My group gave a presentation on gun control. Our assistant, Matt, had some counter-statistics that suggested that gun control has failed to reduce crime rates in the UK where our data suggests the exact opposite. I thought this was an interesting example of how statistics can be skewed in favor of each side of an argument.
One statistic I thought was interesting was the idea that gun control is highest in the US in Detroit. One perspective is:
"A quick review of Michigan gun laws shows that law abiding citizens wishing to own a gun for self-protection are strongly regulated and actively discouraged. First, they have to take and pass the Michigan Basic Pistol Safety questionnaire. Then they have to apply for the Ten Day Handgun Purchase Permit to buy the gun and make sure they find and buy the gun of their choice within 10 days, otherwise they have start the process all over again. When they make their purchase, they have to fill out a Michigan Pistol Sales Record form and make sure the pistol has a valid firearm Safety Inspection Certificate.
Once the citizen has purchased their firearm, they have 10 days to take the gun to the local police department, have the sale recorded, and a new Safety Inspection Certificate issued in their name. Otherwise, they are considered in violation of the law and could be arrested on a misdemeanor gun violation.
Federal laws also require a background check if you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer with a Federal Firearms License.
Note that each and every legal gun buyer in Michigan, and particularly Detroit, must be approved by the local police at least twice each and every time they purchase a gun and undergo a background check by the federal government.
As a result, Detroit has the second highest murder rate in the nation and is considered by many to be the most dangerous city in which to live in the United States. Simply put, gun control, as a means of controlling crime and protecting law abiding citizens, is a dismal failure."
But it seems like there could be more to the story than what the article presents. Does anyone think they could come up with a counter example to this argument or another reason why crime rate may be so high in Detroit despite gun control rather than because of it? I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives.
For more about the quoted article visit:
http://mic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control
My thoughts:
ReplyDelete(1) It seems pretty costly to legally own a gun in Michigan state, which decreases cost to illegally own a gun. If a gun is off the record, it is harder to track if the owner uses it for crimes. It seems to be the case that government's law leads to bad consequences.
(2) The paper doesn't say anything about crimes without guns. Maybe in Michigan a lot of crimes are committed without guns. If this is the case, gun control enforcement is irrelevant.
For more discussion, I recommend the two following papers:
More Guns, More Crimes by Mark Duggan.
The Social Costs of Gun Ownership by Philips Cook and Jens Ludwig.
One interesting thing that wasn't brought up during the presentation or Q&A afterwards is the fact that many gun-makers in the US are rebelling against stricter gun control laws (in some states at least) by making parts of guns in such a way that they can be easily assembled by either a user or another gunmaker who makes another part of the gun. This type of method is being used to get around laws against selling and buying guns in a number of states. I think it is notable that there will probably be a significant amount of backlash that goes along with stricter gun control. Aside from the fact that it might not actually reduce gun ownership or gun violence, there will probably be a massive political reaction that will be adverse to the cause of decreased gun ownership. More conservative legislators will probably be put in office, and gun control laws might be overturned and there will be even fewer regulations. Thoughts?
ReplyDelete