Case Study - The failure of gun control laws.

[JPR]

Last night Discovery Channel aired two hours of graphic proof of the failure of gun control laws. "Gang Wars: Oakland parts I and II"

They interviewed and hung out with the OPD anti gang unit. A whopping force of 8 officers. They interviewed and hung out with some actual gangster morons. They even had live coverage of a firefight these morons had with each other. They showed some of the firearms police have confiscated from these idiots. Semi-auto pistols, Uzi and other submachine guns, assault rifles of several makes and models with high cap banana mags, shotguns, derringers, you name it, they found it.

They interviewed a guy who said you can get a gun "with names on it" for as little as $ 50 on the street. You can buy brand new guns for $ 200 - $ 400 on the street.

Some interesting stats the shows cited:

1) Gang membership has grown tenfold over the last decade in Oakland,CA
2) Homicide is the major cause of death of Black youth under 25yrs old in Oakland,CA.
3) There is an estimated 2,000 gang members in Oakland,CA
4) There is an estimated 10,000 gang members in Alameda County, CA
6) Last year police confiscated close to 1400 firearms in Oakland, CA
7) There are NO , 0, NADA licensed firearms dealers in Oakland, CA

So if anybody still wonders how effective gun control laws are, tell them to check out how a major California city, that has managed to get rid of every single licensed firearms dealer in the city, and has a state legislature that has provided it with some of the toughest and most restrictive gun control laws in the country, still has a murder rate higher than the national average.**

Not to mention a tenfold growth rate in gang membership over the last decade which also included more gun control laws over the same time period.

The homicidal idiot population is increasing in number exponentially at the same time that the government is making it harder for the good citizens to defend themselves.


** http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

[plinker]

I saw the same show...it was interesting...as you've stated.
One thing that kinda shocked me was that these morons went looking for trouble. They got in the van and went driving thru the other colors ground. The drove home waiting for a response. And the response came.

What a completly different "reality" these idiots have.

[PPDSWD]

Look at New Jersey, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Camden, Newark, Trenton, Jersey City are high crime areas. Now look at Pennsylvania which has very liberal gun control and I would say that PA is much safer then NJ. All gun control does is keep the good people from having guns.

[AlmostaLEO]

Look at New Jersey, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Camden, Newark, Trenton, Jersey City are high crime areas. Now look at Pennsylvania which has very liberal gun control and I would say that PA is much safer then NJ. All gun control does is keep the good people from having guns.

100% agreed!

[grog18b]

You mean that people are finally coming to the realization that laws don't control crime!?!?!?!

Amazing.

[pyo1]

I saw the same show...it was interesting...as you've stated.
One thing that kinda shocked me was that these morons went looking for trouble. They got in the van and went driving thru the other colors ground. The drove home waiting for a response. And the response came.

What a completly different "reality" these idiots have.

I've seen a bit of that docu-drama. Stupidity all around. These aren't the only morons that do things like this! I ran across an article a minute or so back from a cop who writes the beatandrelease blog that did the exact same thing. Guess I should also say that he was drunk as Cooter Brown, armed, on a motorcycle, riding through one of those areas where he knew that bikers would be offended!

Right or wrong that mentality is shared!

[Reef_Cop]

PLEASE CHANGE MY VOTE! I accidentally voted yes for some retarded reason.

[DAL]

I do not think that gun control laws accomplish anything on balance -- other than providing the police with another basis to arrest someone. However, this kind of anecdotal reasoning is wholly specious.

You can draw a statistically valid inference from one example. There are other cities with weak firearms laws that have high crime rates. Detroit, New Orleans and St. Louis are all ahead of Oakland. New York, which has very strict gun control laws, has a low homicide rate. Irvine and Simi Valley, which have exactly the same gun laws as Oakland because they are in California, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Far and away the most important determinant of the crime rate, including the homicide rate, is demographics.

[ray8285]

You can draw a statistically valid inference from one example. There are other cities with weak firearms laws that have high crime rates. Detroit, New Orleans and St. Louis are all ahead of Oakland. .

Remove St. Louis from this list...MO has concealed carry, even St. Louis.

[DAL]

Remove St. Louis from this list...MO has concealed carry, even St. Louis.

But that was integral to my point, which is that many cities is which a concealed carry is easy to obtain, the crime rate is very high.

Even though Missouri is a shall-issue state, and St. Louis is in Missouri, the crime rate, including the homicide rate, is higher than in Oakland. Likewise Detroit and New Orleans.

[JPR]

I do not think that gun control laws accomplish anything on balance -- other than providing the police with another basis to arrest someone. However, this kind of anecdotal reasoning is wholly specious.

You can draw a statistically valid inference from one example. There are other cities with weak firearms laws that have high crime rates. Detroit, New Orleans and St. Louis are all ahead of Oakland. New York, which has very strict gun control laws, has a low homicide rate. Irvine and Simi Valley, which have exactly the same gun laws as Oakland because they are in California, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Far and away the most important determinant of the crime rate, including the homicide rate, is demographics.

1) It is obvious that California gun control laws have not achieved the purpose that they were purportedly intended to achieve as the proof is irrefutable that street thugs have no problem obtaining and using guns and their population is not shrinking, it is growing. Those are the facts, not specious anecdotes. Those who ignore the facts are ignoring reality.

2) So then you agree that there is no evidence that tough gun control laws reduce gun related crimes. That in fact, the evidence suggests that there is no correlation between tough gun control laws and lowered rates of gun related crimes.

3) What do you mean by demographics? Race? Ethnicity? Poverty? I hope you are not going to assert that poverty causes people to become homicidal idiots who will shoot someone for no other reason than they are wearing a hat of a certain color. I know plenty of people who have come to this country essentially broke and unable to speak English. They have worked hard, learned English, started their own businesses, and raised "A" students. They tend to drive Lexus, MZB, and BMWs now. With these hard working people as an example, what poor person can articulate a reasonable explanation for poverty causing them to make criminal choices in their lives?

I think you are missing the point. Obviously, the values and morals of the people in a community are the determining factor regarding the crime rates. Crime is a choice. Also obviously, gun crimes will continue to occur wherever the people of a community have a will for them to occur. Just like heroin, cocaine, and meth will be used wherever there are people who wish to use them. It is obvious that LE cannot control the trafficking of "things." We as a society should not expect them to achieve the impossible, therefore, we should address the true root of the problem, not the tools the problem uses.

I believe poor public policy has been a huge, if not the main, factor for the creation of these pathetic people. Welfare entitlement programs not carefully administered to assist and motivate people to become productive citizens have created multiple generations of drugged out, self consumed, entitlement junkies with lots of time on their hands and lots of mischief in which to get involved such as unwed multiple pregnancies in order to increase the welfare allotment in order to facilitate a drug addiction. What chance do those kids have of growing up with their heads screwed on properly?

I'm no sociologist, but that is what I have seen over the past 40 years around here. But the problem with the arrogant liberals in power is that they can't seem to recognize this reality because to do so would require them to admit to being wrong on those social programs. So instead they take the simplistic logic of ( Guns = dead people.) They then pass laws which infringe the rights of upstanding citizens. When time shows the laws don't work, they simply pass more of the same. Now some 40 something years later we have this chaos all across the country in various cities. And it appears at least in Oakland, it is not getting better, it is getting worse.

[DAL]

I am not missing the point.

My point is that your efforts to drawn a generalized inference from what has happened in Oakland are specious. There are many things that affect crime rates, and the mere coincidence of onerous gun control laws with a high crime rate in one city does not prove that the gun control laws caused the high crime rate. A basic statistics course for undergraduates will teach you that much. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, California's gun control laws have changed little over the last decade. Most of the changes are just "feel good" laws, and to attribute a major increase in violence to those changes makes no sense. Moreover, relying on the absence gun stores in Oakland seems rather lame, given that there is an ample supply nearby.

Gun control laws are probably futile, but your "reasoning" does not prove anything.

I find the statistical and econometric studies by Dr. John Lott to be far more persuasive. (Of course, that is not saying much.) However, while there is a negative relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates, other factors have a far greater influence on the rate of crime. For example, there are indications that, not surprisingly, longer prison terms reduce the rate of crime. If guns are all that matter, how could New York's crime rate be so low?

[JPR]

I am not missing the point.

My point is that your efforts to drawn a generalized inference from what has happened in Oakland are specious. There are many things that affect crime rates, and the mere coincidence of onerous gun control laws with a high crime rate in one city does not prove that the gun control laws caused the high crime rate.. A basic statistics course for undergraduates will teach you that much. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, California's gun control laws have changed little over the last decade. Most of the changes are just "feel good" laws, and to attribute a major increase in violence to those changes makes no sense. Moreover, relying on the absence gun stores in Oakland seems rather lame, given that there is an ample supply nearby.
Gun control laws are probably futile, but your "reasoning" does not prove anything.

I find the statistical and econometric studies by Dr. John Lott to be far more persuasive. (Of course, that is not saying much.) However, while there is a negative relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates, other factors have a far greater influence on the rate of crime. For example, there are indications that, not surprisingly, longer prison terms reduce the rate of crime. If guns are all that matter, how could New York's crime rate be so low?

1) What is specious about pointing out the fact that Oakland thugs appear to have no problem getting any firearm they desire?

If you READ what I have written in this thread, you would understand that NOWHERE did I say that gun control laws have increased crime.

I simply stated the fact that it has failed it's purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals intent on committing gun related crimes. If you can't read what I type, it is you, not I, that needs to go back to school.

2) Some people may disagree with you about the gun control laws passed over the last 10 years. For instance, several handguns now that are designed for high cap mags need to be sold with 10 shot mags in California, unless you are a gang banger and buy them on the street in which case I imagine you can get the high cap mags. Some popular new handguns (i.e. Ruger LCP 380) are not available in California, last I checked( legally - I imagine the gang bangers will have no problem getting those too.) There are other examples, but you get the point. Again, I did not "attribute a major increase in violence" to these new laws. That is coming from your imagination. See # 1.


P.S. You have missed the point.

[ray8285]

But that was integral to my point, which is that many cities is which a concealed carry is easy to obtain, the crime rate is very high.

Even though Missouri is a shall-issue state, and St. Louis is in Missouri, the crime rate, including the homicide rate, is higher than in Oakland. Likewise Detroit and New Orleans.

In the 2009 Forbes list of America's Most Dangerous Cities, St. Louis is not listed in the 15 worst metro areas for crime

In a November 2008 Congressional Quarterly Press publication, the city of Oakland was rated 5th worst in a nationwide ranking of violent crime.

[DAL]

In the 2009 Forbes list of America's Most Dangerous Cities, St. Louis is not listed in the 15 worst metro areas for crime

In a November 2008 Congressional Quarterly Press publication, the city of Oakland was rated 5th worst in a nationwide ranking of violent crime.

It sounds like you are comparing the St. Louis metropolitan area with the City of Oakland. If so, you should use the San Francisco - Oakland metropolitan area instead of the City of Oakland.

The same Congressional Quarterly publication you reference shows the top five violent crime rankings as follows:

1 New Orleans, LA 441.40
2 Camden, NJ 381.84
3 Detroit, MI 381.24
4 St. Louis, MO 355.01
5 Oakland, CA 328.82

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/City...8_Rank_Rev.pdf

I think your failure to mention these other figures is materially misleading.