Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates

wolfwood · Apr 5, 2019

https://www.scribd.com/document/405109095/The-Impact-of-State-Firearm-Laws-1991-2016

New study came out. The study finds that bans on modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines do not impact violent crime according to this study. However, the study also found a universal background checks were associated with a 14.9% (95% CI, 5.2–23.6%) reduction in overall homicide rates, violent misdemeanor laws were associated with a 18.1% (95% CI, 8.1–27.1%) reduction in homicide, and “shall issue” laws were associated with a 9.0% (95% CI, 1.1–17.4%) increase in homicide. These laws were significantly associated only with firearm-related homicide rates, not non-firearm-related homicide rates. The study was behind a paywall and cost 40 dollars. If you are interested you can download it for free here.

Here is a news article if you don't feel like reading a study

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...utm_campaign=Feed:+breitbart+(Breitbart+News)

update Jon Lott discusses the study on NRA Tv and shows it is flawed
https://www.nratv.com/videos/relent...and-magazine-bans-do-not-lower-homicide-rates

Boats · Apr 5, 2019

Hmm. Sounds like a mixed bag of results.

j_h_smith · Apr 6, 2019

I know that none of my firearms has not illegally shot an individual for as long as I've owned them.

Vile Shadow · Apr 7, 2019

Doesn’t matter. AWB means folks can’t run out and buy them guns they see in movies no more.

YAY!!! NOW the world’s a heluva lot more safer and politically correct. :rolleyes:

Don H · Apr 7, 2019

"“shall issue” laws were associated with a 9.0% (95% CI, 1.1–17.4%) increase in homicide."

Was this increase due to justifiable homicide or self defense type incidents?

Nanook · Apr 7, 2019

Turns out that folks not killing other folks is the only way to lower homicide rates. Weird.

DanGuy48 · Apr 7, 2019

There’s an awful lot of “qualifying” going on in that paper, it seems to me. Too much of this stuff is like MMGW, it’s correlation of a lot of data from different “environments” and, not to beat a dead horse, but correlation does not prove causation. Just in case there are a few here that I haven’t already bored with this......

“In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation" is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as *** hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Racer Doug14 · Apr 7, 2019

If only God said, " Thou shalt not kill" and if there was a law against murder.

wolfwood · Apr 7, 2019

I've had a chance to sit down with this. There are fatal flaws in this article that makes it statistically significant with the data utilized however, invalid as an impactful study. From the beginning, legal vs. illegal gun ownership was not included as a confounding variable leaving the study non-law specific.

When you conduct a study you must obtain data directly from the source, Thompson Reuters Westlaw Database. They did not, creating a bias.

The statistics jumped into using a multi- variable linear model to evaluate an association without yet determining a relationship. They also used states without gun laws as controls, another major flaw. They explained in the end that changes in household gun ownership were NOT found to be significantly associated with homicide/suicide rates and according to this study this was the intended population

Also the author took a sample from a anti-firearms group that may or may not have manipulated the data instead of going directly to the source. So the study is guilty of bias data acquisition as well

DanGuy48 · Apr 7, 2019

wolfwood said:
I've had a chance to sit down with this. There are fatal flaws in this article that makes it statistically significant with the data utilized however, invalid as an impactful study. From the beginning, legal vs. illegal gun ownership was not included as a confounding variable leaving the study non-law specific.

When you conduct a study you must obtain data directly from the source, Thompson Reuters Westlaw Database. They did not, creating a bias.

The statistics jumped into using a multi- variable linear model to evaluate an association without yet determining a relationship. They also used states without gun laws as controls, another major flaw. They explained in the end that changes in household gun ownership were NOT found to be significantly associated with homicide/suicide rates and according to this study this was the intended population

Thanks for that analysis.

Blacksmith101 · Apr 8, 2019

I wonder what Judge Benitez (the judge who wrote the opinion in the California magazine ban case) will say when some defendant tries to use that study as an argument?

wjackcooper · Apr 8, 2019

Looks like, at least to me, another agenda focused study.

Have not done the math, but the simple fact of the matter is that gun homicide rates are driven by city murder numbers, not by the presence, or absence of “gun control.” Numbers can be manipulated to show an “association,” or “relationship,” or "correlation" until the cows come home, but this does not establish any causal connection, as has been pointed out by Woolford and DanGuy48.

For sure, given a sufficient number of long gun homicides, these people would spin the numbers to show an “association with lack of gun control.”

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/highest-murder-rate-cities

Regards
Jack

plinkerton · Apr 8, 2019

What do they mean by "age-adjusted rates of homicide"?

And why do they need to "age adjust" results?

wjackcooper · Apr 8, 2019

Turned this up with a Google search . . . as pointed out by plinkerton what is the relevance of age in this particular study?

“Some injuries are more prevalent among certain age groups than among others. For example, deaths from falls occur more often among older Americans than among any other age group. Age adjustment allows us to compare injury rates without concern that differences in those rates are caused by variations in the age distributions between populations or among the same population over time. In words, it allows us to compare apples to apples, rather than apples to oranges.”

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_help/faq.html

Regards
Jack

Not_an_outlaw · Apr 8, 2019

Still a right, regardless of statistics.

wolfwood · Apr 8, 2019

https://www.nratv.com/videos/relent...and-magazine-bans-do-not-lower-homicide-rates

Jon Lott rips up the study

wjackcooper · Apr 9, 2019

Is there an online transcript, or closed captioned option? My ears are not as good as they once were.

Thanks
Jack

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Ultimate Member

...

Ultimate Member

F-notso-NG-anymore

Ultimate Member

Thread killer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics