Brady's grading system and "sensible gun laws"
Howard Nemerov's analysis is here. Brady Campaign grades States A-F on how their gun laws match Brady's ideal. Nemerov's statistical work suggests that (1) high Brady grades correlate to low gun ownership -- restrictive laws reduce the number of persons who can own guns and (2) they also correlate to higher violent crime and homicide rates. The highest rough quartile (averaging B+) had a violent crime rate of 610 and a homicide rate of 7.6 . The lowest quartile, average grade D-, had a violent crime rate of 320 and a homcide rate of 4.2.
So Brady's "commonsense" gun laws are associated with inhibited gun ownership and higher violent crime and murder rates.
On the first finding that high grade states have lower ownership - that should be of high utility in those states post incorporation.
For the issue of the correlation of states with "high" Brady grades and high crime, I think Kates' most recent work would argue that the causation runs the other way. High crime rates tend to lead to tighter gun control and not vice-versa (sadly.) However, that in many ways shows how utterly useless those laws are.
Posted by: Gene Hoffman at July 5, 2008 09:15 PM
maybe there's a critical mass where crime is sufficiently "bad" such that some statistic can be whipped out on the spot to misrepresent it and make it sound like guns are the problem.
but "early and often" -- whipping out the violent-crime news clips of people firing mini-guns in afghanistan -- seems to describe it better.
Posted by: jon at July 5, 2008 10:07 PM
Heller knocked Brady off message for awhile. They will, as all collectivists do, find a way to 'explain' their message better next time.
Howard Nemerov is very good at using their own numbers against them by finding reasonable and rational contradictions. But reason and rationality is not their objective, finding targets and isolating them is.
Trigger locks are now illegal? No worries, we'll require owner-authorized 'smart' handguns (that haven't been invented yet).
Ammunition is the new menace.
Oh, and those 21st Century gauss rail rifles just around the corner that are really just suped up BB guns will never see the light of 'common usage', will they? Can't have those dangerous things in the hands of commoners and all that.
So, how do you construct a court case that redefines the "Bill of Rights" so that it doesn't 'protect' rights, but restricts federal action? To do that wouldn't the Supreme Court have to overturn the Civil War?
Posted by: Jim D. at July 5, 2008 11:15 PM
Anti-gun, common sense restrictions, smart guns, micro stamping are aimed at far more than gun ownership and self defense. As with 'mandatory volunteerism' the war against oil and the private automobile these are all attempts to restrict our individualism and autonomy. The same war is being waged against rural and suburban lifestyles. Eight or ten dollar gas would put and end to that.
I am opposed to all most all gun laws and most other laws of the last 50 years; they tract what we are doing and where we are. While the man in the street who only gets his news from Big Media may believe these ridiculous gun crime 'facts' few if any of the leaders of the anti-gun crowd do. It is all about power. Sara Brady or a Feinstein or Schumer have a far more sinister agenda than mere crime control.
Perhaps this 'mandatory volunteerism' will include marksmanship training, help at the SHOT Show and ROTC. No?
Posted by: RobertG at July 6, 2008 02:51 PM
Gene, the "crime causes law" position took a serious hit with the statistics that developed after the various states reduced laws relating to concealed carry.
The best the gun grabbers could rebut with was studies showing that such laws did not have an effect on crime levels, incidentally showing that laws against guns could not possibly have an effect on decreasing crime. And that's a study funded by a gun grabber outfit.
I think the politicians who change the legal environment in a way that increases crime, do so because they benefit from crime in some fashion. They pass laws against guns in order to increase crime levels. And they know it.
Posted by: Phillep at July 8, 2008 09:09 AM