In article <1993Apr20.001815.14049@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:  >In article 735071359@utkvm1.utk.edu, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: >>In article <1993Apr14.195912.16613@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes: >>> >>>Directly contradicted by the NEJM study that compared crime in Seattle and >>>Vancouver, B.C.  The non-gun rates were roughly the same for both cities.  The >>>difference in violent crime rates was almost totally gun-related.   >> >>        And as was not pointed out in the study, but in critiques >>of it, (two seperate articles by James Wright and David Kopel come >>to mind) it was pointed out that the difference was *also* almost >>entirely minority related.  That is, the gun crime rate skyrocketed >>for poor minorities (Blacks and Hispanics primarily) while when you >>compared the white majority they were virutally identical. > >Many of the people who never read the NEJM article believe that this >critique is valid.  In fact, the study explores the minority issue at length >and cites studies to back up its contention that poverty, not minority >"type", is the relevant factor in violence statistics.          Perhaps I failed to make myself clear:  Minorities in the U.S. *correlate* with poverty.  This isn't good and we should address it, but we shouldnt' ignore that minorities and poverty *do* tend to go together.        *Does* Vancouver have a consistantly poor population drawn along racial lines?  If it doesn't, then assumptions of being able to compare minority vs. majority in both cities is questionable at best.  >>... >>>Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Those areas implemented gun control because of >>>the high rates.   >> >>       True only to a certain extent.  Take Washington D.C., where >>gun control was instituted while it had crime problems true, but that >>crime proceeded to explode afterwards.  Similarly for New York. > >Actually, I don't know whether any serious studies have been done for both >cities.  Usenet-style statistical arguments are not very serious, usually >involving people sitting by computers with the latest World Almanac figures. >I had heard of a study on Washington, DC, that seemed to indicate a significant >drop in gun-related violence there after the laws were implemented.  I heard >Gary Kleck comment on the radio that he thought the decline in suicide rates >was related to the new laws, but he doubted their affect on other gun-related >violence.  I have never seen a report on the study, nor have any of my pro-gun >friends had much to say about that report.  Remember, you can't just say that >crime increases indicate a failure of the laws to affect crime rates.  You don't >know whether the *rate* of increase would have been different without the >laws.            If the *rate* of increase over a period of several years remains unchanged, or increases, I think it's not a far jump to say that the laws are not effective.  No, you can't sit down and say that things wouldn't have been worse.  I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you.  However, that road leads us to a place where it is impossible to critique *any* action.  If it gets down to be, "It might have been worse without them," then there *is* no valid objection, which I'm sure would amuse certain people to no end.  >You don't know whether the laws prevented a threefold-increase or  >failed to stop a two-fold increase.           So we've got a situation where we have several options:  	1)  The crime rate decreased:  Obviously gun control worked.  	2)  The crime rate remained the same:  It would have been worse 	without gun control.  	3)  The crime rate increased:  Perhaps the laws prevented an 	even bigger increase.         Cute testing ground we've got.  All responses support the proposition that gun control works.         The question is this:  Did Washington D.C. experiance an increase in its violent and/or gun crime rate which was greater than the pattern indicated prior to the implemented gun control laws.  If it did, then the suggestion that the problem the gun control laws were designed to "control" did not exist in their entirety prior to the gun control laws.