GunLoon Myths: DC Gun Laws Caused Homicides to Increase
Every couple of years or so, Mary RoshJohn Lott is compelled to recycle the long discredited notion that DC’s gun laws caused an increase in homicide and crime.
Via yet another gunloon blog that bans dissenting views, John Lott trots out the tired old chestnut for another spin ’round the gunloon:
The problem for the city is that anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see that D.C.’s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban.
[…]
The city’s brief focuses only on murder rates in discussing crime in D.C. Yet, in the five years before Washington’s ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. But there is one fact that seems particularly hard to ignore. D.C.’s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but has only once fallen below what it was in 1976 (that happened years later, in 1985). Does D.C. really want to argue that the gun ban reduced the murder rate?
Similarly for violent crime, from 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.’s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. These drops and subsequent increases were much larger than any changes in neighboring Maryland and Virginia. For example, D.C.’s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than in the neighboring states during the five years before the ban and rose back 3.8 times more in the five years after it. D.C.’s murder rate also rose relative to that in other similarly sized cities.
This is what’s known in the biz as “cherry-picking.” Tim Lambert debunked Rosh Lott in 2003; the same graph he used then applies here:
…you can see the trick Lott has used. (Data is from here.) Notice how the crime rates fluctuate from year to year. If you choose one year at random to represent the situation after the law was passed their is a good chance that it will be unrepresentative. Of course, they didn’t just choose one year at random. They chose 1981, which just happens to be the year that had the highest homicide and robbery rates of the ten following years. (And contrary to their claim, the murder rate in 1985 was below the 1976 rate.)
Also by presenting rates for just 1971 and 1976, they make it look as if the rates were decreasing before the law, instead of going up and down. The law was also in effect for only part of 1976, so that year is not a good choice to represent the situation before the law.
If you look at the graphs you will see that homicides tended to be lower after the law and robberies were about the same. Of course, just looking at the graphs only gives a rough idea of the possible effects of the law. This has been studied by several researchers. Loftin at al (NEJM 325:1615-1620) found significant decreases in firearms homicides and no significant change in non-firearms homicides. Kleck et al (Law & Society Review 30(2):361-380) disputed their findings, arguing that the law had no effect. Whoever is correct, there is no published support for Lehrer and Lott’s claim that the law caused crime increases.
Whether or not crime rose (your graph is inaccurate*), it shouldn’t be attributed to the increase or decrease of gun availability. factors like poverty and educations have a far greater effect on the crime rate.
Most moderate people agree that you shouldn’t try to tie any evolution directly to gun legislation.
*please consider these numbers by the national disaster centre:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 10, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Actually the rates in the graph are correct and are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
If strict gun laws like the ones in DC create stability and lower crime, then why is DC such a disaster? Both drugs and guns are strictly controlled in DC and there is no shortage of either among the criminal classes.
Comment by MIke the Army Officer — September 10, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Your graph then shows that DC Mayor Fenty’s claim that the gun ban saved lives isn’t true either.
Comment by thirdpower — September 10, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
No matter how many debate the effect of the dc ban, the proof that a gun ban does not work in keeping people safe is overwhelming. In the end, all it has done is to prevent LAW abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves when confronted by a criminal. Period.
Comment by Scott — September 11, 2007 @ 7:17 am
Period.
Yup, no facts, no stats, just plain ol’ faith.
Comment by Administrator — September 11, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
So… you actually tried posting a comment at Say Uncle? More than once?
Comment by Kevin Baker — September 11, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
I had facts, but mu post got swallowed.
The uniform Crime report (FBI) puts last years count at (2004 and 2005) at 198 and 196.
Also: the source of that graph has become unavailable
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 11, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Kevin: I thought you were done here. Were you lying?
Michael: I don’t see your comment that was swallowed.
Comment by Administrator — September 11, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Michael: I think I see your confusion. Use the cite you provided earlier–scroll down to the chart with the blue-green background.
In 2004, the murder rate was 35.7. In 2005, it was 35.3. These rates are actually lower than the years immediately preceding the DC gun laws.
Comment by Administrator — September 11, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
I know, this is also reflected quite well in the murder count, both sets of numbers seem to check out.
I do stand by my original point, the ban didn’t do much either way, no big surprise to me, I don’t believe there’s a good correlation between guns and murder.
I put my figures into a graph, which shows how the murder rate was in decline, and kept going down. (click my name)
My conclusion:
“If this is correct, you can see that the gun ban didn’t have all that much effect on the murder count (note: this isn’t the murder rate). The surge in violence takes place almost ten years later, which is hardly a reason to blame that specific event in gun law legislation.
The gun ban didn’t save or destroy lives, all that it’s been proven to have done, is cost the taxpayer money.”
And I think my post got swallowed because of blogspot and blogsome disagreeing with each other.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 11, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Michael: To the contrary–can you imagine the murder rate in the eighties if guns were readily accessible?
Let’s remember what was happening in those years–you had a poor economy which hit the poor very hard as well as a crack epidemic.
Comment by Administrator — September 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
“Kevin: I thought you were done here. Were you lying?”
I’ll tell you Jade, I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to see your trackback at SayUncle after, you know, he/I (which was it?) banned you there, that I just had to click on the link and see if it worked!
This place is like a horrible car wreck in a median. It’s difficult to tear my eyes away!
But I’ll manage, I’m sure.
Comment by Kevin Baker — September 11, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Kevin: Gosh, we all know it’s impossible to ban someone and then permit them access again. It’s absolutely impossible. Can’t be done.
Just like when you said you were done here. Of course, someone could be postingh in your name from your IP.
Comment by Administrator — September 11, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
“Michael: To the contrary–can you imagine the murder rate in the eighties if guns were readily accessible?”
Yes, that huge surge of homicide from the 90’s would have started five years earlier, and it would be fought the same way as it has been fought.
Like I said: net results; zero
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 12, 2007 @ 2:42 am
No facts? Name a city or locale in this country that has any type of “gun” ban or restrictions in place which has proven thru any type of stats to be 100% safe for EVERY citizen. Isn’t that the message of the anti firearm groups? Guns kill, people don’t? The DC ban was and still is a failure when it comes to prviding the average citizen in that city any type of protection.
Comment by Scott — September 12, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Scott: You have no facts but you have a strawman. You demand I show you a city or locale that has created a 100% safe environment by having a gun ban. I’ll flip that question around. Name a city or locale that has created a 100% safe environment by having lax or no gun laws.
Comment by Administrator — September 12, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Of course we could extend the chart for a few years after the one shown:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/LottLies2.gif
Comment by thirdpower — September 12, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Third: Actually, Michael Hawkins has done that for you–if you bothered to have someone (your “BC”?) read his comments.
There’s no question you can see a large increase in homicides during the eighties. There’s also no question those rates have delined to the point that they are lower than prior to the gun laws.
Comment by Administrator — September 12, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Exactly, they kept going down for a while, then they went up, and came down again to a very nice low in ‘85
Then there was that horrible decade riddled with bloodshed. Up and down like a sewing machine.
Currently the murder rate is 30% higher than it was in ‘76 (providing my statistics are correct), which translates to only a very small increase of murder count. (I maintain: net result: 0)
Once again, I do not believe that the gun legislation had anything to do with those evolutions, criminals were getting guns from the neigbouring states without much trouble.
Good police work, education and reduced poverty are the key elements
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 12, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Actually, Michael, 1976 isn’t the year you want to compare against. Remember, 1976 was the year the gun laws were enacted and weren’t in effect for the entire year. IOW, part of the year was without the gun laws.
If you compare 1974 with 2005, you see a slight decrease.
Comment by Administrator — September 12, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Like I said, then Fenty’s claim that the law “saved lives” and that handguns “cause” accidents is also false.
But you’ld rather throw out the insults than read the comments.
Comment by thirdpower — September 12, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Third: What you say is both false and ignorant.
And please recall, or have someone refresh your memory (”BC”?), this thread concerns the lies of John Lott.
Comment by Administrator — September 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
“Actually, Michael, 1976 isn’t the year you want to compare against.”
WANT to compare? If this were about wanting to prove anything … well, that would land us right back in square one wouldn’t it? Deltoid, 2004
I’m looking for the evolution AFTER the bill has taken effect. The only noticeable trend before the law passed is that the homicide rate was going down fast,this downward trend nearly ceased after the bill passed, so no wonder that crime was a lot higher in the years before the ban.
No, I’m comparing the year of the law, and the following years (the effects of the legislation have truly taken effect)to the present situation. Omitting two extreme values (one high, one low) we get an average of 188 homicides (count), which is very close to the present count.
My observation: a lot has happened, lot’s of opposite evolutions (up and down) clearly indicating that some other important events took place.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 12, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
How is it “false and ignorant” Jade? Fenty’s cert to SCOTUS make both those claims.
You do know what the acronym “BC” stands for in the Army, right?
Comment by thirdpower — September 12, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Sorry, Michael, you’re just not correct. Your confusion is that you alternatively want to compare individual years when it fits your argument–then you compare trends when it doesn’t.
Comment by Administrator — September 12, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Third: Do try not to be obtuse; you claimed Fenty’s statement was “false.”
In reality, your claim is both ignorant and false. “BC” can stand for many things in the Army. It can stand for “Bad Conduct”, “Battle Casualty,” “Brigade-Battery-Battalion-Bradley Commander,” “Blouse, Camouflage”, etc.
Since you’ve never served it probably stands for “Bogus Commenter.”
Comment by Administrator — September 12, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Thats part of my point… There will never be a completely “safe” city, locale, or county with or without a firearm ban. But in my city (there is no ban or restriction of any type) I have the option of providing security ( by owning a firearm)for my family and property without the fear of going to JAIL, PERIOD. In DC, you don’t have that option.
Comment by Scott — September 12, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
“Your confusion is that you alternatively want to compare individual years when it fits your argument–then you compare trends when it doesn’t.”
.
I demand that you either illustrate or withdraw that statement.
I was comparing the trends 76 to the trends after 76, I was comparing the individual years in the wake to the law, to the latest years of present time, but individually and by average.
.
Oh well, what to expect from someone who greets you as a “gunloon”.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 13, 2007 @ 3:00 am
Demand ’til your face turns blue, Michael–that’s exactly what you were doing.
Comment by Administrator — September 13, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Scott: The issue you’re trying to skirt around is your belief that a gun makes you safer. You cannot, by your own admission, demonstrate this. OTOH, I can show you several studies that indicate you’re actually placing your family in danger.
Comment by Administrator — September 13, 2007 @ 7:27 am
Demand until I’m blue?
This post started out as a complaint against somebody comparing two years to eachother, this was called cherry picking and the person who did this was practically spat upon.
.
Then you ask me to do just that, compare two cherry picked years to each other to prove your point.
When I point at the entire timeline,
(http://mglv.blogspot.com/2007/09/supposed-effects-of-dc-gun-ban.html)
you snap at me for considering only the evidence that supports my point of view.
.
I’m not the one struggling to maintain credibility by threatening to post studies, I’m the victim of your slander, and I’ll presume your failure to point out my lacking in objectiveness as proof that you don’t have anything to support that insult with.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 13, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Michael: It is clear Lott was and is cherry-picking to furnish a conclusion that isn’t supported by the facts.
OTOH, you repeatedly try to draw a conclusion that DC’s gun laws had no effect–you bolster this argument by comparing 1976–a year which was only partially affected by the gun laws to a period in the eighties. Additionally you try and make a comparison to the period 1974-1976 to say crime was declining–thus the continued decrease in crime after the gun laws weren’t due the the gun laws.
That’s cherry-picking.
You’ve also created several strawmen: 1. the gun laws cost taxpayers more money; 2. claiming no correlation between guns and murder.
Comment by Administrator — September 13, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Sorry Jade. By claiming that there’s no causality for it going up when it varied means there’s no causality for it going down like Fenty claimed.
Do you actually think your little attempts at insults bother me? I have DD214’s. Since we’ve all seen how accurate you are on claims, that pretty much says it all.
Comment by thirdpower — September 13, 2007 @ 10:29 am
I’m not comparing the one year before 76, I -by standard- take five years before and five years after, tough I’ve also considered a seven year (3.1.3) because it fits the general pattern more closely. A highly dynamic situation can make long periods unrepresentative unless you start working with averages, which was exactly what I did when comparing that period to the present situation.
.
I’m willing to witdraw my staement that the gunban cost taxpayer money, I’ll just assume that the BATF was already over funded before they had to start enforcing a draconian law, therefor not requiring any additional funds.
.
As for the correlation between firearms and murder:
http://mglv.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-many-guns-does-it-take-to-kill-man.html
so there!
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 13, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Michael: I get an error message in trying to access your link.
WRT BATF, they don’t enforce DC gun laws; they’re charged with investigating illegal gun trafficking and federal gun laws.
Comment by Administrator — September 13, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Not skirting any issue. By owning a firearm and keeping it in my house puts my family in danger? No more than me having a set of keys to my car in my pocket and a six pack of Rolling Rock in my fridge. That argument does not carry any weight with me. It all comes down to being a responsible adult- whether it in reagrds to firearm ownership, having a swimming pool in your backyard and a house full of little kids, or a thousand other things that could be considered dangerous. I take my right of self defense very seriously and so does my family.
Comment by Scott — September 13, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
If you get an error message, either click my name or enter mglv.blogspot.com into your browser.
The article’s named “how many guns does it take to kill a man”
.
Yes, the BATF has to crack down on trafficking, which didn’t happen when guns could be imported legally/”stolen” from legal owners.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 14, 2007 @ 2:45 am
Scott: Again, the facts don’t support you. The fact you have a firearm in the house places your family at a greater risk from the very things you believe you’re protecting against.
Every gunowner claims they’re responsible. There is a way you can prove it but gunloons don’t seem to want it. Wonder why?
Comment by Administrator — September 17, 2007 @ 8:45 am
“Yup, no facts, no stats, just plain ol’ faith”
You wouldn’t know the difference between these if I force fed them to you, which I’d like to do, verymuch.
Comment by theirritablearchitect — September 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
You’d like to force feed ‘em to me but, you see, you just don’t have the stones.
Pity. I’d have rather liked you to try.
Comment by Administrator — September 17, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Try to force feed you … what? You’re the one perpetuating the lie from handgun control inc that a gun puts you at risk.
.
What, Lie?
yes, lie!
.
They fabricated evidence after that ridiculous claim which is obviously false to anybody with some insight in statistical analysis.
.
Why don’t you start by backing up YOUR claims the way I try to always back up mine.
.
On another note, did you know that a family which has insulin in it’s medicine cabinet is over a hundred times more likely to have a diabetic in the family?
Beware of false causal relationships.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 18, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Michael: The empirical evidence certainly supports the fact that owning a gun places you and yours at risk. Kellerman’s two studies affirm this.
Comment by Administrator — September 18, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Kellerman? Hee hee. I thought you were serious there for a second. Mr. “Lost his funding because of nonsense research” in ‘96.
So which of his many claimed numbers are you going by?
Comment by thirdpower — September 18, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
In reality, Third, the CDC’s budget was cut by the GOP in 1996 with specific language the CDC was not to conduct any studies which promote or advances gun control.
At the NRA’s behest.
To date, none of Kellerman’s studies have been refuted.
Comment by Administrator — September 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Because the studies were nonsense and completely biased.
Kellerman refuted his own study. That’s why the numbers are different. Which one are you going by?
Why don’t you start citing Bellesiles next?
Comment by thirdpower — September 18, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Again, Thirdpower offers no proof. Nor were the numbers different.
0 for 2. Strike 3 is on its way.
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Sure butterbars, whetever you say. Like you’ve presented lots of evidence for your claims. Try doing some reading sometime instead of just presenting your hero-worship of anything anti-gun.
Comment by thirdpower — September 19, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Truth hurts, huh?
Fact is you were caught lying–not just once, but twice. On one issue.
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
OK, butterbar. If you say so. You are the expert on lying after all.
Comment by thirdpower — September 19, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
You’d like to force feed ‘em to me but, you see, you just don’t have the stones.
Pity. I’d have rather liked you to try.”
Give me your twenty.
Do it.
Comment by -B — September 19, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
-B: Ask your wife. She has no problem finding me.
I’m in the phonebook. Please do try.
Comment by Administrator — September 22, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
The main problem with Gun Control Nazis is their obsessive, argumentative attitude toward anyone and everyone who brings up a valid point (or any point that argues their own)
in a situation.
Another problem is your arrogence, Mr.Administrator. Do you honestly believe that you can argue with facts compiled from fifteen years of FBI files? A report that has been called the most comprehensive gun control analysis of all time by both sides of the gun control spectrum? I think not, or at least you shouldn’t.
also, a wise man once said, “If you were at home by yourself and someone broke into your house, would you rather have a phone or a gun? You could call the police, and sure enough, they’d get there just in time to photograph your corpse”
and finally, guns are merely a tool by which crime is commited. If the government somehow managed to take all firearms off the street and out of homes (like what you would want, Mr.Administrator) people would simply find other tools with which to commit the crime.
P.S. If you create a law banning guns it only affects those who abide by the law, not the criminals who cause crime in the first place!
Comment by an A among B's — May 26, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
The main problem with Gun Control Nazis is their obsessive, argumentative attitude toward anyone and everyone who brings up a valid point (or any point that argues their own)
in a situation.
Another problem is your arrogence, Mr.Administrator. Do you honestly believe that you can argue with facts compiled from fifteen years of FBI files? A report that has been called the most comprehensive gun control analysis of all time by both sides of the gun control spectrum? I think not, or at least you shouldn’t.
also, a wise man once said, “If you were at home by yourself and someone broke into your house, would you rather have a phone or a gun? You could call the police, and sure enough, they’d get there just in time to photograph your corpse”
and finally, guns are merely a tool by which crime is commited. If the government somehow managed to take all firearms off the street and out of homes (like what you would want, Mr.Administrator) people would simply find other tools with which to commit the crime.
P.S. If you create a law banning guns it only affects those who abide by the law, not the criminals who cause crime in the first place!
Comment by an A among B's — May 26, 2008 @ 4:50 pm