean it's against the
>law to violate gun control restrictions (something quite different).
Which would be done by buying in a different jurisdiction.
>
>> Why? How many criminals engage in gun running using retail outlets? Why
should
>> further laws limit this already illegal activity? In fact it would seem
that
>> NOT having such a limit would make tracing easier, since multiple gun
>> purchases require addition paperwork, as well as notification of the BATF
>> within 24 hours of the sale.
>
>RR: It's tougher when you have to trace ALL multiple gun buys, when
>only a few would be illegal.
Actually, it wouldn't be hard at all. Since the BATF would have records of
both ends. They would have the trace data indicating that 1 or more firearms
ended up in an illegal area, and they would have the multiple gun purchase
forms indicating how many, and when they were bought. It would then be a
simple matter to flag that person, and after their next purchase, conduct a
followup. Even following up ALL multiple gun purchases wouldn't be as time
consuming as Brady.
> That's a waste of time and tax money.
So is Brady, but you feel it's worth it.
>It's much easier to stop multiple sales, thus eliminating the profit
>motive for criminals to travel to get large quantities of guns.
Except that few gun runners buy their firearms through retail outlets. It
doesn't make economic sense. See the street value, even in jurisdications with
a total ban, is almost always lower that their retail price.
Let's see. You've indicated that gun runners buy large amounts of multiple gun
sales. So why can't the BATF use the multiple gun purchase forms to identify
these people, then conduct an investigation? Seems to me that about 3 people
could handle all of VA. Particularly if you filter out all those people that
buy less than say 3 guns, and purchase less than 1 multiple gun sale in a
year. The small number left, would be worth checking up on.
> Besides, while few felons buy guns over the counter, usually the
>people who buy the guns for the felons are law abiding citizens.
Which legally is a 'straw man' sale, and illegal, making your 'law abiding
citizens' felons.
> So the
>statistics showing few criminal buys are misleading.
Which also indicate that putting further restrictions on retail sales, has no
effect in caughting criminals. Such as Brady? Right?
> And we're not just talking about "stores." We're also talking about
>all gun dealers... of which many include mom and pop kitchen counter
>operations.
So? They all have to operate under the same federal laws. The laws a store
follows is no different than those of a mom and pop kitchen counter.
>
>> >RR: This is a pleasant fiction from the NRA, but it's preposterous on its
>> face.
>>
>> Sorry, but none of this came from the NRA, but Norfolk newspapers.
>
>RR: Please supply a citation for this. I've only seen it mentioned in NRA
>propaganda.
If you've seen it mentioned by the NRA, then they would have provided a
citation.
As I said I saw it in the Norfolk papers. Since it was headline news in the
major paper (at least at first) it would be easy to scan for it.
> Since you are spinning this yarn, you are responsible for
>backing it up with proper references.
Agreed. Personally, I don't care enough about it to find a citation what
you'll ignore anyway. Reference-NRA propaganda mentioned above.
You provided your own citation that this event occured. Reference-NRA
propaganda mentioned above.
IMO, you have shown that you have seen references to this event, it would now
be up to you to support your contention that this is somehow non-factual.
I await your citation for NRA propaganda.
However, as I mentioned before. None of this has a real bearing on the main
issue. Given that DC and NYC both have high restrictions on guns, and have a
crime rates way above that in VA, or even areas of VA. What indicates that gun
control laws have significantly reduced crime. Nor even why VA should be
'forced' in increase restrictions on her citizens because of criminal activity
that the feds, and other law enforcement agencies don't seem interested in
controlling.
>> > Are you really trying to tell me that ONE STORE was forced to provide
>> >all these guns for all those years to criminals who took them to NYC and
>> >elsewhere?
>>
>> For a period of at least 6 months. With levels of at least several hundred
>> total. That's a LOT of arms for criminals.
>
>RR: But I had just cited you YEARS of gun running from Virginia. Your NRA
>yarn only covers 6 months? How can you claim this one store was thus
>responsible?
For the particular 'study' done in NYC that resulted in Va's 1-gun-a-month
law. Yes. For your study, who knows. With volumes such as you indicate I would
expect a large fluctuation in the data results as different sets of guns
appeared. Even if it was shown that criminals buy in VA, what should that
matter to VA, unless they break our laws? If they do, then VA wouldn't
prosecute them, then I might say you have an issue.
>
>> > And how far would such a trace go? Since private sales did not
>> >require paperwork from the seller, the trail would be lost after the first
>> >private sale.
>>
>> However, you can't transfer a large number of guns through private
transfers,
>> since there is a federal limit on the number an individual can engage in
>> without being an FFL.
>
>RR: This is a very murky legal area, I'm told. There's no legal limit of
>exactly how many guns can be sold at one time.
Bzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry. There is a federal limit on how many firearms can be
transfered within a given period of time without being an FFL by federal law.
Care to try again?
> And what if you just sold
>a couple of your guns a week?
2 a week? Hmmmm. I think the federal limit is ?2? ?4? a month. Something like
that. Also I believe that you are required to own the guns for at least a year
before sale. I would have to double check on that, but I think that's correct.
> Besides, how could the BATF prove anything.
By doing an uncover buy of someone that couldn't legally buy a handgun under
federal law within VA, such as an out of state resident.
>The seller doesn't have to fill out paperwork.
Agreed. It would require that BATF to actually get off their butts and do some
actual investigation, and crime control. You know, like what's expected of any
other law enforcement organization.
> Are you beginning to see how ludicrously lax our nation's gun control
>laws actually are???
Nope. I don't. What I see is ludicrously lax ENFORCEMENT of our nation's gun
control law. Everything you bitch about is ALREADY ILLEGAL, just no one seems
to bother enforcing those laws. No, instead they want to pass further laws
restricting those that obey the law, while still ignoring enforcement of those
that ignore any laws you might pass.
>> So if they can't produce the arms, then federal law has been violated.
Fairly
>> simple court case.
>
>RR: Can't produce the arms? The feds wouldn't have a right to search your
>home for your private guns.
They would not necessarily need to search. However, even if they did need to,
I'm sure that probable cause could be shown easily enough for someone in the
gun gunning racket. Heck, even a simple stake out would probably do. However,
you probably wouldn't like this since it actually requires ATF agents to earn
their paycheck.
> EVen if they did, it wouldn't prove you weren't
>storing them elsewhere.
Nope, but it would be enough to brink charges against you. If you could
produce those arms later at your trial. Reasonably open and shut case.
Fact - You bought them
Fact - You couldn't have legally transfered them
Fact - You can't produce them in court.
Result - you broke the law.
> Private gun owners are not required by law to
>produce their private guns on demand.
Thank God, we still have some rights.
However, as I indicated, it should be easy enough to provide probable cause
against someone runnning guns.
> Personally I think all private gun owners should be required to produce
>their guns once a year at the police station, just to show they haven't been
>stolen by criminals.
Hmmmm. I thought there was already a law someplace that stated you have to
report the loss, theft, or destruction of a firearm to the BATF?
>
>> >RR: Not if there is a relatively fast turn-over of illicit guns in the
>> >criminal community.
>>
>> Hmmmm. I see a gun wears out quickly. It only lasts a couple of muggings
then
>> you need a new one.
>
>RR: I've read (but can't source at this time) that criminals truely LOVE
>to have the newest guns possible. It's sort of a gansta Pride thing!
Hmmm. That must be why there's such a large market for old S&W police
detectives, and other such guns.
Now, I'll agree that certain groups may want the latest and greatest, since
it's an image thing. However, those that cause the vast amount of crime, are
happy with an old 60's revolver.
>
>> > By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
>> >the illegal gun trade at the source.
>>
>> Agreed, and that source is not retail outlets, but theft.
>
>RR: see above, about strawman buys and their effect on this statistic.
Which is a illegal, and a crime. See my remarks above about enforcement. If
you can't enforce existing laws, how are even more laws that require
enforcement going to help?
>But theft is also a big problem. We should have laws requiring safe
>storage.
Sorry, but that would place too large a restriction of the lawful users. I
suggest instead that we pass laws prohibiting theft, Opps, but then we already
have such laws don't we?
--
Scout
Nosy
<In article <32781E...@interaccess.com> Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
<Nosy wrote:
<Ray wrote:
<> <Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
<> < circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
<> < river.
<Nosy wrote:
< > Rubbish, utter rubbish.
< > Ray is posting blatantly false information.
< > <It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home.
< > Oh, really? Perhaps Ray would be so kind as to explain
< > exactly how this works, in detail?
< > Prediction: He can't and won't.
<RR: Nosy, yea of little faith. Of course I can and will. Haven't you
<learne yet that I can document what I say?
No. Ray has shown no such tendency.
<You haven't been reading my posts enough,
< I guess. Anyway, here goes:
<I pointed out how easy it was for WAshington criminals to get their guns
<across the river in gun happy Virginia. This is not "false information." It's
<the truth.
No. It is a falsehood, based upon incomplete information
at best and outright false information at worst.
Question for Ray: what is the "Gun Control Act of 1968" and
what does that Act say about interstate handgun sales?
<In the first half of 1992, BATF agents traced guns confiscated from
<criminals in WAshington D.C.
Such traces are often incomplete; not all firearms are traced,
just some.
Such traces constitute "selection of data"...
< Of all the places where such guns
< could come from, Virginia topped the list, supplying an astounding
< 36% of all criminal guns traced in D.C. Read it for yourself in the
< New York Times, 12/25/92, p. A8
I already did so. Each one of those sales constituted
a violation of Federal law, Virginia law and DC law.
I guess we need some more laws, now don't we?
<So how did it work? Easy. According to the same NYT article, gunrunners
<got around Virginia's resident-only law by paying Virginians to buy their
<mass quantities of guns for them.
Fact: That is a strawman purchase, it is a Federal crime, the
BATF tends to arrest people for doing that...except, of course,
when they want a big bust somewhere else.
Oh, and any purchase of more than 2 handguns in a 30 day
period is reported to the BATF.
Of course, if the BATF isn't doing anything with the reports,
they don't perform any useful function....
Ray is either ignorant of current Federal and State law, or
is being disingenuous.
<Another way was to falsify a driver's license.
Which is, of course, a crime in and of itself.
< Virginia's gun laws were so ludicrously easy, that all you needed
< was a driver's license to establish your identity.
Ray is disingenuous. All that is needed to *vote* nowadays
is a driver's license.
But Ray's disingenuousness goes further; Virginia has a
so-called "instant" check that uses the driver's ID or
other such documents to check certain criminal records.
It was created to supposedly put an end to gunrunning.
Cynics observed that it really was just to enable the police
to build a record of firearms owners, and that the anti-gun
nuts wouldn't be happy with "merely" an "instant" background
check.
Given Ray's ignorant ranting, it appears the cynics were right.
< > < That's why
< > < we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
< > < cross the state lines and get them.
< >
< > So Ray is asking for a Federal law to ban interstate sales
< > of handguns?
<RR: No, I'm asking for a federal one-gun a month law. Wasn't that obvious?
No, it was not obvious.
But a federal "one gun per month" law, in addition to a remarkably
stupid way to "fight" gun running (it does not end gun running,
but just makes it more difficult to detect, according to the
state police of South Carolina, where such a law has been in place
for years) serves the purpose of fully registering firearms
purchases.
So we see what Ray's intent is. He doesn't want to fight crime,
he just wants to make it easier to ban guns.
< Didn't you absorb what I posted? Tsk, Tsk, Nosy, sometimes I wonder about you.
Boring flamebait.
< > "Tracing" studies are a classic example of "cherry picked" data.
< RR: Prove it. Don't just repeat the NRA mantra.
I'll prove it when Ray proves that it is legal for DC
residents to buy handguns in Virginia.
Nosy
< In a previous post, Steve D. Fischer (str...@crl.com) wrote:
< : Those guns were not *BOUGHT* illegally. They were legally bought
< : by VA residents. Had the person(s) who bought them simply kept them for
< : their own use, no one would be upset. It's when they *RE-SELL* them in a
< : different state, illegally, that the trouble begins. It is not illegal
< : to take a legally owned gun out of the state of VA. It may be illegal
< : to transport (?) a gun through certain states, however, and it certainly
< : won't be legal in MOST states to sell a gun on the streets of another
< : state. If you know of a state in which it IS legal to sell a gun bought
< : in VA on its streets, then please name that state.
< Well, if you move to another state, it would be legal in most of them
< to sell your gun to another resident "on the street". (Though I'm sure
< the residents would prefer you use a more formal transaction environment.)
Not if the "state" in question was Washington, DC, nor if the State
in question was New Jersey, New York, Connecticutt, Massachusetts,
Delaware or Maryland.
< : > The study discovered that for the country as a whole, the guns traced
< : >back to Virginia before the new law passed amounted to 27% of total traced
< : >guns. But after the law passed, the percentage of Virginian traced guns
< : >dropped like a rock, to just 19%. <
< : Hmmm. That could simply be sampling bias. Gun traces are not
< : the most reliable indicators of yearly trends. I'd have to see several
< : more years of consecutive data to feel confident that the trend is real.
< : Nonetheless, as I said, I have no particular objection to that law.
< That study was overwhelming influenced by sales from a single Virginia
< gun store (Virginia Police Supply in Richmond) which reported the
< volume sales to the BATF along with the owner's suspicions that the
< guns were illegally being transported out of the state. The BATF
< encouraged the continued sales despite the objections of the store
< owners who didn't want any involvement in the shady dealings, since the
< BATF wanted to continue to trace the sales. After the owners quit
< selling more than two guns per customer on their own, the BATF charged
< them with firearms violations and put them out of business.
Yes, that case was yet another of BATF's disgraceful actions.
I'm sure "Author" will be along to defend them ...
< : > The study concludes that "restricting handgun purchases to one per
< : >month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer
< : >of firearms."
< : Could be. We'll see. Forgive me if I don't take JAMA's word for it.
< : They're notoriously anti-gun. I'd like to see confirmation from another
< : source.
< The BATF already flags purchases of more than one firearm.
Two or more handguns, if memory serves, as per GCA-68 as modified
by the "Crime bill" of 1994.
< As far as I
< know, nobody in local law enforcement mades use of this available
< information. Seems to me we ought to use the tools we have before passing
< more restrictive laws that may or may not work.
Clearly this is true. It leaves me wondering what Ray's real
agenda is?
Nosy
<In article <327972...@interaccess.com> Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
< Steve D. Fischer wrote:
< RR> > Another thing to consider: Washington's handgun ban is easy to
< > >circumvent when you have a gun-happy state like Virginia just across the
< > >river. It's too easy to buy guns there and bring them home. That's why
< > >we need more Federal legislation to limit guns... so people can't just
< > >cross the state lines and get them.
< >
< > Wait just a damned minute here! First of all, only VA *RESIDENTS*
< > can legally buy a gun in VA. If you fake a VA ID, you've just committed
< > a crime. No extra legislation needed here!
< > Secondly, when you bring that illegal gun back to DC you've just
< > committed another crime. No extra legislation needed here!
<RR: Of course you're correct. But my point was not to imply that gun running
<across the state line was legal (perhaps that was misunderstood).
Sure.
< My point was
< that what law exist are so puny, that it's too easy for criminals to
< circumvent them.
Cite?
<If someone commits a crime, but the law doesn't work, then it's time
< for a new law.
Or perhaps it is time for the existing laws to be
enforced more fully?
<> > In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
<> >became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
<> >States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
<> >in Virginia time after time.
< >
< > Those guns were not *BOUGHT* illegally. They were legally bought
< > by VA residents. Had the person(s) who bought them simply kept them for
< > their own use, no one would be upset. It's when they *RE-SELL* them in a
< > different state, illegally, that the trouble begins. It is not illegal
< > to take a legally owned gun out of the state of VA.
< RR: Yes some of them were bought illegally. As I've posted, some were
< bought with fabricated drivers' licenses. Others were bought by Virginians,
< paid by the smugglers to do so. This in itself is not illegal, but as has
< been mentioned, it would be illegal to re-sell them on a "mass" basis, either
< in Virginia or elsewhere, although that is another crime that is difficult
< to prove.
Yet the crime of "strawman purchase" is proven in court
without too much difficulty elsewhere.
< > > And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
< > >gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
< > >one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
< > >After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
< >
< > Do you have that paper? If so, give more detail. How many states
< > were examined? How was the sampling for tracing done? Was it based on
< > persons being arrested with a gun in their possession? Who were the
< > authors?
< RR: Authors were Douglas Weil, Rebecca Knox, from the gunner's favorite
< organization (g), Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Yawn.
<Can't retype the whole thing, but here's the abstract:
<"Objective- To determine the effect of limiting handgun purchases to one per
< month on the illegal movement of firearms across state lines.
< "Design- Data from the BATF firearms trace database were obtained for traces
< requested for firearms recovered in connection with criminal investigation.
< The analysis incorporates data on date and location of purchase for
< 14606 firearms purchased prior to (September 1989 through June 1993) and
< after (July 1993 through March 1995) enactment of a Virginia law limiting
< handgun purchases to one per month.
< "Main Outcome Measures- Odds of tracing a firearm acquired prior to
< implementation of the law to Virginia vs another state in the Southeast
< compared with the odds for firearms acquired after the law took effect.<
No confounding factors were allowed for? How typical.
< "Results- For firearms recovered anywhere in the US, 3201 (27%) of
< 11376 acquired prior to the implementation of the law and 519 (19%)
< of 2730 purchased after the law was enacted were traced to Virginia
< (odds ratio .64; 95% confidence interval, .58-.71). For traces
< initiated in the northeast corridor (NY, NJ, Conn., RI, and Mass)
< 1103 (34.8%) of 3169 of the firearms acquired before the one gun
< a month law took effect and 142 (15.5%) of 919 firearms purchased after
< implementation were traced to Virginia (OR, .34; CI, .28-.41).
< "Conclusion- Gun control policies involving licensing, registration and
< restricting the number of purchases represent efforts to limit the supply
< of guns available in the illegal market. This study provides evidence that
< restricting handgun purchases to one per month is an effective means of
< disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms."
< (JAMA, 6/12/96, p. 1759)
Another "study" done by pre-selecting data, by ignoring
confounding variables.
Another study on criminology published in a medical journal...
More bogus rubbish.
Nosy
<In article <327AB1...@interaccess.com> Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
< Scout wrote:
< RR wrote:> > If indeed it was 139% then the
< > >10293 figure would have to be more than double the 7393 (100% of something
< > >is double, right?).
< >
< > Wrong. 50% would be half, 100% would be that same, 200% would be double.
< >
< > If I have 100% of the pie. I have the whole pie. I don't have 2 pies.
< RR: But we were talking about increases, not pies. 10293 represents a
< 40 percent increase over 7393. Look at it another way. The difference
< between the two figures is 2900. That difference is, in fact, the numeric
< increase between the lower figure and the upper figure. Therefore, the
< percentage of increase is found by discovering what percentage 2900 is
< of the base amount, 7393.
< If, on the other hand, you were correct, then all scientific
< literature would be grossly in error when it talks of a 10% increase,
< or a 50% increase. Because, according to you, anything below 100%
< would be less than the whole. So a 10% increase, to you, would have
< to actually be a "decrease."
< So the next time you get a 4% pay increase at work, then, you better
< check your wallet. According to you, you'd be Losing Money! (g)
< But enough of this.. it's taken up too much time as it is. DC's
< crime rate is 40% higher than Alexandria's. Given the wide difference
< in demographics... it think personally that DC would have an even higher
< crime rate.. had it not been for that city's gun law.
ROFL!
Ray has *no* way of proving this claim, and has just dodged
again explaining why if 'gun control' stops crime, the DC
crime rate is *higher* than the rate of Alexandria.
< > >RR: it isn't against the law to just avoid a restriction (like going to the
< > >suburbs of Chicago to buy your gun).
< >
< > Sorry, but going to a different jurisdiction to avoid gun control regulations
< > of your residence jurisdiction is against the law.
< RR: Nope. You cannot buy or possess a gun (unless grandfathered)
< in Chicago. That's the law.
Cite, please.
< But you can legally purchase a gun outside
< Chicago's city limits, and as long as you don't store it back home, you
< would not be breaking the law. You would, in fact, have avoided Chicago's
< gun control law, but done it legally.
Cite, please.
< There is nothing in Illinois law that requires you to purchase a gun
< in the town where you live.
But Chicago law requires residents of that city to have
*city* handgun permits.
What's to stop the CPD from trolling the Illinois FOID's
for any that list Chicago residents, for example?
< >. Even following up ALL multiple gun purchases wouldn't be as time
< > consuming as Brady.
< RR: Brady time consuming? Don't make me laugh. In Frank v. US (1996) the
< appeallate court discovered that a national background information check
< took the National Crime Information Center only about 15 minutes to perform..
< with results being faxed to the authority doing the Brady checks.
"Brady" checks involve NCIC checks, is that what Ray is
claming?
< If a local sheriff wanted to spend more time on it himself, he could.
< But it wouldn't be required. The law only requires him to make a "reasonable
< effort" which the court ruled is up to the sheriff's discretion.
"Brady" checks take time away from more useful things.
< > Except that few gun runners buy their firearms through retail outlets. It
< > doesn't make economic sense. See the street value, even in jurisdications with
< > a total ban, is almost always lower that their retail price.
< RR: Why is that? Perhaps because some of the guns on the street are old and
< of poor quality? Or because some law abiding but irresponsible owner allowed
< his gun to be stolen?
"Allowed his gun to be stolen", here we see Ray blaiming the
victims of crime for the crime.
Does Ray also blame the crime of rape upon women who wear
clothing that is too revealing, I wonder?
<The fact is... many confiscated guns in NYC were purchased in Virgina
< retail outlets. The trace studies don't lie.
The trace study Ray has cited does indeed lie.
< > > Since you are spinning this yarn, you are responsible for
< > >backing it up with proper references.
< >
< > Agreed. Personally, I don't care enough about it to find a citation what
< > you'll ignore anyway. Reference-NRA propaganda mentioned above.
< RR: Then this whole discussion is irrelevant to you? I guess so. If you
< have no documentation for your assertions, then they count for nothing. Don't
< forget, that you agreed that you had the responsibility to back up the claim,
< since you were the one who made it.
< I have provided proper citation and documentation for my statistics.
Ray has provided nothing of any significance.
< Case closed.
Indeed.
< > However, as I mentioned before. None of this has a real bearing on the main
< > issue. Given that DC and NYC both have high restrictions on guns, and have a
< > crime rates way above that in VA, or even areas of VA. What indicates that gun
< > control laws have significantly reduced crime?
< RR: Sigh.. read Loftin for the DC study. "New England Journal of Medicine"
< 12/5/91, p. 1615
Sigh. Loftin's study "proves" that a law has effect before
it is in force.
Loftin's "study" proves nothing other than the fact that NEJM
is not a peer-reviewed journal of criminology.
< > >RR: This is a very murky legal area, I'm told. There's no legal limit of
< > >exactly how many guns can be sold at one time.
< >
< > Bzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry. There is a federal limit on how many firearms can be
< > transfered within a given period of time without being an FFL by federal law.
< > Care to try again?
< RR: There you go again.... (g). Where's your citation? Which law?
Gun Control Act of 1968, see the section on licensed dealers,
see several interpretations of that section via court cases.
< How many
< guns? I haven't seen any such thing. I don't believe it exists,
Ray doesn't believe GCA-68 exists, because he's not seen it?
Sorry, a claim of solipcism is not evidence.
<including
< your additional claim that one must own a gun for a year before selling it.
< > > EVen if they did, it wouldn't prove you weren't
< > >storing them elsewhere.
< >
< > Nope, but it would be enough to bring charges against you.
< RR: How would a warranted search of your home for illegal guns which
< turned up NO illegal guns (because you stored them elsewhere) possibly
< lead to charges? Where's the evidence?
< > Fact - You bought them
< > Fact - You couldn't have legally transfered them
< > Fact - You can't produce them in court.
< > Result - you broke the law.
< RR Your problem is with line #2. Who's to say you didn't legally transfer
< them? You don't need paperwork to sell 'em. You admitted that.
< How's the BATF going to find out?
By any of several means.
< > > Personally I think all private gun owners should be required to produce
< > >their guns once a year at the police station, just to show they haven't been
< > >stolen by criminals.
< >
< > Hmmmm. I thought there was already a law someplace that stated you have to
< > report the loss, theft, or destruction of a firearm to the BATF?
< RR: I haven't read that one either. Maybe someone else has, but I don't think
< it exists.
Ray doesn't believe GCA-68 exists, either...
< > >> > By the time the guns are sold, it's too late. You have to stop
< > >> >the illegal gun trade at the source.
< > >>
< > >> Agreed, and that source is not retail outlets, but theft.
< RR: The Original source for all illegal guns is retail sales.
Really? So firearms stolen from the police and army were
originally retail sales, is that correct?
< A few are
< illegal, but most begin being legal, then the law-abiding citizen who bought
< the gun screws up and either loses it, lets it be stolen, or sells it
< to a bad guy. We've got to make such citizens more accountable for
< these lethal weapons.
Once again Ray lusts to punish the innocent for the actions
of the guilty.
Scout
In article <327AB1...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>Scout wrote:
>
>RR wrote:> > If indeed it was 139% then the
> > However, as I mentioned before. None of this has a real bearing on the
main
>> issue. Given that DC and NYC both have high restrictions on guns, and have
a
>> crime rates way above that in VA, or even areas of VA. What indicates that
gun
>> control laws have significantly reduced crime?
>
>RR: Sigh.. read Loftin for the DC study. "New England Journal of Medicine"
>12/5/91, p. 1615
>
Would the person who posted the refute for this study please do so again. I've
never given this an in-depth study, but would like to point out the errors in
this study.
--
Scout
Ray
Nosy wrote:
RR:> <I pointed out how easy it was for WAshington criminals to get their guns
> <across the river in gun happy Virginia. This is not "false information." It's
> <the truth.
>
>Nosy No. It is a falsehood, based upon incomplete information
> at best and outright false information at worst.
> Question for Ray: what is the "Gun Control Act of 1968" and
> what does that Act say about interstate handgun sales?
RR: Not a falsehood at all. I specifically gave documentation as to
the enormous number of guns flooding WAshington's criminal element from
Virginia. You may care to deny my facts, Nosy, but other readers are
watching you. And whenever you deny the obvious, your credibility
will sink another step.
And of course I know what the Gun Control Act of 1968 says.
But since you have neglected to make any sort of point in citing the
law, it is impossible for anyone to determine why the heck you are
mentioning it here. You really should strive to be more precise in
your language.
> <RR: Of all the places where such guns
> < could come from, Virginia topped the list, supplying an astounding
> < 36% of all criminal guns traced in D.C. Read it for yourself in the
> < New York Times, 12/25/92, p. A8
>
>Nosy: I already did so. Each one of those sales constituted
> a violation of Federal law, Virginia law and DC law.
RR: While violating fed and DC law, it would not necessarily violate
Virginia law. A non dealer Virginian who buys a gun or
two.. then sells them while inside Virginia to a stranger,
would not be violating Virginia law.
> <RR: So how did it work? Easy. According to the same NYT article, gunrunners
> <got around Virginia's resident-only law by paying Virginians to buy their
> <mass quantities of guns for them.
>
> Nosy: Fact: That is a strawman purchase, it is a Federal crime, the
> BATF tends to arrest people for doing that
RR: Except, my friend, that the BATF did NOT arrest very many people for
these crimes, as evident by the high count of Virginia guns in criminal
tracing done in Washington and New York. As I've said before, If the
law doesn't work, then you change the law.
> <RR: No, I'm asking for a federal one-gun a month law. Wasn't that obvious?
>
> Nosy: No, it was not obvious.
RR: It should have been. I mentioned it in a previous post. October 29th,
as I recall, in a post to Scout. Pity you didn't review this thread.
> Nosy: But a federal "one gun per month" law, in addition to a remarkably
> stupid way to "fight" gun running (it does not end gun running,
> but just makes it more difficult to detect, according to the
> state police of South Carolina, where such a law has been in place
> for years)
RR: Citation please?
>Nosy: I'll prove it when Ray proves that it is legal for DC
> residents to buy handguns in Virginia.
RR: I never said it was legal. The purchase violates the GCA-68, and the
transport to DC would violate DC law.
> < > >RR: it isn't against the law to just avoid a restriction (like going to the
> < > >suburbs of Chicago to buy your gun).
> < >
> < Scout: Sorry, but going to a different jurisdiction to avoid gun control regulations
> < > of your residence jurisdiction is against the law.
>
> < RR: Nope. You cannot buy or possess a gun (unless grandfathered)
> < in Chicago. That's the law.
>
> Nosy: Cite, please.
RR: Chicago Sun Times, 7/8/92. p. 20
> <RR: But you can legally purchase a gun outside
> < Chicago's city limits, and as long as you don't store it back home, you
> < would not be breaking the law. You would, in fact, have avoided Chicago's
> < gun control law, but done it legally.
>
> Nosy: Cite, please.
RR: GCA 68 (if you read the act, you will not find any prohibition of the
above purchase)
> < RR: There is nothing in Illinois law that requires you to purchase a gun
> < in the town where you live.
>
> Nosy: But Chicago law requires residents of that city to have
> *city* handgun permits.
> What's to stop the CPD from trolling the Illinois FOID's
> for any that list Chicago residents, for example?
RR: Nothing I suppose, but they still would have to prove that the chicago
resident who has no permit uses or stores his/her gun in Chicago.
It would not be illegal to possess a handgun if you keep it in a suburb
where guns are legal.
> < RR: Why is that? Perhaps because some of the guns on the street are old and
> < of poor quality? Or because some law abiding but irresponsible owner allowed
> < his gun to be stolen?
>
> "Allowed his gun to be stolen", here we see Ray blaiming the
> victims of crime for the crime.
RR: Given the Weil et al study I've cited that shows how many gun owners
are irresponsible in their storage practices, I certainly think that
such gun owners would be at least partly responsible if their guns are
stolen.
> <RR: The fact is... many confiscated guns in NYC were purchased in Virgina
> < retail outlets. The trace studies don't lie.
>
> Nosy: The trace study Ray has cited does indeed lie.
RR: Prove it. Citation please.
> < > >RR: This is a very murky legal area, I'm told. There's no legal limit of
> < > >exactly how many guns can be sold at one time.
> < >
> < > Bzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry. There is a federal limit on how many firearms can be
> < > transfered within a given period of time without being an FFL by federal law.
> < > Care to try again?
>
> < RR: There you go again.... (g). Where's your citation? Which law?
>
> Nosy: Gun Control Act of 1968, see the section on licensed dealers,
> see several interpretations of that section via court cases.
RR: The GCA 68 does NOT set a numeric limit of guns which a private individual
can sell to another private individual. You appear to have the
GCA as a reference in front of you. If this is so, then cite the specific
paragraph to support your claim, or admit to a falsehood.
> < Scout:Hmmmm. I thought there was already a law someplace that stated you have to
> < > report the loss, theft, or destruction of a firearm to the BATF?
>
> < RR: I haven't read that one either. Maybe someone else has, but I don't think
> < it exists.
>
> Nosy: Ray doesn't believe GCA-68 exists, either...
RR: Once again, Flameboy, give me your cited paragraph from GCA-68 on this
claim that the loss of a privately owned firearm must be reported to the BATF,
or admit to another falsehood. (There are beginning to pile up, now
aren't they?)
Scout
In article <327972...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>Steve D. Fischer wrote:
>
>> Wait just a damned minute here! First of all, only VA *RESIDENTS*
>> can legally buy a gun in VA. If you fake a VA ID, you've just committed
>> a crime. No extra legislation needed here!
>> Secondly, when you bring that illegal gun back to DC you've just
>> committed another crime. No extra legislation needed here!
>
>RR: Of course you're correct. But my point was not to imply that gun
running
>across the state line was legal (perhaps that was misunderstood). My point
was
>that what law exist are so puny, that it's too easy for criminals to
>circumvent them.
> If someone commits a crime, but the law doesn't work, then it's time
>for a new law.
Depends, did the law not work, because it wasn't enforced? Did the police not
obtain the proper information to allow enforcement? First you need to find out
way the first law did not work, then if possible either first the first law or
repeal it (since it doesn't work). Then you would need a new law that didn't
have the faults of the old law, while still allowing legal citizens proper
freedom. If it's impossible to do both (as is often the case), then only
reasonable restrants are proper, and failures (which will occur) have to be
dealt with by the police. Since after all, if all laws worked perfectly, there
would be no need for police.
>
>> > In fact, it used to be so easy to get guns in Virginia, that Virginia
>> >became the main illegal gun supplier for nearly the whole northeast United
>> >States. Tracing studies in places like NYC turned up guns purchased
>> >in Virginia time after time.
>>
>> Those guns were not *BOUGHT* illegally. They were legally bought
>> by VA residents. Had the person(s) who bought them simply kept them for
>> their own use, no one would be upset. It's when they *RE-SELL* them in a
>> different state, illegally, that the trouble begins. It is not illegal
>> to take a legally owned gun out of the state of VA.
>
>RR: Yes some of them were bought illegally. As I've posted, some were
>bought with fabricated drivers' licenses.
Illegal.
> Others were bought by Virginians,
>paid by the smugglers to do so.
Straw man purchase, illegal.
> This in itself is not illegal,
sorry, but it is illegal.
>but as has
>been mentioned, it would be illegal to re-sell them on a "mass" basis,
it would also be illegal to re-sell them individually either.
> either
>in Virginia or elsewhere, although that is another crime that is difficult
>to prove.
Not really, simply requires the BATF to actually do some investigation and
police work. You know, the sort of stuff that every other law enforcement
agency is expected to perform.
>
>> > And in the Northeast, where Virginian was probably the name for a
>> >gangsta's favorite piece, the drop was even more dramatic. Before the
>> >one gun a month law, the traced precentage of Virginia guns was 35%.
>> >After the law, it was only 15.5%, less then half!
>>
>> Do you have that paper? If so, give more detail. How many states
>> were examined? How was the sampling for tracing done? Was it based on
>> persons being arrested with a gun in their possession? Who were the
>> authors?
>
>RR: Authors were Douglas Weil, Rebecca Knox, from the gunner's favorite
>organization (g), Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Hmmmm. Of course, there's NO bias here.
> Can't retype the whole thing, but here's the abstract:
>"Objective- To determine the effect of limiting handgun purchases to one per
>month on the illegal movement of firearms across state lines.
>
>"Design- Data from the BATF firearms trace database were obtained for traces
>requested for firearms recovered in connection with criminal investigation.
>The analysis incorporates data on date and location of purchase for
>14606 firearms purchased prior to (September 1989 through June 1993) and
>after (July 1993 through March 1995) enactment of a Virginia law limiting
>handgun purchases to one per month.
>
>"Main Outcome Measures- Odds of tracing a firearm acquired prior to
>implementation of the law to Virginia vs another state in the Southeast
>compared with the odds for firearms acquired after the law took effect.
Hmmm. That southeast bit seems fishy to me, right off hand. Why not simply for
all states?
Could HCI being 'loading' the result table?
This of course would also eliminate Vermont, which we all know has even
'laxer' laws than VA.
>"Results- For firearms recovered anywhere in the US, 3201 (27%) of
>11376 acquired prior to the implementation of the law and 519 (19%)
>of 2730 purchased after the law was enacted were traced to Virginia
>(odds ratio .64; 95% confidence interval, .58-.71). For traces
>initiated in the northeast corridor (NY, NJ, Conn., RI, and Mass)
>1103 (34.8%) of 3169 of the firearms acquired before the one gun
>a month law took effect and 142 (15.5%) of 919 firearms purchased after
>implementation were traced to Virginia (OR, .34; CI, .28-.41).
>
>"Conclusion- Gun control policies involving licensing, registration and
>restricting the number of purchases represent efforts to limit the supply
>of guns available in the illegal market. This study provides evidence that
>restricting handgun purchases to one per month is an effective means of
>disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms."
> (JAMA, 6/12/96, p. 1759)
--
Scout
Ray
Scout wrote:
RR:> > If someone commits a crime, but the law doesn't work, then it's time
> >for a new law.
> Scout> Depends, did the law not work, because it wasn't enforced? Did the police not
> obtain the proper information to allow enforcement? First you need to find out
> way the first law did not work, then if possible either first the first law or
> repeal it (since it doesn't work). Then you would need a new law that didn't
> have the faults of the old law, while still allowing legal citizens proper
> freedom. If it's impossible to do both (as is often the case), then only
> reasonable restrants are proper, and failures (which will occur) have to be
> dealt with by the police. Since after all, if all laws worked perfectly, there
> would be no need for police.
RR: Errr... Right, I think (g). Hey... for whatever reason, the law wasn't
working to keep Virginia guns out of the hands of criminals in other states.
Maybe there just weren't enough BATF agents to investigate every single
multiple purchase (we can blame this, I suppose, on the NRA effort to
emasculate the BATF).
So the answer is, eliminate multiple purchases! Especially since such a
law does not disallow citizens their "proper freedom."
> > Others were bought by Virginians,
> >paid by the smugglers to do so.
>
> Straw man purchase, illegal.
>
> > This in itself is not illegal,
>
> sorry, but it is illegal.
RR: Let's clarify this. It was not illegal for resident Virginians to
buy mass quantities of guns at one time, even if the money they used came
from outside sources.
What became illegal, was if and when these Virginians transferred these
guns in mass quantities to other citizens.
> >but as has
> >been mentioned, it would be illegal to re-sell them on a "mass" basis,
>
> it would also be illegal to re-sell them individually either.
RR: It would not be illegal to re-sell your privately owned gun to
another person in Virginia, unless you had knowledge that person lived
in another state, or you had knowledge that the person did not qualify under
federal law.
Scout
In article <327D7E...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>Scout wrote:
>
>> Scout> Depends, did the law not work, because it wasn't enforced? Did the
poli
>ce not
>> obtain the proper information to allow enforcement? First you need to find
out
>> way the first law did not work, then if possible either first the first law
or
>> repeal it (since it doesn't work). Then you would need a new law that
didn't
>> have the faults of the old law, while still allowing legal citizens proper
>> freedom. If it's impossible to do both (as is often the case), then only
>> reasonable restrants are proper, and failures (which will occur) have to be
>> dealt with by the police. Since after all, if all laws worked perfectly,
there
>> would be no need for police.
>
>RR: Errr... Right, I think (g). Hey... for whatever reason, the law wasn't
>working to keep Virginia guns out of the hands of criminals in other states.
First you have to indicate WHY the law was not working. You know the reasons.
If it's lack of enforcement or just plain being ignored by the BATF, then the
failure is not in the law, but the enforcement. I will not accept that any new
law is necessary until you indicate WHY, the old law failed, and how the new
law will correct the problem. Your solution seems to be to keep pasting
band-aids on rather than deal with the problem of fixing the hole. First it
should not be difficult to investigate someone running guns they buy through
retail sales, due to the presence of the BATF multiple gun purchase form. This
would provide you with a list (which wouldn't be too long even in raw form,
and could easily be reduced to a prime dozen or two) of people that could be
in the business of running guns. A little real investigation by the BATF.....
You haven't even tried to address why such enforcement is not possible or even
reasonable other than some vague remarks about too many mutiple gun forms.
> Maybe there just weren't enough BATF agents to investigate every single
>multiple purchase (we can blame this, I suppose, on the NRA effort to
>emasculate the BATF).
You wouldn't need to investigate ever purchase, just those that match an
established profile. Such as large numbers of guns bought at regular or close
intervals, and isn't a FFL.
Of course, if the BATF really was interested in the legal enforcement of the
law, the NRA, or anybody else, won't have a problem with them. The problem
lies in the fact that this organization is out of control, and laws (even
those regulating their own actions) seem to have no meaning for them.
Let the BATF do some meaningful work on reducing crime by really working on
caughting criminals, and you would have less resistance. When you set up a
person, then spend millions, and assign a dozen or more agents to watching
that person 24 hrs a day for almost a year, because he refuses to inform for
you. Then I would have to consider that organization either has too much
money, or can't use it's money properly. Either way, it's better to reallocate
that money to someone who uses for what it should be used for.
> So the answer is, eliminate multiple purchases! Especially since such a
>law does not disallow citizens their "proper freedom."
Perhaps, you still have to indicate how this would solve the problem. Since
you haven't addressed why to old laws fail, you can't indicate why this would
be an improvement. I, personally, prefer less of a band-aid approach
particularly when it effects thousands of lawful people.
So let's see, you need to:
1) Indicate the manner in which the old law failed
2) Indicate why the old laws can not be corrected to eliminate this flaw
3) Indicate how this new law would correct the problem
4) Show how it's reasonable to expect it to work as advertised
5) Consider criminals reactions to having such a law, and what
new problems that it might create
6) Indicate that the benefits greatly justify the costs associated with this
new law.
Article Unavailable
Ray
Scout wrote:
> 1) Indicate the manner in which the old law failedRR: Two possibilities: a) BATF unable to determine which multiple buyers
supplied guns to criminals. b) BATF unable to prove the Virginian strawmen
did anything illegal.
> 2) Indicate why the old laws can not be corrected to eliminate this flawRR: Impossible to correct, since the key to correcting both problems
is tracing the specific illegal gun that's turned up in New York, to
a direct sale from the Virginian who originally bought it. Since that
Virginian could have sold the gun first to other middle-men, legally,
without paperwork, there's no way to prove he sold it directly to criminals.
> 3) Indicate how this new law would correct the problemRR: By stopping all multiple sales,. Out of state criminals would
then have to recruit too many Virginians (who don't have felony records) to
purchase guns for them. The gun running would become unprofitable, and
more easily detectable by the authorities.
> 4) Show how it's reasonable to expect it to work as advertisedRR: Show why it wouldn't. In fact, the trace studies show it IS working.
Do you have any evidence it is not?
> 5) Consider criminals reactions to having such a law, and what
> new problems that it might createRR: Gun smugglers would have to find another easy-state to buy guns.
Thus, there probably wouldn't be too much of an effect on crime
unless and until Congress passes a national one-gun-a-month law. But the
success of the Virginia example is important anyway, to prove that
such a national law would work too.
> 6) Indicate that the benefits greatly justify the costs associated with this
> new law.RR: What costs? The new law has no cost. The old law had
many costs associated with BATF investigation (which, for the reasons I
mentioned, were not very successful)
> Actually, I do believe that using someone elses money for a gun purchase IS
> considered a strawman purchase.
RR: Once again, consult your GCA-68. This quite simply is NOT illegal.
How could it be? What if your father gave you a birthday present of
$600 in cash so you could buy your own gun? That's not illegal.
> . However since you either have to take the guns to another
> state to sell, (illegal) or sell to an out of state resident (illegal). I fail
> to see how any of this is legal. I would love to hear you finally indicate a
> manner in which a handgun bought in VA can be sold across state lines within
> the law short of being transfered via a FFL. You claim it's possible. So far,
> you've failed in your attempts to show this.
RR: Again, it is NOT illegal for a Virginian to sell his privately
owned gun to another person, if he doesn't know the buyer is from out of state.
It's the out of stater, then, who violates the law, by buying the gun
and by transporting it across state lines.
Ray
Scout wrote:
> >RR: While violating fed and DC law, it would not necessarily violate
> >Virginia law. A non dealer Virginian who buys a gun or
> >two.. then sells them while inside Virginia to a stranger,
> >would not be violating Virginia law.
>
> Sorry, but it is a crime under VA law for a resident of VA to sell a handgun
> to a non-resident.
>
> Care to try again?
RR: Read my Lips, Scout. I did NOT say it's legal to sell to a non-resident.
I said it's legal to sell to a "stranger." Big difference. (unless nobody
in Virginia is a stranger to you (g)
Nosy
Rubbish. Ray is being disingenuous here; clearly Va. law
prohibits sale of handguns to persons who are not State
residents (as does Federal law), so the STRAWMAN sale
Ray describes above would be ILLEGAL if the "stranger"
happened to be from DC.
Such STRAWMAN sales are prosecuted, too.
Ray just doesn't want to address reality, it seems to me.
Ray
Nosy wrote:
> <RR: Read my Lips, Scout. I did NOT say it's legal to sell to a non-resident.
> <I said it's legal to sell to a "stranger." Big difference. (unless nobody
> <in Virginia is a stranger to you (g)
>
> Rubbish. Ray is being disingenuous here; clearly Va. law
> prohibits sale of handguns to persons who are not State
> residents (as does Federal law), so the STRAWMAN sale
> Ray describes above would be ILLEGAL if the "stranger"
> happened to be from DC.
RR: If I bought a gun in Virginia, and the seller didn't know I was from
out of state (I don't have to tell him), then he would not be breaking the
law. If you doubt this, read the GCA-68, specifically 18 USCS 922 (5),
and get back to me.
And if you have Virginia law that's any different, cite it.
Nosy
<In article <328485...@interaccess.com> Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> writes:
< Nosy wrote:
< > <RR: Read my Lips, Scout. I did NOT say it's legal to sell to a non-resident.
< > <I said it's legal to sell to a "stranger." Big difference. (unless nobody
< > <in Virginia is a stranger to you (g)
< >
< > Rubbish. Ray is being disingenuous here; clearly Va. law
< > prohibits sale of handguns to persons who are not State
< > residents (as does Federal law), so the STRAWMAN sale
< > Ray describes above would be ILLEGAL if the "stranger"
< > happened to be from DC.<
< RR: If I bought a gun in Virginia, and the seller didn't know I was from
< out of state (I don't have to tell him), then he would not be breaking the
< law.
If Ray goes to Virginia and buys a handgun, and Ray is not
a resident of Virginia, Ray is violating Federal law.
Period.
So much for Ray's strawman claim about DC residents being
able to legally ride the subway to Virginia and buy handguns.
Period.
Ray
Nosy wrote:
> So much for Ray's strawman claim about DC residents being
> able to legally ride the subway to Virginia and buy handguns.
RR: I never said any such thing.