Occupied Deutschland wrote:Free Soviets wrote:the big cities have actually gotten safer from the peak of our lead-poisoned crime wave far faster than the burbs and rural areas. still less safe, but increasingly close to them today.
or it could be that since changing people is hard and we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly), we should do the easier thing. because solving the problem is better than wishing for a pony.
Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.
Methinks that isn't much of a difference.
Can't say anything for that chart, as I have no idea where it comes from, or where they got their figures, and no context is given.
I can say that this chart
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_16_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_by_population_group_2011.xls
comes from the FBI, and breaks down violent crime rates, as a whole, per 100,000 residents, by population group.
If you look at the "Rate" sub section under the "Violent Crime" column, you'll see that Group I, which encompasses cities of 250,000 or more, has a violent crime rate of 754.5 per 100,000.
This is in comparison to every other category, with suburban areas coming in at 252.1, Nonmetropolitan counties at 180.8 and everything else in-between.
The murder rate for those large cities is 10.1, compared to 2.9 in the suburbs.
The forcible rape rate in the cities is 294.8, compared to 57.7 in the suburbs and 14.2 in non-metropolitan areas.
Time and again, the big cities top every other category in violent crime; not just in total, but per capita. To be fair, their rates are coming down. For the most part. Chicago is set to break its murder record this year. (again)
If you're so certain that reducing access to guns works, and that this isn't a cultural issue, then maybe you should let the folks at the CDC know.
Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent:
Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings:
Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results:
Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.
evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.
Overall, too few studies of CAP (Child Access Prevention) law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent.
The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students.
On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence.
In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.
Sounds to me like the CDC couldn't draw any real conclusions at all.
Or, perhaps you'd prefer a study recently published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy?
Since 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms
and very few murders involve them.
Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates
stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998 ‐2004 (the latest figure available for
Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize
the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now ‐ independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.
Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current ‐ day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.
(Image)
Full study here, should you wish to peruse it.
To reiterate...
Free Soviets wrote:we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly),
No, I don't think you know that very solidly at all. You clearly think you do, but you don't.
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan