New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Perhaps. But then apply that logic to the studies you use to confirm your bias about gun control.

You guys want to have it both ways.

The only "study" I have referenced on gun control laws was the WaPo article about one showing an increase in large clip weapons seized in crimes in Va. after the 1994 fedral law lapsed. I think that meets my criteria for limited and specific information, though there could easily be other studies in opposition. I think I mentioned in my post you are responding to that this use of large statistics to prove or disprove small changes cuts both ways.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Row6

JDR - have you read the various and supposedly dove-tailing research which proposes that a decrease in lead poisoning - due primarily to EPA rules on exhaust emissions which came into force in the 80's - is a major determinant in decreasing crime rates in America? The idea is that bad behavior among the young raised in this environment is in decline. The article I read noted that crime rates are now fairly similar in small and large cities, thus supporting the idea that higher exhaust rates in large cities is no longer as determining.

Is this crazy? What do you think?

I read the Mother Jones reporting on it that made waves late last year and before that some criminological and psych and neuro studies that support individual level effects on anti-social behavior, IQ, developmental difficulties etc... The "theory" as it is, is certainly consistent with a other crim theories, but there is actually a dearth of empirical study in the crim literature that systematically accounts for the link between lead exposure/poisoning and criminal behavior in the aggregate. For instance, just because lead might cause behavioral problems with children, it doesn't necessarily follow that it could have such an effect on criminal behavior or overall crime rates.

I don't think it's a crazy theory at all, but I don't think it's empirical fact just yet, either. I mean, it's certainly plausible and it begs more attention from criminologists, but I think more research is needed that controls for confounding factors before anything can really be said with confidence. .

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by Row6

The only "study" I have referenced on gun control laws was the WaPo article about one showing an increase in large clip weapons seized in crimes in Va. after the 1994 fedral law lapsed. I think that meets my criteria for limited and specific information, though there could easily be other studies in opposition. I think I mentioned in my post you are responding to that this use of large statistics to prove or disprove small changes cuts both ways.

I owe you an apology. Up thread i stated the study you cited didnt say what you said it did. That was based on looking at the graph only but upon reading the story it does indeed appear as though the seized magazines were used in crimes, although the tupe of crime leading to the seizure i font think was detailed.

Nonetheless i was incorrect.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

I read the Mother Jones reporting on it that made waves late last year and before that some criminological and psych and neuro studies that support individual level effects on anti-social behavior, IQ, developmental difficulties etc... The "theory" as it is, is certainly consistent with a other crim theories, but there is actually a dearth of empirical study in the crim literature that systematically accounts for the link between lead exposure/poisoning and criminal behavior in the aggregate. For instance, just because lead might cause behavioral problems with children, it doesn't necessarily follow that it could have such an effect on criminal behavior or overall crime rates.

I don't think it's a crazy theory at all, but I don't think it's empirical fact just yet, either. I mean, it's certainly plausible and it begs more attention from criminologists, but I think more research is needed that controls for confounding factors before anything can really be said with confidence. .

OK, thanks. As I recall there were studies coming from different directions that could be taken as confirming and the idea is intriguing. Should we hope it's true? Somehow I do as I think it makes our potential problems more manageable here, though it raises questions about polution in third world countries and perhaps the world if and when the economics of population demand trumps environmental concerns.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

I owe you an apology. Up thread i stated the study you cited didnt say what you said it did. That was based on looking at the graph only but upon reading the story it does indeed appear as though the seized magazines were used in crimes, although the tupe of crime leading to the seizure i font think was detailed.

Nonetheless i was incorrect.

Thanks blue. I hope I am similarly honorable whenever I make mistakes.

[wargunfan]

In other gun related news five out of six people surveyed reported enjoying Russian roulette.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Row6

OK, thanks. As I recall there were studies coming from different directions that could be taken as confirming and the idea is intriguing. Should we hope it's true? Somehow I do as I think it makes our potential problems more manageable here, though it raises questions about polution in third world countries and perhaps the world if and when the economics of population demand trumps environmental concerns.

Well if it comes to be empirically supported, then absent some other force/cause/event emerging in the future that can change trends in the aggregate, we might continue to enjoy decreasing crime rates. I am not one however to try to predict future crime rates. Multiple times over the past 40 years, prominent criminologists had to eat their words because of the predictions they made, though some of the criticism wasn't really about the prediction per se but how it was framed.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

The only "study" I have referenced on gun control laws was the WaPo article about one showing an increase in large clip weapons seized in crimes in Va. after the 1994 fedral law lapsed. I think that meets my criteria for limited and specific information, though there could easily be other studies in opposition. I think I mentioned in my post you are responding to that this use of large statistics to prove or disprove small changes cuts both ways.

They are not "large clip" weapons. That are firearms with high capacity magazines. The magazine is a separate part of the gun. The same gun can often handle both large and small capacity magazines, so seizing weapons often has nothing to do with seizing a high capacity magazines, other than the fact that a particular weapon might have a large capacity magazine attached. A clip is an entirely different piece of gun equipment.

So, if that information is what you got from the "study" you shared, it was not a particularly well informed piece.

And perhaps I am wrong, but I seem to remember at some point you touting crime statistics as they relate to access to guns.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

They are not "large clip" weapons. That are firearms with high capacity magazines. The magazine is a separate part of the gun. The same gun can often handle both large and small capacity magazines, so seizing weapons often has nothing to do with seizing a high capacity magazines, other than the fact that a particular weapon might have a large capacity magazine attached. A clip is an entirely different piece of gun equipment.

So, if that information is what you got from the "study" you shared, it was not a particularly well informed piece.

And perhaps I am wrong, but I seem to remember at some point you touting crime statistics as they relate to access to guns.

Not following your semantical argument over gun parts, nor am I interested.

If I use statistics about small events causing large ones - as you have - please, slap me.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

Not following your semantical argument over gun parts, nor am I interested.

Of course not. You argue about gun control but have demonstrated very little knowledge of guns.

It is not semantics. A clip and a magazine are two entirely different gun parts. Google it if you wish to be informed.

If I use statistics about small events causing large ones - as you have - please, slap me.

Of course you do...even when you claim you don't.