It’s a bit early in the year but I have a candidate for the study most likely to be challenged for 2015. Apparently, a Florida State criminologist has done a meta-analysis of the scholarship which finds that there’s no link between gun ownership and crime:
Acknowledging the limitations of current research on the link between gun ownership and crime, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck sorted through dozens of studies to first separate the best from the worst, and then determine what the strongest studies tell us. His efforts were recently published in the Journal of Criminal Justice.
“All research is flawed, and all bodies of research are incomplete,” Kleck noted, “but that does not mean we cannot distinguish the less flawed work from the more flawed, and draw tentative conclusions based on the best available research conducted so far.”
Kleck included 41 studies that examined the association between measured gun levels and crime rate in his analysis, then used three specific criteria to gauge the strength of the studies.
First, he looked for a validated measure of gun ownership. In-depth surveys and percent of suicides with guns were two of the few acceptable measures. Second, he checked to see if confounding variables were properly controlled for and how many were included. Third, he checked to see whether the researchers used procedures that would rule out reverse causality, i.e. whether crime rates actually caused gun ownership to increase. (Past studies have shown that when crime rises in an area, gun ownership often increases, likely for purposes of self-defense.)
In all, the 41 studies produced 90 findings on gun ownership and various crime rates. Of these, 64% found no statistically significant positive affect between gun ownership and crime. However, 52% did identify a link between gun ownership and homicide.
The better the study, the less likely it was to find a connection between the two.
As I’ve said before, I own two long guns. One hasn’t been fired in 150 years and the other not in nearly a century. They’re family heirlooms. I don’t feel the need to own a gun. I’m not a big booster of gun ownership. I don’t really have a dog in this hunt.
However, whenever you gore sacred cows you probably should expect some consequences and I won’t be surprised if Dr. Kleck’s study isn’t roundly criticized.
However, 52% did identify a link between gun ownership and homicide.
This sort of undercuts the study, doesn’t it? I mean, no one thinks gun-ownership happens to lead to becoming a bookie or stealing cars. They think it causes homicides that wouldn’t otherwise happen.
Last year’s review showed that it is linked to an increase in homicides, same as this one. Kleck also, apparently, does not address the suicide association, which is even stronger. When one remembers that by law the federal government cannot fund negative studies about gun ownership, it should make these findings even more significant. (I keep handguns in the house, now, but didn’t keep any when my brother in law was alive as I knew he was severely depressed.)
Steve
There have been various studies and polls done regarding the relationship of gun ownership to crimes. And, for the most part evidence shows that legal gun ownership acts mostly as a deterrent rather than a catalyst to the proportion of gun-related crimes. Chicago’s homicide is frequently used as a juxtapostional example where you have the strictest gun control laws in the country producing the highest figures of deaths by guns — albeit, most are gang-related.
In contrast, in the states allowing concealed weapon laws there has been a reduction in violent crime. These comments are included in an earlier Forbes article, Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet. Of course John Lott’s controversial study, producing his equally controversial book, More Guns, Less Crime, is included in the above-mentioned article. This will give fodder to those who simply want to focus on the brouhaha surrounding Lott’s research — which BTW commenced with Lott’s own personal bias that guns did generate more violence. IOW, he conducted his studies in order to prove one notion, and came away proving that the exact opposite was more accurate.
I am always amazed by the experts who have absolutely no knowledge of how violent shitholes in the US work. When you live in a place where there is a high level of violence, you own a gun, and you often carry that gun with you. It does not matter what the laws are in that area allow.
More than likely, the gun you are carrying is stolen, and it might have been used in a crime committed by somebody else. This is reality on the mean streets of the US.
Chicago’s “strictest gun control laws in the country” are worthless in the violent areas. They keep guns out of the non-violent areas, and if they were loosened, crime might drop in those areas.
Gang bangers fighting over territory or payback do not give a damn about some dumbass citizen whipping out their concealed weapon. They will shoot Mr./Ms. Concerned Citizen, anybody around them, their family, their dog/cat/goldfish, or anybody else to make an example.
“And, for the most part evidence shows that legal gun ownership acts mostly as a deterrent rather than a catalyst to the proportion of gun-related crimes.”
Not true. You certainly have faulty research like that of Lott’s and Keck’s other work (their studies are useful as an educator to demonstrate faulty study design), but otherwise it trends towards showing an increase in homicides (as Keck just noted) and shows strongly for suicide. As to crime in general (burglary, etc.) I don’t think it shows much of a trend. I would also note as I said above, we actually have a shortage of good research. The gun lobby made sure research would not get done.
As TB notes, once you have lots of guns, you need lots of guns. That said, I think gun ownership rates are probably a minor factor, once you have a baseline number of guns in the population. We had a huge increase in violent crime from the 50s into the 90s, without a big change in gun ownership rates. We then had a huge drop, again without a big change in gun ownership rates. Once you have enough guns in the population, and I don’t really know what that is but we certainly have it, ownership rates above that are probably a minor factor.
Steve
Self-inflicted suicide by a gun shouldn’t be a variable in the gun control debate, as people intent on killing themselves will find a way to kill themselves with or without a gun. I also believe that self-defense, by responsible gun owners, is a strong factor in keeping crime, as well as injuries from crime, at bay. In fact the last spike in homicides was in 1993, twenty-two years ago, indicating that gun violence is not increasing, despite the prevalence of firearms in this country. Furthermore, gun and ammunition sales go through the roof whenever government entertains tactics that would curtail gun owner’s 2nd amendment rights.
Personally, I don’t think it’s possible to make any conclusions of these comparisons because I don’t think researchers can eliminate and/or account for all the other factors involved. And even if they could, it would still just be a correlation (one way or the other).
Gang bangers fighting over territory or payback do not give a damn about some dumbass citizen whipping out their concealed weapon. They will shoot Mr./Ms. Concerned Citizen, anybody around them, their family, their dog/cat/goldfish, or anybody else to make an example.
Well, they’ll try. About half the drive-bys that get reported in my neighborhood have the wrong people getting shot. And by this I mean they will be shooting at one house and they will hit the house 180 degrees away from the one they’re supposedly shooting at.
Or they will shoot someone a half-mile away in a moving car, completely missing the ten people 15 feet away that they were targeting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kleck is apparently looking at rates of crime, not homicide. a homicide doesn’t have to be a crime.
Local example from a few years back to illustrate the point. A local businessman got sick and tired of his store getting robbed at night. So he started sleeping there with a gun. The next time someone broke in (through the skylight), he shot the dumbass full of holes. One less dead homey, one happy Asian shopkeeper, and the crime rate was not affected, as the burglary would have happened anyway and the homicide was justified and therefore not a crime.
I’d be more interested in studies that determined what the correlation was between gun ownership laws and crime, both those committed without guns and those committed with guns. Places like NYC, DC and Chicago seem suggestive.
There’s also the problem of whether or not one can believe the studies being considered.
Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists.
That’s for Flemish biomedical researchers, but it’s also suggestive.