'Researchers have longed scratched their heads at what caused the spike in America's murder rate in 1993 - where seven homicides by firearm were reported for every 100,000 Americans, according to the Pew Research Center. ' What utter nonsense....the only good parts of this article are an acknowledgement of the violence in the black community and that Guliani's stop and frisk/broken /windows strategy was effective in reducing violent crime Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ble-GUNS-drove-violent-murder-boom-1990s.html
Violent crime of all kinds, including gun-related murder, fell 55% since 1993. Guns are still cheap and accessible; the % of murders committed with guns has not meaningfully changed. How can they be right?
Stop and frisk probably led to a lot of guns being confiscated from people carrying them. The article doesn't seem to be saying that the murder spike was caused by the overall availability of firearms in America. It seems to be saying that the availability of cheap handguns ($100 or less) in ghetto areas had a lot to do with the spike. "Research shows that the production of guns priced at $100 or less peaked in 1993. That same year murders, both committed by firearms or by other means, reached their highest point in history.... "By 2000 the cheap handguns sunk to the smallest share of production. Over those seven years, the gun homicide rate also fell among black men. "In contrast cocaine overdose deaths across all ages and races steadily increased from 1980 to all all time high in 2000. If the theory that crack fueled the 90s murder boom was correct, gun homicide rates should have followed - but they didn't." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ble-GUNS-drove-violent-murder-boom-1990s.html
Noted, but the 1993 "spike" is an academic creation. The homicide rate in 1993 was 9.5; from 1990 to 1992 it was 9.4, 9.8, 9.3. That's not a "spike" by any measurement. From 1979 to 1981 it was 9.8, 10.2, 9.8. Why didn't they address that spike? http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Except there was no evidence presented in the article that showed it was these small, cheap firearms that were being used in crimes being committed, to any significant degree. It is just speculation about the belief that the two are connected, even though there is no evidence to support such. That matter aside, there is no evidence that these firearms were being sold illegally in ghetto areas. All firearms, no matter how cheaply produced or built, are regulated by federal law, including the sale through federally licensed firearm dealers. These firearms were not being illegally distributed en masse to those of low financial standing. Even if such was being done, it was done long after they had been purchased through legal channels, by a firearms trafficker who did not care about what clientele they sold to so long as they got paid. Such is already illegal, and has been for decades prior to the time period in question. Beyond that, these particular firearms are still in production today, and never went out of production. Therefore it cannot be them.
Don't be disingenuous. The evidence is the study cited by the article. One way or the other cheap handguns were getting into the wrong hands. 1993 was before the Brady Law went into effect so it would have been easier to circumvent federal law. Their production has fallen significantly since 1993 as has the murder rate.
One important thing to note is that although the murder rate has fallen among young black men it is still quite high compared to other demographics. Apparently, the easy availability of cheap handguns had a permanent effect on the culture of young black males. They are more likely to use deadly means to resolve disputes now. "According to Evans, Garthwaite, and Moore, the reason homicide rates for young black men remain high is the lasting effects wrought by increased access to and demand for firearms during the crack years. “ 'The diffusion of guns both as a part of, and in response to, these violent crack markets,' the authors write, 'permanently changed the young black males’ rates of gun possession and their norms around carrying guns.' "Crucially, while shootings spiked in cities where crack was introduced, the violence was not limited to conflicts over drug turf. The three economists looked at murders of family members and intimate partners by young black men, along with suicides among the same population during the years after crack arrived. They found sharp increases in both fatal shootings of loved ones and gun suicides — but no similar increase in suicides or domestic murders by other means. 'The increase in gun-related domestic violence murders shows that the increased availability of guns changed the technology of settling disputes and hence increased the murder rate,' Moore and his colleagues wrote." https://www.thetrace.org/2018/08/guns-supply-shock-crack-epidemic-murder-rates/
I thought it was already known to be related to the economy (e.g. unemployment peak around 1993, and then it peaked again around the time violent crime stopped decreasing in the early 2000s), higher proportion of young people, and drug prohibition combined with the crack demand (demand for crack doesn't cause violence, but rather drug dealers satisfying that demand who do not have access to courts per drug prohibition). Today, most of our drug prohibition violence is outsourced to Mexico.
It's a chicken or egg thing. The sale of cheap guns may have been spurred by the violence in the streets, instead of the other way around. No evidence of causality, just correlation.
The so-called "study" suggests the two events are directly linked to one another, but there is no actual evidence that would conclusively prove such. It is nothing more than yet one more attempt at the correlation/causation substitution fallacy designed to exploit and trick the gullible through the power of suggestion, rather than relying on actual proof. That matter aside, the so-called "study" linked in the article is very informative with regard to another subject. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...y-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/ Specifically, the chart for death by firearms per one hundred thousand people for all ages. It shows a downward decline occurring long before the so-called "prohibition" on so-called "assault weapons" and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, was ever signed into law. The chart further shows that the numbers have shown very little in the way of increase after the supposed prohibition expired, and even then there is always a decrease, even though there have been no further prohibitions on firearms or detachable magazines being implemented. Indicating the availability of such commercial goods has no impact overall. Which makes it no different than more expensive firearms being sought out, acquired, and possessed by those who should not legally have them. Cheap handguns were no more prone to falling into the wrong hands than expensive firearms of all configurations. Even under the current system with background checks and the national instant check system, which was implemented during the time period in question, firearms are still being acquired by those who legally cannot possess them under any circumstances. Meaning it is doubtful the implementation of the Brady bill did anything to begin with. Speculation, not evidence. That matter aside, the above statement contradicts a prior statement made on the part of yourself not even twenty four hours previously, regarding the shooting at the video game tournament in the state of Florida, regarding how the federally mandated background check for all firearm sales through a federally licensed firearms dealer is inadequate on its own to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands, and must instead be supplemented by a permit-to-purchase system being implemented. Either the background check requirement as defined in the Brady bill is indeed adequate, or it is not. It cannot be adequate in certain examples and inadequate in others, when ultimately the matter being discussed is firearms being acquired by those who will use them for criminal purposes. It cannot be adequate for stemming the flow of cheap firearms to ghetto areas, but inadequate for preventing someone with no criminal record from purchasing a firearm and later using it in the commission of a crime. It is either one or the other, but it cannot be both. Which does not change the fact that they are still being produced and sold in large enough quantities to keep the businesses afloat and operating. That matter aside, it is being admitted on the part of yourself that the murder rate was going down long before the so-called "assault weapons ban" was actually signed into law. What this ultimately means is the so-called prohibition provided absolutely no public benefit, cannot be attributed with actually doing anything that warranted its existence, and would devoid of a legitimacy for even existing in the first place.
Then pray tell what caused the rate of violence to begin dropping over a year before the background check law actually went into effect?
Moving the goal posts? Your original claim was that the criminal use of such firearms was not significant. Was any claim made about suicide and the AWB? We're talking about cheap handguns in this thread not assault weapons. Two unsupported claims. Criminals can more easily afford cheap handguns. Criminal gun use has fallen significantly since the Brady Law took effect. A federal mandated background check is better than nothing. A permit to purchase system is even better. Once again we're talking about cheap handguns in this thread not assault weapons.
The original claim still stands. These cheap firearms, these so-called "saturday night specials" were not commonly used by criminal individuals. Nor did the Brady bill make any significant difference in their supposed popularity with the criminal element. The so-called "study" makes an effort at suggesting such, but it presents no actual evidence. And, yet again, there is no evidence that cheap firearms were anymore readily used by violent criminal individuals, than any other firearm currently available on the market. The fact so many of the firearms presented in the photographs in the article were still in their original factory boxes, demonstrates they were not actually taken from those who were using them, otherwise the factory boxes would not be present. Pray tell how so? What makes cheap firearms any more acquirable by those who cannot legally possess them than expensive firearms? Only if one believes the background check system as it currently exists is actually adequate and not in need of supplemental assistance with new requirements for the legal acquisition of firearms. Either it is adequate or it is not. It cannot be both depending on the narrative. Despite being involuntarily committed numerous times, David Katz still legally acquired a permit to own a handgun. He acquired a permit to legally own numerous handguns. Everyone present saw how well that turned out. The next time a discussion relating to so-called "assault weapons" is brought up, this thread and the discussion within will be referenced.
Explain the difference. Presumable to get a permit to purchase you’d have to get BC. How is that different than a BC for every purchase. For that matter, I have multiple CC permits where I have undergone BC, summitted finger prints, and have not had them suspended or revoked, why should I need either a permit to purchase or a BC... Silly.
The permit-to-purchase system is contingent upon local law enforcement being able to deny an applicant for any reason, or even no reason whatsoever, at their own discretion. Meaning law enforcement gets to choose who does and does not get to exercise their constitutional rights.
A permit to purchase. A BC to purchase. A CC permit. All hoops to exercise a Constitutionally recognized right. Works for GCA liberals. Hmmm.... required proof of sex education. A permit to have sex. A written affidavit of mutual concent. All to excersize the right to an abortion? Right. Doesn’t work for liberals.
Interesting research which finds a relationship between the crack cocaine epidemic, greater access to firearms in black communities, and higher murder rates in those communities: "The U.S. murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000 in 2015 -- more than five times the rate in Italy, Germany and Spain. For young black men, the incidence is far more dramatic: about 80 per 100,000. "Echoes of the crack-cocaine epidemic could be one reason that figure is so high. The murder rate for young black men doubled soon after the drug’s entrance into a city in the 1980s and 1990s as violence between dealers gripped communities. It remained 70 percent higher 17 years after the drug’s arrival, based on research from the University of Notre Dame’s William Evans, Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern University and Timothy Moore of Purdue University. They write that drug-related violence brought firearms into communities and those guns remained even as dealing faded out and became less violent. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-is-still-killing-black-men-eco-research-wrap "We estimate that the murder rate of young black males doubled soon after crack’s entrance into a city, and that these rates were still 70 percent higher 17 years after crack’s arrival. We document the role of increased gun possession as a mechanism for this increase. Following previous work, we show that the fraction of suicides by firearms is a good proxy for gun availability and that this variable among young black males follows a similar trajectory to murder rates. Access to guns by young black males explains their elevated murder rates today compared to older cohorts." http://www.gvpedia.org/study/guns-violence-enduring-impact-crack-cocaine-markets-young-black-males/
Except such does nothing to demonstrate that the presence of firearms did anything to cause the black community to engage in acts of violence it would not otherwise engage in of its own free will. Firearms, especially cheap firearms, did not force violence to occur. Nor does the article demonstrate that the Brady bill did anything to reduce access to firearms, be it legal access or otherwise. Firearms were equally available in both the black and white communities, so why did the white community not experience similar levels of violence during the cocaine epidemic in the united states? What made the black community so predisposed towards violence?
Black people disproportionately used crack meaning that the epidemic probably affected them a lot more. How did the epidemic lead to more firearms? Selling crack was very profitable for gangs and led to a lot of competition between gangs (which was often violent). A gang would probably want firearms to protect themselves and keep other gangs out of the territory where they sold their product. Thus, there was an increase in demand for guns and the mass production of cheap handguns made it easier for the supply to meet the demand.
And pray tell why is the black community more predisposed towards the use of illicit narcotic substances than the white community? Correct. If the sale of illicit narcotic substances such as crack cocaine is "very profitable for gangs" as is being claimed, then why would they be purchasing cheap, small caliber firearms, rather than more expensive firearms that use larger calibers, and have greater magazine capacity? Why would these individuals deliberately limit themselves to firearms with a magazine capacity of only seven rounds, which would seem to contradict the notion that detachable magazines with higher capacities pose a greater risk of death?
