Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Journal of Interpersonal Violence - New study concludes firearm ownership does not cause crime

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    **The new study makes similar conclusions as did the Kates and Centerwall Studies**


    Key findings:

    1. Gun control does not affect criminal use of guns.
    2. Gun crimes are committed with illegally owned guns
    3. Socio economic factors explain levels of violent conduct in societies
    --
    Firearm Homicide in Australia, Canada,
    and New Zealand:

    What Can We Learn From Long-Term International Comparisons?


    Samara McPhedran1, Jeanine Baker, and Pooja Singh
    Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceXX(X) 1 –12

    © The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission:

    http://www.
    sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
    DOI: 10.1177/0886260510362893



    SNIP
    It is pertinent to note that the level of legislative restriction surrounding
    firearms ownership differs between the three countries. For example, Canada
    and New Zealand permit the ownership and use of the types of firearms that
    are banned in Australia. In addition, Canada, like Australia, mandates registration
    of all firearms whereas New Zealand, unlike Canada and Australia, does not
    require registration of all firearms.

    However, these differences do not appear
    to be reflected in the long-term declines in homicide rates, suggesting the
    need to consider other explanations for the trends.

    Existing literature highlights relationships between social disadvantage
    and crime (Jones-Webb & Wall, 2008; Phillips, 2002; Wilson, 1987), and
    there is a degree of empirical support for the hypothesis that homicide rates are
    associated with economic indices such as unemployment
    (Bellair & Roscigno, 2000; Krivo & Peterson, 2004; Lee & Slack, 2008).

    Although a great deal of
    study in this field comes from the United States and may not be wholly
    applicable to other countries, Australian research, too, has found associations
    between male youth unemployment and rates of lethal violence
    (Narayan & Smyth, 2004).

    In the current context, it is worthwhile considering socioeconomic
    correlates of crime in relation to the three countries of interest.
    There are a range of socioeconomic indicators on which New Zealand has
    varied from Australia and Canada over the past years, and some of these may
    offer insight into the apparent differences in firearm homicide trends between
    countries. Of particular note is that unemployment rates in Australia, New
    Zealand, and Canada have consistently differed.

    According to Labor Force
    Survey results from each country, after passing through the economic downturn
    of the early 1990s and experiencing unemployment rates in the order of 10%,
    all three countries have experienced declining rates of unemployment.


    However, unemployment rates in New Zealand have consistently been
    lower than Australian unemployment rates, which have in turn been lower than
    Canadian unemployment rates (ABS, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2008; Statistics
    New Zealand, 2008). It should be noted that these figures do not differentiate
    between short- and long-term unemployment. Future work will assess potential
    relationships between unemployment and homicide rates in more detail. It will
    also examine whether trends in nonfirearm homicide, as well as firearm
    homicide, have differed between the three countries.
    McPhedran et al. 7

    The relationship of economic variables to the incidence of violent crime merits
    further scrutiny. Although the three countries in this study have experienced
    similar levels of economic growth as indexed by measures such as gross domestic
    product (GDP), their comparative experiences of socioeconomic disadvantage
    have not been explored. Although overall economic stability and growth may have
    contributed to the observed declines in firearm homicides in each country, it is
    increasingly recognized that there are inequalities in the distribution of wealth
    within individual countries, evidenced by the elevated risk of social disadvantage
    faced by certain groups in the community (e.g., unemployed young people, persons
    with substance abuse or mental health issues). In this regard, broad measures such
    as GDP may not provide a suitably nuanced reflection of social well-being and/or
    injury mortality
    (Nasrullah, Laflamme, & Khan, 2008).


    The majority of firearms used to commit homicide in Canada and Australia
    are not legally owned. More than 80% of firearm homicides in Canada
    (Dauvergne & De Socio, 2008) and more than 90% of firearm homicides in
    Australia (Davies & Mouzos, 2007; Mouzos & Houliaris, 2006) are committed
    by persons using illicitly owned firearms. Data on the licensing status of
    homicide offenders could not be obtained for New Zealand; however, the
    Australian and Canadian observations may indicate dissociation between firearm
    violence and legislative approaches to firearms ownership, whereby legislative
    reform does not influence the population of individuals who commit firearm
    violence.

    Thus, broader changes in social policy and crime prevention policies
    may explain the declines in firearm homicide.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Got a link to the study? Or to the abstract publication?

    stay safe.

    skidmark



    Oh! BTW - whodathunkit?
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately this study means as much as the other studies that reached similar conclusions: Nothing.

    Why? We already know this. It has been proven before. It was the answer any true logic reasoning brought about before there was evidence.

    Anti's don't care about truths or facts or reality. It is 'religious' for them. It's all about how they 'feel' about guns.

    Trying to disprove the anti's over and over only adds validity to their absurd assertions.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  4. #4
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    This is what I came up with via google-fu. It's from 2003?

    http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/fai...erimentRev.pdf

  5. #5
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post


    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  6. #6
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    Not really. What they cannot tolerate is the fact that an armed populace is not under their control.

    The name of their "religion"? Power.
    Which is actually the same sickness most criminals (unofficial and otherwise) have. Subconsciously, they really do understand one another. Some of them are simply more willing than others to act out their fantasies of domination and control.

    The rest simply want something for nothing. They want everyone to be helpless because they are too cowardly to do anything except be helpless. The sneak thief, as opposed to the armed robber.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    ...however, the Australian and Canadian observations may indicate dissociation between firearm violence and legislative approaches to firearms ownership, whereby legislative reform does not influence the population of individuals who commit firearm violence.



    Who'd a thunk it?

    Maybe we should have an international study to test the theory - just a theory mind you - that birds are not deterred by fences.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    Maybe we should have an international study to test the theory - just a theory mind you - that birds are not deterred by fences.
    Well, the obvious conclusion by power damaged minds is to build higher fences, of course.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •