The Economist writes about Steve Levitt

what a pantload, the Brady Bill alone stopped 700k+ prohibited persons from obtaining weapons. If it had been compete on ALL gun sales it would have declined more. Carry laws it has been shown that when they went to allow concealed carry that crime didn't decrease even half as much as where it was prohibited. The best crime rate declines in teh country were in NY and LA where gun control has been a defining issue. And imprisonment decreases crime? My ass, America has the highest percentage of people behind bars and yet we have the highest crime rates. Most of those people behind bars are there for non-violent drug offenses and going to prison for them just makes them more violent and dispossed when they are released. Making them even more likely to comit crimes. Dude sounds like a nutjob to me.

Thinktank, I provided a link to Levitt's paper where he explains his reasoning. I suggest you read it and then argue with what Levitt actually wrote.

look at the url, this is olin funded research. THe same Olin Foundation that is nearly owned by the gun industry.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm

Levitt's research was not funded by Olin, but by the National Science Foundation. The olin is the URL because he discussed it in a seminar run by the John M. Olin Program for Law and Economics at Stanford Law School. It is ridiculous to suppose that the Olin program is somehow a front for the gun industry -- The Olin program's Working Paper's Series includes Ayres and Donohue's demolition of Lott.

he says new gun control laws were not of first-order importance in the US decline of crime, BUT he says that crime fell only 4% in EU countries during the same time. A)EU countries already had strict gun control, B)The US, particularly cities that saw the most decline(NYC, LA) institued newer stricter gun control laws.

Again he ignores the obvious.

For instance, the homicide rate per 100,000 residents in
large cities fell 12.9 per 100,000 (from 26.2 to 13.3). The decline in homicide rates for cities
with populations less than 50,000 was only 1.5 (from 4.3 to 2.8).

---------

Large cities are the most likely to have passed new gun control laws, and rural areas are the most likely to allow concealed weapons. And the large cities saw 10x as much of a decrease.

If you want to argue that gun control laws caused the greater decrease in large cities you have to actually specify which laws were responsible.

The fact that the gains have been widespread strongly
argues against local factors as the primary source of the reduction.

----------

The big gun control laws(Brady, AWB) were national in nature. Local cities and states however did see a trend of increasing restrictions. LA and NYC both have few if any ccw, and California has the toughest in the nation AWB.

Ludwig and Cook did a study on Brady using national data and did not find a significant effect on crime.

those cities/states that saw the most declines were also the ones that have seperate background check databases annd use them.

first of those children wouldn't even be old enough NOW for him to do this study like should be done. Any conclusions or even suggestion that it leads to declines in crime is premature. This dude is a nutjob working for Olin to discredit real research into gun control.

This is wrong. Such children would be old enough. The lag between the legalization of abortion and the decline in crime is about the right length. This doesn't mean that the legalization is responsible, but you certainly can't dsimiss his results on these grounds.

They lost bad with Lott and now they're trying to set him up as a gun control supporter when he isn't. Just so they themselves can expose him and use that to further their agenda.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Olin are setting him as a gun control supporter by having him write papers that don't support gun control? And then they'll expose him as an opponent? And this will further their agenda how?

you can get it by contacting his Publisher Soft Skull Press. What was on HNN was a VERY short excerpt.

If Soft Skull want me to read the pamphlet, they can put it on the web.

1st, this is Olin funded, there should not even BE an Olin Program. So they include ONE work that is critical of lott. So fucking what. He still gets funding and support from Olin, he's tainted as far as I'm concerned. 2nd, no I don't have to tell you which gun control laws were responsible because someone like you should already know. Ludwig and Cook can shove it up their ass if they're going to tell me that DENYING 700k+(certainly more by now, maybe 1 million) at the POS did nothing to lower crime they are worse fools then Levitt and Lott. No those children would be old enough now, because for him to use children up to 2001 he would have to track abortions that far, he would have incomplete date for atleast 1980 and on. He's posing as another non biased researcher but is using this as a foothold to get the notion that gun control doesn't work into papers.

It would appear that Mr. Levitt's conclusions concur with the CDC's report that there is insufficient evidence that gun control laws (including concealed-carry) have had any determinable effect on violent crime.

Regardless of ThinkTank's near religious fervency that gun control works, and that the gun industry is Satan. So, that would make the CDC a pawn of the gun industry as well, wouldn't it?

Oh, and ThinkTank? How many of those 700,000+ denied were prosecuted and jailed? Not very many, were there. And there's always that Evil Gunshow Loophole, right? So, how exactly were these people prevented from acquiring a gun?

they found "insuffcient evdence" because those senators have consistently defunded any attempts to discover how successful gun control is. And ALL gun purchases should require background checks including in the secondary market.

Ooookay.

But you didn't answer the question: How EXACTLY were these people PREVENTED from buying a gun? That was your assertion, was it not? (Actually, if you want to be literal, those 700,000+ denials represent 700,000+ NEW FELONIES that WEREN'T PROSECUTED. In other words, those are 700,000+ NEW GUN CRIMES (not violent, though.) They weren't prosecuted under Clinton's administration,and they aren't being prosecuted under Bush's. I think they ought to at least comb the denials and pick out the known violent criminals who were stupid enough to sign their names to a Form 4473 confession.)

ThinkTank, if gun control was successful, there'd be unimpeachable evidence of it. Given that the UK has the tightest gun control in the free world, and that their gun crime rate has done nothing but go UP leads those who are capable of logical thought to conclude that at a minimum gun control laws are inconclusively effective.

You can not be arressted for failing a background check. That was a condition the NRA owned senators put in. Also the gu crime rate in the uk has NOT done nothing but go up. It in fact is much lower today then it was when gun control was first introduced 30 years ago. And the "increase" as cited by people like Joyce Malcolm of "35%" represent a few crimes at all. Gun control is entirely effective, which has been proven time and again in countries like the UK, Australia and cities like NY and LA. Australia had a 50% decline in a decade. NY had 11 years of declning crime. And LA has turned theirs around too. So go spew it somewhere else. You've got no leg to stand on when it comes to this argument.

Upon what planet do you live? Obviously not this one.

"You can not be arressted for failing a background check. That was a condition the NRA owned senators put in." Please, cite the specific exemption in the law.

Lying on a federal Form 4473 is a felony. Attempting to purchase a handgun if you are a prohibited person is a felony. Attorney General Janet Reno was quoted as saying that the Justice Department had no intention to prosecute these cases because she had no intention of 'flooding the courts.'

If you can look at the numbers and conclude that the UK, Australia, NY and LA are models of gun control effectiveness, then it is obvious that you have disconnected from reality.

I cannot imagine why DU tombstoned you.

It was an NRA backed amendment to the Brady Bill that made the prosecution of such things impossible. And yes I cann look at LA and NY and UK as proof that gun control is effective. They all have many times less amouts of crime then places like in the south and midwest that allow such stupid things. They would have even less if those states and cities would live up to their responsibiities and control their own guns.

Countries with the least amount of diversity have the lowest violent crime rates. (Japan for instance) Therefore lower diversity and lower violent crime. That is why other countries have lower violent crime rates, not gun control. I live in Europe and could get a gun on the street if I chose to.

The fact that 700 people were denied guns means NOTHING. Those that want them just went on to somewhere else and got them illegally. Example: Many drugs are illegal but you can get them almost anywhere, including prison. If guns were totally illegal, they could still be easily bought. So only the criminals would have them.

race is not used as a weapon, guns are. And NO they will NOT just get them somewhere else. Thuogh don't let mountains of evidence convince you to NOT BELIEVE AN NRA BUMPERSTICKER. You're arguments are specious and unreasonable. Gun control is always aimed at keeping gunsn out of the hands of criminals, and you know what it works. Because in areas where they implement CRIME GOES DOWN. And inplaces where tehy make it easier to get guns CRIME GOES UP. How many more studies do you need to see?

ThinkTank: CITE THE SPECIFIC EXEMPTION IN THE LAW.

If you cannot do that (and you can't) then your assertion falls flat.

And I recommend not casting aspersions on other's mental balance. Reading through this thread shows a fairly obvious disconnect from reality on your part.

ThinkTank wrote:
You can not be arressted for failing a background check. That was a condition the NRA owned senators put in.

Kevin, you are took kind. ThinkTank, you are full of BULLSHIT. Let me be more clear, you are COMPLETELY FULL OF BULLSHIT. You have obviously never attempted to buy a guy in the United States of America from a dealer, and are simply making things up.

The way the system works is:
1) You visit a gun dealer, who is required to possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
2) After you pick the gun that you want, you must fill out a two page yellow-colored form, known as the Form 4473. On this form, you must declare that you do not have any of the listed disqualifications for owning a gun. You must sign the form after reading the line that says:

I also understand that making any false oral or written statement ... is a crime punishable as a felony

You can see the form here:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/

The gun dealer then TAKES POSSESSION of your signed form and AFTER READING IT to make sure that you are not disqualified from possessing a gun, he will provide the information over the telephone to the authorities who conduct the background check (FBI in some cases, local authorities in others). If the background check shows that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, there is already signed proof that the person has lied on the Form 4473. This is a FELONY punishable by up to ten years in prison.

There is no simply no section of law that says that a person who fails to perform a background check cannot be prosecuted. You are simply making stuff up. This is what pisses me off the most about gun control advocates - their ignorance of guns, the law surrounding guns, the lawful uses of guns, the true statistics about the misuse of guns, and frankly, everything about guns. You sound like the Amish talking about cars (no disrespect to the Amish).

If you want to have a place in the debate, have a minimum education level.

The ATF has no money to enforce those provisions. Much like the court case where the ATF was SUED because it could't process someones form because it DIDN'T have the money. As well as being such a small punishment for a crime that the ATF simply wont pay attention to it. So take your NRA bullshit somewhere else. No one believes you anymore, we know you're just out for your own interests and dont give a damned about human life.

The case I believe you're thinking of is the one of Thomas Lamar Bean, a federally licensed gun dealer who left an evil-loophole-gunshow in Texas to have dinner across the border in Mexico. Unbeknownst to him, there was a case of shotgun shells in the back of his evil babykilling SUV that an employee had failed to unload. It is bad mojo to cross into Mexico with live ammo. He was arrested, charged, and sentenced.

After some period of time, Mr. Bean was transferred to a prison in Texas where he served time for the crime that is not a crime in the U.S. As a result of this, once released he lost his right to possess arms, his Federal Firearms License, and his livelihood.

In accordance to the rules, he petitioned the BATF for restoration of his right to arms - for some reason, the BATF has the primary authority to do this. But for some reason, the Congress (you know, that group that is controlled by NRA bought Senators?) had specifically zeroed the funding for that function, and the BATF was unable to process his request.

So Mr. Bean took his case to Federal court, where - by the rules - if his petition was rejected by the BATF he could go for final recourse. The lower court restored his rights. The evil gun-loving Ashkkkroft-controlled Justice Dept. appealed to the evil Right-Wing controlled Supreme Court. (Odd, don't you think?) The Supreme Court rejected Mr. Bean's claim because, it said, the BATF DIDN'T reject the original petition, it was merely unable to process it.

So Mr. Bean still has no right to arms, and no FFL, and cannot legally touch a firearm because he accidentally tried to cross the Mexican border with some 12 gauge ammo in his truck.

This, of course, proves ThinkTank's assertion that the Senate is bought-and-paid-for by the NRA, and the Justice Department under Ashkkkroft is rabidly pro-gun.

Yes, the Senate controls the ATF's funding, but I believe you just illustrated your abject ignorance on the subject. Once again.

can you deny that? NO, because thats exactly how those senators got their money. The ATF lost their funding because the NRA Senators were being bought off after Waco. That guy can go fuck himself for all I care. He shouldn't be a gun dealer, no ethical person should. This guy being denied because the ATF was out of money was just great IRONY. So go peddle your knuckle draggin NRA propaganda somewhere else.

The defense rests.

LOL! It looks like the ThinkTank has run dry!

Here's an absolute refutation of ThinkTank's insistence that "You can not be arressted for failing a background check. That was a condition the NRA owned senators put in."

Seems that one Earl Lee Dancy Jr. performed a straw-purchase of a Remington 700 rifle for John Allen Muhammed, one of the "Beltway Snipers," in Tacoma, Washington, according to this AP news story. Mr. Dancy now faces federal prosecution and a 10 year sentence for - and I quote: "making false statements on a federal firearms form." What form would that be? The 4473 form that every person purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer must fill out and sign before the dealer will run the background check. And what false statement did Mr. Dancy make? "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm listed below?" He was not. The $800 came from Muhammed, and the rifle was being purchased for him.

If you answer falsely on any of the questions (oh, like the one that asks "Have you been convicted in any court for a crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if the judge actually gave you a shorter sentence?") you can be charged with "making false statements on a federal firearms form." Ten years, baby.

Now, one more time: How many of the hundreds of thousands of Brady Background Check denials have resulted in prosecution?

Anybody?
Anybody?
Bueller?

thats completely different, he got arressted after for trafficking, thats nothing like just getting one gun and putting on the form that you're aren't an ex-con. They can't afford to prosecute that many because people like you WONT FUND THEM.

He performed a STRAW PURCHASE. The background check is done either by local authorities, or by the FBI (depending on the state.) Prosecution is by THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, not the ATF.

You can rant and rave to your heart's content, but the fact remains that of the hundreds of thousands "denied," only a tiny percentage are charged with "making false statements on a federal firearms form." Now, as I recall, when Janet Reno (you remember her - the previous Attorney General?) was asked about Brady violation prosecutions, she said that the Justice Department had no plans to prosecute these felonies because she didn't want to "clog the courts." Not because they didn't have funding for it.

Now are you willing to admit that the Brady law has been essentially useless? Or do you want to change the subject? Again?