Gun Control Doesn't Reduce Crime, Columnist Says

Points to state with the strictest law on the books

Massachusetts may have the nation's toughest gun law, but it's been ineffective in reducing crime. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby says it's a case study of liberal ignorance about firearms.

The 1998 law banned semiautomatic assault weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.

Jacoby argues the only people who obeyed the law were law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

"Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month - 'a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.' Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent."

That was a sadly predictable result, according to Jacoby. "Don't hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong. The treatment they prescribed may have yielded the opposite of the results they promised, but they're quite sure the prescription wasn't to blame."

Via The Boston Globe.

Are gun control laws effective in curbing crime?

[Medicinebow]

No surprise here. The controls being put forth are simple feel good measures.

[LukeVentura]

Illegal immigration and crime are linked .
Join over 1 million legal American citizens against these law breaking Illegals at NUMBERSUSA.
google it, and register. Take Action.

[texas_cutie75]

Of course not, the only ones who follow the laws are law abiding citizens.... go figure!!

[Dan_Tien]

But how many of the gun murders were committed by known criminals and how many were first time crimes committed by "law abiding citizens"?

[Leftofliberal]

It would be stupid have laws prohibiting criminals from buying guns, the criminal won't follow the law.. great logic... keep selling guns in bulk so the criminals can buy them on the black market. The gun show and black markets are doing record sales

[mtkopf]

@Leftofliberal I've been arguing that same point since newtown. The gun nuts refuse to recognise that argument. You see, the ppl in the extreme right would rather see thousands killed every year than be inconvenienced.

[texas_cutie75]

@Leftofliberal
Why not implement the laws already in the books? Why create more laws? Why not implement the punishments set forth on these laws. There are too many people getting slaps on the wrists while breaking laws.

[texas_cutie75]

@mtkopf
I do not want to see thousands killed every year, however, the laws already on the books are far from being implemented. I am not worried about myself being inconvenienced, I do my gun buying completely by the books, and have no issues with background checks. I get one regularly... something having to do with my job of handling controled narcotics. Implement the laws, go forth with the punishments, try and stem the problem at the root, the criminals!!

[DerivePI]

If by gun control you mean reduced clip size and arbitrary "assault weapons" bans, then no.

[culinary]

Well imagine that...

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

Liberals are promoting gun control with the goal of curbing gun violence, they are using gun violence as a justification for taking away the guns of law abiding citizens. Once this happens the government will have even more power over its citizens. We cannot sit by and let the 2nd Amendment be repealed on our watch.

[mtkopf]

No one is repealing the 2nd. There should be restrictions to it just like there are restrictions on free speech, voting etc. which all happen to be rights given to us in the Constitution also.

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

@mtkopf - But in the 2nd Amendment it says that right shall not be infringed. Restrictions, infringement, all the same. These are not to be tolerated. No repeal of the 2nd Amendment on Neo's watch.

[GodlessLiberal]

@Neo_NtheMatrix As far as I know, no one is seriously considering repealing jack shit. This is more republitard paranoia, and there is zero basis for it. If you like the 2nd amendment so much, you need to adhere to ALL of it, including the part where it says "well-regulated." You teatards like the "no infringement" part, but refuse to be well-regulated. On MY watch, that nonsense IS coming to an end.

[mtkopf]

S,@Neo_NtheMatrix so arm everyone with RPGs, tanks, maybe C-4. Those are already restricted.

Our society has shown time and again that ppl cannot be trusted with certain weapons. Your "right" to own an assault style rifle has infringed on 26 people's rights to LIVE. The right to live outweighs your right to own certain weapons.

But, while I, as a gun owner, do not see a need for anyone to own assault style rifles, I am not calling for a ban on them. I only want a ban on clip size, registration of weapons, universal background checks, and mandatory reporting of lost, stolen, or sold firearms. Those laws are not "infringing" or "restricting" your right to own your weapons.

[lawnmowrman]

@GodlessLiberal "well regulated militia"

[AnnieO]

I don't know why people think gun owners have so much power. Apparently if I get rid of MY guns, people will stop committing crimes with firearms. People will also stop committing suicide! Yeah, that's a lot of power. Too bad it's not true. I'll keep my guns. I'm not responsible for the actions of strangers. I'm responsible for protecting myself and my family.

[miketost]

So they tried to stop drinking with prohibition,the drug war from the 70s both failed.Those un afraid to break the law will,those that would follow the law would give up their right to defend themselves when the police or the government cant.Get real look at Chicago for proof of gun control reducing gun violence.

[mtkopf]

If you are such an expert on Chicago, living in Florida and all, why don't you explain why Chicago has a high murder rate. Explain to us all why gun control laws don't work here.

[thumper11]

@mtkopf,
Since YOU are the one promoting failed policies, the burden of "explaining" the failure is on YOU. Even so, it isn't hard to explain. Everyone with even a moderate capacity for rational thought understands it intuitively.

[mtkopf]

@thumper11 so, you are able to figure out Chicago's problems from California? Yeah right!

[thumper11]

@mtkopf,
Indeed, everyone everywhere (except you) has "figured out" that water runs down-hill in Chicago - and that it's dark there at night - and that criminals disobey laws. You keep trying mtkopf, someday even you might be able to comprehend the universally-obvious.

[Thunderchicken]

So, abrogating the rights of law abiding citizens doesn’t affect criminals? Who’d have thunk it.

[marine1]

If anyone believes this bulls&^t, please explain why chicago has the highest murder rate of all, with all their gun laws in place? Gun control is as phony as a 7 dollar bill.

[wonka45ACP]

At what point do people comprehend, that this is NOT !! about laws, its about
CONTROL !! or "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct "

[Sonny]

Yet another guy who just seems to miss the entire point of "gun control". The point of limiting high-capacity magazines and some "military style assault weapons" is not to "reduce crime" its to limit the number of people who may be killed or maimed when one of these mass shootings again happens in a school or movie theater.

The idea is not centered around reducing crime---There, unfortunately, will always be crime and criminals. But to prevent a mass-shooter from being able to mow down hundreds and hundreds of innocent lives in a matter of seconds. If high-cap. magazines were restricted, and the mass-killer had 10 rounds in his clip..then it just might be possible to stop this guy from killing more than 10 people, once he has to stop to reload his weapon. I don't even want to see 1 person hurt or killed in my aforementioned example, but limiting the number of bullets in some high-capacity magazine---will indeed save lives...So once again, this guy simply just missed the who point of what is now being proposed as "gun control".

[miketost]

As an avid shooter and with a 10 shot clip I am able to change out a 10 round clip with a new in less than 5 seconds.Do you really think 3 seconds matter when the intent is to kill or maim?So now what make a 1 shot clip ? It will still take only seconds to reload.

[stepped_in_it]

"just might be possible to stop this guy from killing" I'm not willing to give up my 2 puny "peashooters" for the term "MIGHT". Take away the assault guns and hi cap mags and the determined will find another way! A pump shotgun, a couple decent double action revolvers and some "quick" loads for them will do pretty much the same!
I don't own "assault" guns or hi cap mags. Don't truly understand them and the need for ownership of them! But, I firmly believe that if all were turned in today, we would still have a "mass murder" spree within months. The determined will make do!

[Sonny]

@miketost Yes I do. In fact, as the mass-shooter in the Giffords mass-shooting was attempting to reload---he was stopped by civilian by-standers before he could do so.

[Sonny]

@stepped_in_it I'm not sure what you mean by your "peashooters"--but no one has demanded that you give them up. And if "quick loads" need to be addressed then so be it. None of that has anything to do with what I wrote before.

[miketost]

@Sonny 1thousand and one one thousand and 2 one thousand and 3 do you really think in 3 seconds they stopped him?In the time it took you to count was only 2 seconds for an avid shooter to reload.Fortunately this fool had not practiced.

[stepped_in_it]

"Jacoby argues the only people who obeyed the law were law-abiding citizens, not criminals." If only our politicians had taken a reading comprehension class or 2. Let's make laws that make it tough to own guns. Everybody will abide by them.....yeah RIGHT! Criminals are called criminals because they don't follow your silly laws.....dipsh1ts

[bsking]

These kind of stories lead the left down the inevitable path of total confiscation. The reasoning being that if gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens then we'll simply have to get rid of all guns. It is a flaw ingrained into their DNA.

[PoliticalSpice]

The DNA of leftist is ingrained with respect for the political power of guns. Again you confuse the left with liberals. The Veitnamese, the Sandanistas, Fidel castro and his guerrilla army, Mao, all leftist with guns. Liberal democracy is part of capitalism. Liberals support gun control. Leftist oppose capitalism. We have no illusions that capitalist will use force to stop social change. The left believes in the ballot or the bullet. The left beleives in change by any means necessary. The left understands political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Hopefully we can bring about the change non-violently, but only a fool thinks the left is for gun control.

[dances-weebles]

noone has called for total confiscation of guns... noone... but here's proof that morons shouldn't be allowed to own one:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/17/man-ar...

now that i think about it, though, it's not a bad idea. what if they made it illegal to buy, sell or own a gun or ammunition of any sort everywhere in the u.s. with strong penalties such as seizure of all real properties, vehicles and sporting goods to be sold by law enforcement agents to cover all costs of prosecution, and prison time for any infraction?

if you needed a gun for hunting, then, you could apply to rent one during hunting season and, if you can prove that you need to hung for wild animals for subsistence rather than buying your meat in a store your name would be (if you qualified) entered into a lottery and if your name were to be drawn you would receive an authorised hunting weapon along with your license and a proscribed number of bullets or cartridges. then you'd have to return it at the end of the season along with any unused ammunition and proof of kill if and when you made your legal kill limit.

how's that work for ya?

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

@dances-weebles - I suppose this idiotic post is supposed to masquerade as intelligent. I'm glad you fled to another continent. Your type of thinking terrifies me.

[zeke]

@Neo_NtheMatrix Evidently he's bored or loves posting idiotic posts, just to create controversy, just ignore.

[dances-weebles]

@Neo_NtheMatrix it's a hypothetical situation for you to think about. you can 'think' can't you?

[GedankPol]

No. And the report "Crime and Justice in the United States, and in England and Wales", US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Publication No. NCJ-169284, and MANY OTHER research publications by US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (all US Department of Justice agencies) SAY SO. This is why we have a ban on federal research on firearms. The statistics just don't back what the special interests demanding more gun control want. If the US Department of Justice cannot be made to cook their books to please these folks, then the next best thing is to dry up their funding so the "inconvenient truths" won't hamper them and they can rely on a handful of isolated, albeit horrible tragedies to base their arguments. Violent Crime in England, and other places where very restrictive gun control has been enacted, has exploded. That's one reason England is experiencing such a brain drain to the USA along with very high taxation and restrictive personal freedoms. Don't take my word for it. See the reports for yourself at the web site:
http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com You can even download them free!

[thumper11]

Thank you for the excellent references. I will endeavor to employ them.

It is my understanding that the "ban on federal research" applies only to the CDC - regarding their illicit attempts to treat all gun-shot injuries (including justified shootings) as a "national epidemic" requiring federal intervention to control the "spread" of the "disease". Congress has wisely denied the CDC funding for "researching" this nonsense.

Are there other bans on research - besides the one on the CDC?

[GedankPol]

@thumper11 Thank you for the kind words. I believed the ban extended to the USDOJ as well. Last week I received an email from the folks at NCJRS (National Clearinghouse of Justice Research Statistics) soliciting individuals to research firearms and violence in the USA. So, either the ban is in effect for USDOJ and they are trying to use a loophole and use statistics provided by 2nd parties which they would be willing to pay for, or they are being pressured to farm out their research (which worries me a great deal, as they may be manipulated by private parties with sinister personal agendas!) If I find out, I'll post here. I agree with you on the CDC. Google:
Wikipedia+list of rampage killers. Note all the different categories and note that ASIA AND OCEANIA (the Pacific Rim Countries) have MORE incidents of such violent mass murders than the US does. Also note RED CHINA where in 2010, such a mass killing took place in spite of the TOTAL BAN on the private ownership of firearms. Also, note Norway's Utoey Island (near Oslo) incident on July 22, 2011. A mad-dog racist murdered 77 TEENAGERS and wounded 259 after passing every single restrictive requirement the Norwegian government demanded of him-almost a mirror image of what Sen. Feinstein wants for US gun owners. Thanks again!

[DARSB]

It's clear that addressing this one state at a time is inefficient - after all, if you can easily cross state lines, buy a weapon, and return home the law's intent is circumvented.

But there are things that can make a difference. Look at the evidence from Missouri. When its background check law expired, gun crime jumped 25%. http://goo.gl/IOzas

[Medicinebow]

Personally, i'd like to see consistent laws nationwide. It's a pain to travel and having to know what is allowed in the particular state one may be in makes things difficult More than one has been arrested for not knowing a states particular law. A federal concealed carry law would be of significant help.

I support (instant) background checks.

Speaking of Missouri, there is a bill to actually confiscate certain weapons in that state. For people that have stated the gov't wouldn't do that they may wish to reconsider.

[Cheenoguy]

Looking state by state or city by city is like putting a towel in the pool and saying it obviously doesn't work because you still get wet.
Lets compare country by country in the civilized world and compare. There is a difference.

[HooverNiebold]

@Cheenoguy

OK it's a deal. Crime is rampant in Mexico and the UK both that virtually ban guns. In the UK crime is so out of control they have considered banning knives and you can be charged for resisting criminals. Would you like to be charged with a crime for defending yourself from rape, robbery, or murder?

[Cheenoguy]

@HooverNiebold
Mexico is not a first world country. Virtually the entire country is in poverty and poverty increase crime. Add in the drug war we have created and you've got a hot mess.
What is the homicide rate in UK again? Look at the per 100,000 homicide rates worldwide. I'm not aware of a single developed nation with a higher homicide rate then ours. Do you know of any?
Please show me a country that is a developed nation and has stricter gun laws then is that has a homicide rate that is greater then ours. Please show me a country that is a developed nation with looser gun laws with a lower homicide rate.

[thumper11]

@Cheenoguy,
"Please show me a country that is a developed nation with looser gun laws with a lower homicide rate" [Switzerland]

[2b1ask1]

But...But...But Lord Hussein said it does!!

[texas_cutie75]

I spit coffee out my nose, I laugged so hard!! Lol

[Grubby]

Another D'oh moment for the Liberals. The problem is you can never argue with someone you need to educate first, and the liberals cannot be educated.

[Gtiallday]

You're the type to group people in a category and belittle them? At least I'm educated in manners.

[Sannersongurl]

I do feel that I'm educated in this respect. So much so that I feel the very same way about your kind!

[Gtiallday]

These type of questions bug me. IF gun control DID stop a crime how would we know? You don't know what it stopped from happening bc.. well it stopped it from happening. So saying that yes it does or no it doesn't just seems illogical to me.

[DapperDave]

The columnist's argument is disingenuous. It is a fact that the industriallized nations with strict gun control laws have SIGNIFICANLTY lower per capita gun related deaths than the United States?...among them are Japan, United Kingdom, South Korea, Hong Kong, Spain, Australia, Israel, Canada, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, just to name a few. It is impossible to make the case that fewer guns doesn't translate to fewer gun related deaths! Anyone trying to do so is either dishonest or delusional.

[Dan_Tien]

According to statistics reported in Britains's "The Guardian", Gun related murders in Massachusetts in 2011 were 2.02 per 100,000 population versus the national average of 2.75 per 100,000. In 2010 it was 1.78 versus 2.84. Gun related robberies and assaults were also lower than the national average. It seems to me that reporters in the UK might have less reason to massage statistics from the US to advance a political agenda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/inter...

An American organization's site shows that of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws, 7 (including Massachusetts) also have the lowest gun death rates.

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

[Arumizy]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

IF you are trying to prove a point with charts and info, it is often best to use something official and not from a private organisation. That said we can disect them and say it is mainly because of gun laws or lack there of and not be any closer. California has some of the strictest laws in the nation and an abhorently high murder rate. Why is that? There are hundreds if not thousands of factors other then gun laws to take into account, some of which Illegal immigrants, number of gangs, etc etc.There is no golden solution and gun control is not a magic bullet. All it does is restrict rights, but looking at the underlying causes such as mental issues, societal stigma's and so forth you might actually get to a workable solution.

[Dan_Tien]

@Arumizy The FBI chart that you provided the link to showed that there were 20 states with more gun related murders than Massachusetts, but the figures are not broken down into per capita figures.

As long as private organizations do not falsify data, then I see no reason to discount the figures that they present. If you doubt the information, then look for the sources that it is derived from. The UK Guardian page that I linked took it's data from Google Fusion tables, which sourced its data from Wikipedia, which sourced its data from "Crime in the United States 2010 - FBI Uniform Crime Reports".

"There is no golden solution and gun control is not a magic bullet. All it does is restrict rights, but looking at the underlying causes such as mental issues, societal stigma's and so forth you might actually get to a workable solution."

I agree that gun control is not a "golden solution"., but dispute your assertion that "All it does is restrict rights". If you want to get to a workable solution then you cannot prejudge and refuse to address anything, including gun control. However, your FBI data link shows that the primary type of gun involved in murders are handguns, which does suggest that restricting ownership of semi-automatic rifles and ammo clips will do little or nothing to reduce gun homicides.

[Knight80]

All of these gun control measures they want to put in place, will not keep the gang members, thugs, drug smugglers, etc.. from getting them. They talk about registering guns. Please someone give us the numbers that show how many of the (let's use Chicago) deaths so far this year were from legal gun owners. Of those deaths, how many happened because of self defense. I would be willing to bet that the percentages for both part will be extremely different from each other.