Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

zephyp,
First, I don't lump you in with Gunderwood, as your remarks have been respectful and well-mannered.

Secondly, I think you may have misread my statement. Here is my quote:
".... This is not an unreasonable position, and while I understand their position and empathize with it, I must come down on the rights of the victims of gangs and violence to defend themselves legally. Anyone who wants a gun to defend themselves and their family on their own property should be protected. And, if you have firearms in your home, you need to be able to transport them in your vehicle or public transportation unloaded to take them to a range to practice and purchase, sell, etc."

I said I understand and empathize with their position, but I don't agree with it.

Before the gun ban in 1975, Washington DC had out of control crime. In particular, armed robberies were a problem for everyone except for liquor store operators, who were armed. (Ironic). By the time home rule was established, one of the first acts was to pass a handgun ban. Enforcement of that gun ban and stronger sentencing and stronger police actions and quicker justice contributed to the reduction of gun violence during the following decades.

Let's take a look at the following statistics:
Year Violence% Murder% Robbery%
1960 0.55% .01% 0.14%
1965 0.72% .02% 0.36%
1970 2.23% .03% 1.56%
1971 2.17% .04% 1.51%
1972 1.69% .03% 1.04%
1973 1.56% .04% 0.96%
1974 1.60% .04% 1.10%
1975 1.77% .03% 1.28%
1975 Firearms Ban Enacted in DC
1976 1.48% .03% 1.00%
1977 1.43% .03% 0.96%
1978 1.41% .03% 0.94%
1979 1.61% .03% 1.05%
1980 2.01% .03% 1.40%
1985 1.62% .02% 0.84%
1990 2.46% .08% 1.12%
1995 2.66% .06% 1.24%
2000 1.51% .04% 0.62%
2009 1.35% .02% 0.56%
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm


First, there was clearly a shift in the culture between 1960 and 1970 that seems to have permanently raised the crime rates. Also, most agree that the statistics during those years did not include black on black violence and thus distorted the true picture. But that is all besides the point here.

My observations and conclusions:
1) The Murder rate holds pretty consistent over time with the exception of the crack epidemic in DC during the 90's.
I conclude that the murder rate is generally unrelated to the ownership of legal or illegal firearms.

2) The armed robbery rate did go down in the years immediately following the imposition of the firearms ban, and never rose to the levels in the early 70's. My conclusion is that the firearm ban helped to reduce armed robbery by a significant amount. This kinda makes sense. There is a really intersting Nixon record to read, linked here, where the issue of armed robbery got President Nixon's attention during a briefing and discussion by the DC Police and Attorney General and others in the law enforcement business. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index ... z1Nn65zc7g
One the main factors driving the city council to vote on the ban was due to the uncontrolled armed robberies. Also, don't forget the civil rights movements were active during the sixties and black people felt more empowered to "take control" of their own communities. There is a racial component to this surge in violence, and there was an equally black community response to the hoodlums. Cultured black people who gained control of government wanted to show they could get control of the violence. Anyway, enough history.

3) Violent crime went up during the crack epidemic of the 80's and early 90's. My conclusion is that drug-related crime will not change whether there are restrictions on guns or liberalization of guns.

4) Armed Robbery continues to decline, and my conclusion is that gun control has been a factor in reducing armed robbery.

5) The quality of the administration of police enforcement and prosecution of offenses and strong punishments have played a major role in getting crime under control in DC. Take a look a the 2009 statistics and you will see a dramatic decrease in crime rates.

I didn't quote all the other years because I got lazy. I had to transpose all that data as it wouldn't copy correctly from the web page.

Also, I am not tryng to defend gun control. I am trying to show that there are very good reasons and justifications why politicians want to enact gun control laws. Politicians don't just wake up one day and say, "I want to abuse gun owners rights, so I am going to ban guns." Politicians generally follow the desires of their constituency and the reaction to the times. At the time there was unprecedented gun violence and politicians were expected to do something about it. They did. So, I understand and empathize with how they got to a gun ban, but in the end I don't agree with it. (There was a time I did, but I have changed my view.)

But my support for gun liberalization in DC has more to do with an individual's right to defend themselves and their family from gangs and thugs and hoodlums when they are attacked on their own property. In order to support that right, they must have the ability to purchase firearms and ammunition, to transport firearms, practice shooting them, and reasonable use of them when a life is threatened. I personally like the Fairfax County guideline: Discharge of a firearm is allowed to protect any person from death or serious physical injury.(That includes oneself of course.)

I don't care about registering firearms in DC...we all have learned to live with the State Background check, and if DC wants to register the firearm, doesn't do any harm. Also, I don't care if they ban assault weapons in DC....a handgun and a good marksman or a properly provisioned shotgun will take care of just about any situation for personal safety. I definitely think that DC should pass their own concealed carry and recognize Maryland and Virginia CC, and they should allow for transportation of firearms through the city for anyone as long as they are legally authorized to own firearms.

This is the kind of reasonable and bipartisan kinds of positions that could get DC to actually change. But if you come in with "both guns blazin'" quoting Second Amendment scripture and insulting the politicians there and alienating the public with extremist talk, you won't win anyone over.

Start with a small step. If successful, other steps will follow. Patience is the key with changing government.

Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:He did not compare the suffering of gun owners to the suffering of blacks under Jim Crowe. That is what Gunderwood did.

Not quite. We were discussing the law and I compared to abusive groups of laws (DCs ban and Jim Crowe). Comparing them as both abusive to the natural rights of citizens is not the same as equating the suffering under them.

@dems4guns - so why the astronomically high gun crime rate here in VA? I dont buy your arguments that gun bans lower violent crime btw...too many great examples where crime is sky high and guns are banned or close to it as opposed to where they are relatively unrestricted with correspondingly low crime rates...

dems4guns wrote:Before the gun ban in 1975, Washington DC had out of control crime. In particular, armed robberies were a problem for everyone except for liquor store operators, who were armed. (Ironic). By the time home rule was established, one of the first acts was to pass a handgun ban. Enforcement of that gun ban and stronger sentencing and stronger police actions and quicker justice contributed to the reduction of gun violence during the following decades.

Let's take a look at the following statistics:
Year Violence% Murder% Robbery%
1960 0.55% .01% 0.14%
1965 0.72% .02% 0.36%
1970 2.23% .03% 1.56%
1971 2.17% .04% 1.51%
1972 1.69% .03% 1.04%
1973 1.56% .04% 0.96%
1974 1.60% .04% 1.10%
1975 1.77% .03% 1.28%
1975 Firearms Ban Enacted in DC
1976 1.48% .03% 1.00%
1977 1.43% .03% 0.96%
1978 1.41% .03% 0.94%
1979 1.61% .03% 1.05%
1980 2.01% .03% 1.40%
1985 1.62% .02% 0.84%
1990 2.46% .08% 1.12%
1995 2.66% .06% 1.24%
2000 1.51% .04% 0.62%
2009 1.35% .02% 0.56%
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Does not compute.

Throw those numbers into a spreadsheet and you get the following averages:

Before the ban:
Violence: 1.54%
Murder: 0.03%
Robbery: 0.99%

After the ban:
Violence: 1.75%
Murder: 0.04%
Robbery: 0.97%

Those numbers that you posted directly contradict your conclusion (Robbery is the exception but it may not be statistically significant). Crime did not go down after the ban, it went up or being generous stayed the same. Even staying the same is a horrible indictment of the handgun ban as the rest of the country say violent crime drop significantly! Particularly in those states which adopted carry permits. Now I'm assuming those numbers are valid, but you can't make up a nice sounding story that contradicts the data.

Of course all the antis will just claim that without the bailout, I mean ban, it would've been worse...but that ignores all the states which showed a nice improvement in general.

dems4guns wrote:My observations and conclusions:
1) The Murder rate holds pretty consistent over time with the exception of the crack epidemic in DC during the 90's.
I conclude that the murder rate is generally unrelated to the ownership of legal or illegal firearms.

Wait! That contradicts what you posted above (underlined).

dems4guns wrote:2) The armed robbery rate did go down in the years immediately following the imposition of the firearms ban, and never rose to the levels in the early 70's. My conclusion is that the firearm ban helped to reduce armed robbery by a significant amount. This kinda makes sense.

4) Armed Robbery continues to decline, and my conclusion is that gun control has been a factor in reducing armed robbery.

Umm, 0.97% and 0.99% are not that far apart. That's about a 2% change over several decades, which is almost certainly not statistically significant at all. Without better data you can't draw much of any conclusion like you did. At best they seem to stay about the same.

The murder rate raising from 0.03 to 0.04 is a big jump in the average as that works out to be approx. a 33% increase.

dems4guns wrote:5) The quality of the administration of police enforcement and prosecution of offenses and strong punishments have played a major role in getting crime under control in DC. Take a look a the 2009 statistics and you will see a dramatic decrease in crime rates.

Your making stuff up again. The numbers don't support an improvement at all while the rest of the country had a significant improvement during the same periods.

dems4guns wrote:Also, I am not tryng to defend gun control. I am trying to show that there are very good reasons and justifications why politicians want to enact gun control laws.

Really? Your whole post is a justification for why they did it based on data which doesn't support your conclusions at all. In fact, it most likely contradicts it. There is no justification for the degrading of humans though the enacting and enforcing of abusive laws.

I would be very careful where you get crime statistics...plenty to be found on what are supposed to be authoritative (.gov) sites...I dont trust many .coms or .orgs unless you know the pedigree of the management...

zephyp wrote:I would be very careful where you get crime statistics...plenty to be found on what are supposed to be authoritative (.gov) sites...I dont trust many .coms or .orgs unless you know the pedigree of the management...

+1 Agreed.


Instead of playing games with dates and throwing out data, the last bit of information (assuming it's correct) is probably the most interesting. It's an index of how DC rates to the rest of the country.


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1885/30675140.jpg


Besides rape and burglary, DC is just about tops in everything.

Zephyp,
We don't get to pick an choose the sources so as to ensure it meets the outcome we desire. The best approach is to take the data as stated. Not to say you shouldn't take other sources to validate, but the facts are the facts.

It is a fact BTW, that the number of murders in DC has been radically reduced in 2007-2009. My own opinion is that is due to the great Chief of Police that we have now and improved judicial process. Once Mayor Fenty got into office, he routed out a lot of dead wood and made DC much more of a professional organization. All those years under Barry took their toll on the DC government. Note that I am not suggesting it was because of gun control.

My experience with gun advocates is that they like to ignore some facts and accentuate others to make the case for liberalizing guns. I take the approach of accepting the facts and make reasonable conclusions from those facts. It makes sense that armed robbery would be lower in a society where guns are banned. Murder is not directly tied to guns because when someone wants to murder someone, they have plenty of weapons to use besides a firearm. Firearms are not ideal...they make a big boom that can draw attention.

One way to help get more support from the left is to accept the facts as they are and reasonable conclusions rather than trying to twist it around to get the answer you want....that makes your proposals suspicious because your conclusions are suspicious. Be honest with the analysis, acknowlege when it doesn't fit your theory, and then focus on the victims who should be able to defend themselves.

It is best to make the argument for gun liberalization on the right to self-defense, and acknowlege there is a risk of increased armed roobbery. Then, be willing to fashion legislation that addresses the armed robbery issue as a part of the equation.

Arguing with the left to get them to believe your theory is just an endless argument you can't win. Be pragmatic and focus on the goal of liberlizing firearms and use tactics that will win the debate.
Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:Zephyp,
We don't get to pick an choose the sources so as to ensure it meets the outcome we desire. The best approach is to take the data as stated. Not to say you shouldn't take other sources to validate, but the facts are the facts.

It is a fact BTW, that the number of murders in DC has been radically reduced in 2007-2009. My own opinion is that is due to the great Chief of Police that we have now and improved judicial process. Once Mayor Fenty got into office, he routed out a lot of dead wood and made DC much more of a professional organization. All those years under Barry took their toll on the DC government. Note that I am not suggesting it was because of gun control.

My experience with gun advocates is that they like to ignore some facts and accentuate others to make the case for liberalizing guns. I take the approach of accepting the facts and make reasonable conclusions from those facts. It makes sense that armed robbery would be lower in a society where guns are banned. Murder is not directly tied to guns because when someone wants to murder someone, they have plenty of weapons to use besides a firearm. Firearms are not ideal...they make a big boom that can draw attention.

One way to help get more support from the left is to accept the facts as they are and reasonable conclusions rather than trying to twist it around to get the answer you want....that makes your proposals suspicious because your conclusions are suspicious. Be honest with the analysis, acknowlege when it doesn't fit your theory, and then focus on the victims who should be able to defend themselves.

It is best to make the argument for gun liberalization on the right to self-defense, and acknowlege there is a risk of increased armed roobbery. Then, be willing to fashion legislation that addresses the armed robbery issue as a part of the equation.

Arguing with the left to get them to believe your theory is just an endless argument you can't win. Be pragmatic and focus on the goal of liberlizing firearms and use tactics that will win the debate.
Dems4Guns

Pot calling the kettle black?

@dems4guns - the point I was trying to make is if you cannot confirm, at least to some degree, the pedigree of the data then how can you think it factual...that is a bad assumption. You should always compare data like this from at least a couple of different sources...one being FBI or DOJ (and yes, God forbid we trust their pedigree now but I digress).

The real fact is that there are many .com and .org sites that play with the data to come to inane conclusions that gun bans reduce crime and save lives...poor logic and a poor argument...

Facts are only facts if they are indeed facts...

It's a fact I used to have a full size one of these...

Chasbo00 wrote:It's a fact I used to have a full size one of these...

Gun, spoon, sticker, or Rosie?

gunderwood wrote:

Chasbo00 wrote:It's a fact I used to have a full size one of these...

Gun, spoon, sticker, or Rosie?

As to the latter, there was this fat girl in Memphis a long time ago. Not Rosie though, thank goodness.

zephyp wrote:@dems4guns - the point I was trying to make is if you cannot confirm, at least to some degree, the pedigree of the data then how can you think it factual...that is a bad assumption. You should always compare data like this from at least a couple of different sources...one being FBI or DOJ (and yes, God forbid we trust their pedigree now but I digress). The real fact is that there are many .com and .org sites that play with the data to come to inane conclusions that gun bans reduce crime and save lives...poor logic and a poor argument...Facts are only facts if they are indeed facts...

I agree mostly. I would love to spend my day doing research, but alas, gotta pay the bills and make time for target practice. I take the facts at face value...I don't think that is a bad assumption...it is just an assumption. Just because I didn't do the validation doesn't make my analysis wrong...if the facts are as presented.

I agree that there are some web sites that play very loose with the facts....or more common, the conclusions they draw from "their facts." This is not one of those sites IMHO. That is not to say there could be more validation. I was going to buy the National Almanac, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

My suggestion is try not to find the data to support your theory, but use the scientific method and accept the data presented, and draw your conclusions from the data. I know it is hard when it comes to politics because we all have an opinion. But, the more we can agree on facts and conclusions, the better we are able to craft solutions that satisfy us all.

Dems4Guns

Just looked at the original data set referenced above. What is clear in the data is that the Gun ban did nothing to reduce crime, which continued its rise, that started in the 60's, until the late 90's. Since that time the crime rate has dropped a lot and in the last few years fell bellow the 1975 rate. The city population has also plunged, I do not know if the reduction in population helped much or not or just better police work.

A plot of the Crime Index Below

wally626 wrote:Just looked at the original data set referenced above. What is clear in the data is that the Gun ban did nothing to reduce crime, which continued its rise, that started in the 60's, until the late 90's. Since that time the crime rate has dropped a lot and in the last few years fell bellow the 1975 rate. The city population has also plunged, I do not know if the reduction in population helped much or not or just better police work.

A plot of the Crime Index Below

Determining correlations is relatively easy. Determining causes is another exercise entirely.

wally626 wrote:Just looked at the original data set referenced above. What is clear in the data is that the Gun ban did nothing to reduce crime, which continued its rise, that started in the 60's, until the late 90's. Since that time the crime rate has dropped a lot and in the last few years fell bellow the 1975 rate. The city population has also plunged, I do not know if the reduction in population helped much or not or just better police work.

A plot of the Crime Index Below

This is good, but I never suggested that banning guns reduced crime overall. The crime index includes a lot of crimes where firearms are not involved, such as burglary, car theft, larceny, rape. (Most rapes occur without a firearm). Also, you didn't do the crime rate as a percentage of the population, your graph is a lie and misrepresents the truth. The only fair way is to use percentage of population because the population varied quite a bit over the years.

I did suggest that armed robbery was lower after the gun ban. Would you mind doing the same plot using armed robbery as the sole category of crime? (Or are you afraid of what that graph might look?).

Dems4guns

@dems4guns...hold on there a sec. The bottom line is this...if criminals know that the citizenry or a certain locale are allowed to own guns they tend to avoid it. You cant mix apples and oranges and try to correlate gun related crimes and other crimes in the mix. Look at the big picture. Those are 2 separate arguments and should be addressed individually...so lets define the parameters of the argument...are we talking only gun related crimes, which can also be subdivided, or crimes specifically against citizens or property?

dems4guns wrote:Also, you didn't do the crime rate as a percentage of the population, your graph is a lie and misrepresents the truth. The only fair way is to use percentage of population because the population varied quite a bit over the years.

Do you not understand what per 100k residents on the y axis means or just missed it?

dems4guns wrote:

wally626 wrote:Just looked at the original data set referenced above. What is clear in the data is that the Gun ban did nothing to reduce crime, which continued its rise, that started in the 60's, until the late 90's. Since that time the crime rate has dropped a lot and in the last few years fell bellow the 1975 rate. The city population has also plunged, I do not know if the reduction in population helped much or not or just better police work.

A plot of the Crime Index Below

This is good, but I never suggested that banning guns reduced crime overall. The crime index includes a lot of crimes where firearms are not involved, such as burglary, car theft, larceny, rape. (Most rapes occur without a firearm). Also, you didn't do the crime rate as a percentage of the population, your graph is a lie and misrepresents the truth. The only fair way is to use percentage of population because the population varied quite a bit over the years.

I did suggest that armed robbery was lower after the gun ban. Would you mind doing the same plot using armed robbery as the sole category of crime? (Or are you afraid of what that graph might look?).

Dems4guns

As pointed out by others above the plot is of the rate of crime. As indicated by the per 100,000 population note on the Y axis.. I did not plot all the areas of crime listed. Most do in fact have similar shapes to the overall crime rate index but not all. If I get motivated I'll plot a few others up.

Plot of all the various crime categories. Since the various crime categories have huge differences on a per 100,000 rate value I plotted the change in the rate for each category relative to 1960. Thus all are 0 in 1960.