Skip to comments.Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies
Posted on 12/30/2004 4:21:31 AM PST by Lazamataz
National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms
WASHINGTON While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.
The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.
"Policy questions related to gun ownership and proposals for gun control touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics: Should regulations restrict who may possess firearms? Should there be restrictions on the number or types of guns that can be purchased? Should safety locks be required? These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," said Charles F. Wellford, professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland and chairman of the committee that wrote the report.
However, the National Research Council decided even more thorough research on the topic is needed.
Many studies linking guns to suicide and criminal violence produce conflicting conclusions, have statistical flaws and often do not show whether gun ownership results in certain outcomes, the report said.
A serious limit in such analyses is the lack of good data on who owns firearms and on individual encounters with violence, according to the study.
The report noted that many schools have programs intended to prevent gun violence. However, it added, some studies suggest that children's curiosity and teenagers' attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects actually increase the appeal of guns.
Few of these programs, the report concludes, have been adequately evaluated.
The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System to begin collecting data.
The study by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Science, was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
"While more research is always helpful, the notion that we have learned nothing flies in the face of common sense," said John Lott, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a critic of gun-control laws. "The NAS panel should have concluded as the existing research has: Gun control doesn't help."
Meanwhile, a study released by the Justice Department suggesting background checks at gun shows would do little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.
Less than 9 percent were bought at retail outlets and only seven-tenths of 1 percent came from gun shows.
The Justice Department's interviews also showed so-called "assault weapons" are not a major cause of gun violence. Only about 8 percent of the inmates used one of the models covered in the now-expired assault weapons ban, signed into law by the Clinton administration in 1994.
A ping to the hardcore gunnies among us.
The National Academy of Sciences had a brief moment of sanity. Not to worry; I'm sure it'll pass quickly.
Ya not only own one but carry one everyday! The government will protect us...
Well, we gotta have SOME way of rounding up you liberals for the death camps.
Ya! This will be on the news! NOT!
Welcome to FR!
I agree. nobody "needs" them. The government will protect us!!
What part of the 2nd amendment is not clear to you?
..... consider my conviction record:
Now thats a picture.....
I have to make one with more guns in it. Some of my other guns complain about not getting in the picture.
You are now under surveillance. Enjoy your stay.
All the more reason that kids should be taught the proper use of fire arms.
I didn't have it taught to me formally but I did have a Dad who was constantly harping on safety and heaven help me if I ever accidently pointed a gun at somebody.
No, but you did sleep at Holiday Inn last night.
Oh well, you've been banned, but I was digging up your post where you called Bush a cokehead and other ones where you clearly were showing signs of being a DUnatic.
But you're gone.
And that's a good thing. </Martha Stewart>
Facts will not change the minds of the gun control freaks.
They are a plague just like the environmentalist wackos!
That was quick. Reminds me of the time that moth flew in an open window and 'Buddy' lept out of the chair at least 6 feet across the room, snagged the moth out of the air, pinned him to the ground and ate him all within about 1.26 seconds.
Since this can be construed as an honest question:
I don't live in a criminal free society, I'd own a hand gun until we do.
Which will only happen when the moon turns to cheese.
Remember, the police only come AFTER the crime as been committed.
My shotgun and rifle are for hunting, those will never be given up.
Ha! Is that a record?
LOL I'll bet you have polite neighbors.
What kind of idiot dials 911 and waits for SOMEONE ELSE with a "gun" to come and save their sorry a$$?
No. The record for troll-removal is banning before the first post was posted.
These guys are GOOD. Don't even THINK liberal thoughts or you are banned for life. :o)
the idea behind "gun control" has NOTHING to do with controlling crime and violence.
the purpose behind gun control is to control CITIZENS. it is a necesary precursor to a totalitarian state, which is why socialists everywhere are so fervent in seeking it.
It's a shame about John Lott's shenanigans, since his behavior certainly casts a shadow over his data showing a clear benefit with civilian firearms ownership.
And that's a good thing. </Martha Stewart>
Yes!! 911 is for cleanup only......
The crime rate in my house is zero. MOLON LABE.
I've spent some time trolling in DUmmy land and and found that quite a few of them are pro second amendment. the left lunatics who oppose gun ownership are a lot louder and shriller though.
The folks in Kennesaw were correct in their observation that it would be safer if every household clearly possessed firearms.
Now if we can start a national push to get rid of gun control laws -- I advocate going after repeal of the 1968 GCA first.
Ah HAH! He finally outed himself. I thought I smelled troll a coupla days ago...
>>In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
So they at least admit, at minimum, that there's no harm in this inalienable right being exercized. That's progress in many ways, and can be used as ammo by us. Frankly, whether crime rates fall or not, crime in *my* vicinity is more likely to be dealt with appropriately.
I wonder what the results of the study really "say", versus what this summary says.
Yes, the call one has to make, AFTER some sorry slug messes with your door locks at 3:00 AM.
You must have a really strong stomach! How long do you have to stand in a hot shower afterwards before you feel normal again?
ie, there are still some funds left in the government tills.
Yes, but what did you do in the afternoon?
< James Bond Voice> ...Mataz.... Laza Mataz....</James Bond Voice>
Only from the unconstitutional viewpoint.
Global warming, disarming the citizenry, UN mandates, one world government, etc. etc..
Will someone, anyone, take the garbage out?
To which I say...
It is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
That's because they only deal in feeeeeeeeelings.
Our deck is private except up and back. No houses behind us just a creek and a dairy farm. Seriously often the airliners illuminate the back yrad as the lower their gear with landing lights on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.