Good post for sure.
The question then is: who commissioned the study you quote? That would have a huge factor in the credibility of the information.
Does the method adjust for violent crime that occurs outside of the auspices of organized crime (random stuff)?
Does it account for other laws or significant events occurring during the same period as the gun laws mentioned were enacted?
It also mentions numbers such as "fell 500% faster than the national average" etc, which sounds great except without the numbers backing the claim, it's virtually meaningless. (National average may be .01 and the states with carry laws may be .06, which is a 500% faster drop but not of any real significance. Likewise, in order to adjust properly, I believe that states with carry laws can not be averaged in combination with states without, if the question needing answering is in fact the one described above, because it would taint the result -- the only real comps are states with and without, not states with vs national average.)
It also does not make sense to base studies on states in aggregate, because rural and urban typically have a massive divide in this type of thing; if a state has a large rural population, it would massively change the result of the study. Case in point Washinton DC: it is solely urban, and with it, the violent crime is a lot higher. Washington DC simply does not work as a comparative factor unless a study is willing to compare urban to urban across the map. State to state is flawed.
Mexican gangs regularly go to gun shows in Arizona to purchase firearms.
Was not comparing Mexico to Canada, just holding up that gun laws are part of an aggregate society and not necessarily a single deciding factor. I would suspect that DC's violence has more to do with narcotic usage then anything, and I'd wonder whether or not the crime rate has fallen in recent years.
|