Deltoid

Frank Crary said:

[Kennesaw] was a response to Morton Grove's gun ban. Guess which "worked" better?

If by "worked" you mean that crime rates were lower after the relevant law than before, the answer is Morton Grove.

I'd like to see some data to back up this assertion: Specifically, data concerning gun-related crimes in Morton Grove.

The only noticeable changes were a 45% reduction in with-gun robberies in Morton Grove, and a 100% increase in with-gun assaults in Kennesaw. The actual numbers were small, so this is not particularly meaningful.

The raw data is presented as graphs showing burglaries in Morton Grove and Kennesaw for the period 1976-86. The burglary rate in Kennesaw appears stable, while the burglary rate in Morton Grove is noticeably lower. The paper's authors did an interrupted time series analysis on the data: the change associated with the Kennesaw ordinance was an insignificant increase of 0.2 burglaries/month,

This is consistent with the claim that the Kennesaw law was "largely symbolic" and almost anyone who didn't want to own a gun was exempt.

the change associated with the Morton Grove ordinance was a statistically significant decrease of 4.5 burglaries/month,

This, however, is irrelevant, since burglars rarely use firearms: Access to weapons was not the factor in the reduction.

However, burglars often steal firearms, so it is not impossible that the Morton Grove ban caused a reduction in burglaries.

Clearly the Kennesaw ordinance had no effect. It seems unlikely that the Morton Grove ordinance caused the reduction (unless there a significant number of burglars who burgle primarily to get guns). The authors also considered the effect of the Evanston gun ban on burglaries and found a not quite significant (p=.13) decrease.

Which contradicts your earlier assertion that the Morton Grove ban was "effective."

No it does not. I asserted that there was an reduction in burglaries associated with the ban.

The data does not support the theory that gun ownership deters burglaries.

This assumes that gun ownership was common before the ban, otherwise the change is from voluntary low ownership to mandatory low ownership.

In the US, a gun is used in defence in one out of every 220 burglaries (NCS data), so gun ownership does not directly affect the burglary rate. If it does deter burglary, it must because would-be burglars are worried about being shot by residents. What is important is their perception of the risk. Kleck claims that the publicity given to the Kennesaw law made criminals more aware of their chances of being shot. According to Kleck and Bordua, all the convicts in a poll conducted in an Illinois prison agreed that the Morton Grove ban would make it easier to victimize residents. Nonetheless, there was no decrease in Kennesaw, and no increase in Morton Grove.

Even were ownership common before the ban, it shows, that gun ownership in affluent suburbs with effective police forces and no major crime problem, is not a major factor. This has no real relation to gun ownership in high crime urban areas, or where the police do not respond quickly.

If you have evidence that criminals perceptions of risks are different in these other places, or indeed any evidence for a deterrence effect of gun ownership anywhere on the planet at any time in history, please present it.