More Laws = More Crime
Per Boston.com:
Illegal gun activity has soared in communities south of Boston over the past five years, according to court records, but slower than the rate statewide
The region’s police and court officials say they are puzzled by the numbers, and some believe the increase could be attributed to more stringent firearms possession laws, or increased violence tied to drug activity. The state did not make available a breakdown of specific firearm charges, but offenses can vary from assault with a deadly weapon to carrying a handgun without a valid license.
Emphasis added. Boston doesn’t have a crime problem, it has a law problem. The new, more stringent laws are causing crime to increase. We’ve seen this correlation before only it was much less sarcastic.
September 15th, 2003 at 3:46 pm
>>some believe the increase could be attributed to more stringent firearms possession laws
Ok, you have to see what this really is…
Fewer gun control laws = fewer gun-related arrests.
More gun control laws = more gun-related arrests, against people doing what is in other areas legal.
And why didn’t you quote these passages?
Some law enforcement officials cite their own figures, which they say show a decrease in gun violence. Most violations involve incidents such as routine traffic stops or drug busts, they said.
…
But officials said the number of people involved is probably far fewer than the number of violations, because one person often faces several firearms counts. The statistics also do not indicate the number of convictions.
…
Glenn A. MacKinlay, a Plymouth assistant district attorney, said Brockton is one community where violence has subsided, despite a string of murders that made headlines in the summer of 2002. MacKinlay said a federal study done as part of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program showed there were approximately 75 firearms-related incidents in 2001, 64 in 2002, and 27 through July of this year. He credited the decline to increased police presence and a task force — made up of city and State Police, federal agents, prosecutors and others — aimed at reducing firearms violence and getting repeat offenders off the street.
September 15th, 2003 at 3:59 pm
And why didn’t you quote these passages?
Because it had nothing to do with my point.
Some law enforcement officials cite their own figures, which they say show a decrease in gun violence. Most violations involve incidents such as routine traffic stops or drug busts, they said.
But officials said the number of people involved is probably far fewer than the number of violations, because one person often faces several firearms counts. The statistics also do not indicate the number of convictions.
So, the police are taking a shotgun approach and charging one potential violator with mutliple charges. And knowing that the laws the perps are violating could likely be the result of recent changes to laws is supposed to make it better?
Glenn A. MacKinlay, a Plymouth assistant district attorney, said Brockton is one community where violence has subsided, despite a string of murders that made headlines in the summer of 2002. MacKinlay said a federal study done as part of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program showed there were approximately 75 firearms-related incidents in 2001, 64 in 2002, and 27 through July of this year. He credited the decline to increased police presence and a task force — made up of city and State Police, federal agents, prosecutors and others — aimed at reducing firearms violence and getting repeat offenders off the street
64 in 2002? 27 in July 03. X 2 = 54. And crimes happen more often in the summer. Seems they’ll break even to me. And it’s not accredited to the gun laws either.
September 15th, 2003 at 8:07 pm
Methinks it had a lot to do with your point. Methinks the emphasis should have read as follows:
Then, rather than taking the overly simplistic “laws are bad” approach, you could cite that increase in drug-related violence to either claim that the possession laws are ineffectual, or that they are needed in the face of increasing violent crime, depending on your perspective. (Or, you could argue that legalizing drugs would reduce the need for drug-related violence: why kill someone for drugs when I can get them at the Kwikie Mart?)
But instead, your approach smacks of selective reading. Frankly, this is something of which I’ve found small-l libertarians to be frequently guilty: find singelton examples of ineffective regulation, and then use that singleton bad case to try to make the point that ALL regulation is bad/ineffective. But that’s a clear non-sequitur.
September 15th, 2003 at 8:43 pm
I had to do no such thing, the article itself attributes the drop in gun violence to factors other than the gun laws. My point is, that being the case, increasing gun laws makes more people criminals who are not engaging in violent activity. Violent activity being the supposed purpose of those laws.
September 15th, 2003 at 9:01 pm
And of course i selectively read, i’m a blogger.
September 16th, 2003 at 1:45 pm
Then what you’re arguing, in essence, is that an ounce of prevention is never warranted, and that you’ll gladly take the pound of cure.
September 16th, 2003 at 1:50 pm
No, seems you got it wrong. The cure is causing the problem.
September 16th, 2003 at 10:58 pm
So if we took away all gun restrictions, gun violence would magically disappear? I fail to see how gun regulations cause gun-related violence. You can argue that gun regulations are ineffective in fighting violent crime, but that’s a completely different thing than arguing that gun regulations cause violent crime.
September 17th, 2003 at 8:43 am
The didn’t cause violence, they caused gun related crime. And the restrictions didn’t cause the drop in violence,the increased patrols did (according to the article).
Apples and oranges. Comparing someone who has an unregistered gun to someone who shoots someone is a wee bit different.
September 17th, 2003 at 12:26 pm
So what you’re really arguing is that the new gun laws are ineffective. Not that they cause crime per se. Any time a new law is passed, the result will necessarily be more “crime,” but that doesn’t inherently make the law bad. Whether or not the law achieves its intended goal is what makes the law good or bad (or sometimes, the intended goal itself makes the law good or bad).
September 17th, 2003 at 12:38 pm
So are you conceding that (based on the article) since the law has not affected gun violence (police patrols have) that the laws are bad?
September 17th, 2003 at 2:17 pm
In this particular case, possibly. It depends how long the laws have been in effect. I don’t expect any new legislation to work overnight. But if after a year there’s no discernable reduction in gun-related violence, then yes, that particular law is bad.
September 17th, 2003 at 2:19 pm
My real quarrel is with the oversimplistic “if you make something new illegal, of course crime will go up” argument. Because that’s basically akin to saying you can reduce crime by making burglary legal. It’s not a crime any more, so crime magically goes down! Same argument in reverse.
September 17th, 2003 at 2:26 pm
if you make something new illegal, of course crime will go up
I realize that is a simplistic comment and it wasn’t what i meant. Maybe if i had entitled it more stupid/uneccessary laws = more victimless crime the confusion could have been avoided.