Quote:
Originally Posted by cudaspaz
It has been proven that restriction on lawful ownership increases crime.
The FBI proved it, there is a big write up by two scholars that proved it by an exhastive research study.
All the articles are on the NRA wbsites.
Look at Great Britain, heck, not only did violent armed crime increase due to restrictions, but the poor saps who protect their home and property are considered the criminals when they harm the bad guys and do long jail sentences while the criminals go home with a slap on the wrist.
No freaking joke.
Look the district of columbia with the highest crime rate in the nation.
The good guys are disarmed and the bad guys have free reign.
You watch how quickly that crap stops if the CCW laws ever get passed.
Go look the articles up on the NRA websites, they are very informative and written by some pretty smart guys. I don't have the time to feed you the articles myself, but you naysayers always want proof, but when presented with it, you still deny it.
|
http://books.google.com/books?id=3CEKPvzFeHsC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=legal+ownership+of+firearms+and+crime+rates&source=web&ots=TC7ZFBPtfA&sig=UUtd8VrrdVpTEA0gYkIoKTVgs1Y#PPA203,M1
"The aggregate level analysis of violent crime rates indicated that the net impact of all the various individual effects of gun possession, was not significantly different from zero."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=98
"The empirical evidence as to the success of the Washington, DC, handgun ban is mixed. Loftin et al. (1991) used an interrupted-time-series methodology to analyze homicides and suicides in Washington, DC, and the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia before and after the introduction of the ban. They included the suburban areas around Washington, DC, as a control group, since the law does not directly affect these areas. Using a sample window of 1968-1987, they report a 25 percent reduction in gun-related homicides in the District of Columbia after the handgun ban and a 23 percent reduction in gun-related suicides. In contrast, the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia show no consistent patterns, suggesting a possible causal link between the handgun ban and the declines in gun-related homicide and suicide. In addition, Loftin et al. (1991) report that nongun-related homicides and suicides declined only slightly after the handgun ban, arguing that this is evidence against substitution away from guns toward other weapons.
Britt et al. (1996), however, demonstrate that the earlier conclusions of Loftin et al. (1991) are sensitive to a number of modeling choices. They demonstrate that the same handgun-related homicide declines observed in Washington, DC, also occurred in Baltimore, even though Baltimore did not experience any change in handgun laws.
7 Thus, if Baltimore is used as a control group rather than the suburban areas surrounding DC, the conclusion that the handgun law lowered homicide and suicide rates does not hold. Britt et al. (1996) also found that extending the sample frame an additional two years (1968-1989) eliminated any measured impact of the handgun ban in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, Jones (1981) discusses a number of contemporaneous policy interventions that took place around the time of the Washington, DC, gun ban, which further call into question a causal interpretation of the results.
In summary, the District of Columbia handgun ban yields no conclusive evidence with respect to the impact of such bans on crime and violence."
I think it's telling that there is a study entitled, "More Guns More Crime", M. Duggan and a study entitled, "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott.