SKumar
NES Member
Unbiased American is run by two guys, Will Ricciardella and Kevin Ryan. Their fb page currently has 111k likes and growing quite rapidly. They post a lot of evidence-based conservative articles and have very high engagement rate. In the last couple days, they decided to use MA as an example of the effects of gun control. Cool short read that I thought is worthy of a share.
HOW STRICTER GUN LAWS BACKFIRE
by Kevin Ryan
In 1998, Massachusetts enacted the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Overnight, the state increased the number of firearm laws on its books from 67 to 100, a 50% increase.
Among the new laws:
• Much stricter licensing requirements.
• Higher age requirements for purchase and possession of firearms.
• “Assault weapon” ban.
• Ten round limit for all firearms and magazines.
• Strict firearm storage requirements, requiring all guns to be kept locked at all times.
• Many new disqualifications for ownership and legal justifications for firearm confiscation.
All this was on top of the state’s already strict gun control laws. It made Massachusetts one of the 3 strictest states for firearm ownership in the nation.
Gun ownership fell, as did the number of people registering their weapons. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state plummeted from nearly 1.5 million to just 200,000.
So, firearm homicides must have fallen, right?
Nope. In 1998, 65 murders in Massachusetts were committed with firearms. By 2011, that number had nearly doubled to 122. Nationwide during that time, there was only a 3% increase in firearm homicides.
Also, from 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7% in Massachusetts, and robberies with firearms increased 20.7%.
What happened in Massachusetts mirrored what happens in other places that implement onerous gun control laws. Making firearms more difficult to LEGALLY obtain reduces firearm ownership among the law abiding more than it does among those who ignore the law.
And as anyone will tell you, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But thanks to strict gun control, places like Massachusetts, D.C., and Chicago have a lot fewer good guys with guns.
SOURCES:
The nation’s toughest gun-control law made Massachusetts less safe - The Boston Globe
What happened to violent crime in Massachusetts after the the 1998 firearms licensing law? - Crime Prevention Research Center
More Guns, Less Crime - Jhon R Lott Jr
http://www.goal.org/Documents/stat_pdfs/LicensePostAuditReport.pdf
State Firearm Laws - State-by-State
(K.R.) Yesterday I posted 2 charts showing how the 1998 passage of strictest-in-the-nation gun laws in Massachusetts actually led to a sharp INCREASE in murders and robbery, and several people countered that “a state’s gun laws are only as strong as the laws in neighboring states”. In other words, because it’s easy to cross state borders, people can just buy their firearms in a state that has laxer gun laws and bring them into the state with stricter gun control.
At least that’s their theory. In reality, state and federal law prohibit such a transaction. You cannot purchase across state lines what you cannot possess where you live. If your state bans it, you can’t buy it in another state.
Critics will counter that “criminals aren’t going to abide by those laws.” But that’s exactly the point. Criminals, by definition, break the law. Laws don’t stop someone who’s willing to break the law. They’ll buy one on the black market or steal one or do whatever it takes to come into possession of a firearm.
Instead, the people most often hindered by gun control laws are law abiding people who would otherwise have a firearm to defend themselves. And there are far, FAR more law abiding people than there are criminals.
So when a state like Massachusetts (or a city like Washington or Chicago) institute radical gun control laws, all they’re doing is creating the equivalent of a “gun-free zone”, an area where criminals are less threatened by the potential that a home owner or shop keeper will pull out a firearm to defend themselves.
And the numbers prove it. When Massachusetts instituted their strict gun control laws, homicides and burglaries skyrocketed. Even if, as critics contended, strict state level gun laws are undermined by looser laws in neighboring states, passing strict legislation shouldn’t change crime one way or the other. All of New England should have roughly the same crime levels.
But that’s not what happened. By passing stricter gun control than neighboring states, Massachusetts essentially rang the dinner bell for criminals. “Come to the Bay State if you want to rob homes with less fear of getting shot!”
SOURCES:
The nation’s toughest gun-control law made Massachusetts less safe - The Boston Globe
What happened to violent crime in Massachusetts after the the 1998 firearms licensing law? - Crime Prevention Research Center
More Guns, Less Crime - Jhon R Lott Jr
http://www.goal.org/Documents/stat_pdfs/LicensePostAuditReport.pdf
State Firearm Laws - State-by-State
HOW STRICTER GUN LAWS BACKFIRE
by Kevin Ryan
In 1998, Massachusetts enacted the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Overnight, the state increased the number of firearm laws on its books from 67 to 100, a 50% increase.
Among the new laws:
• Much stricter licensing requirements.
• Higher age requirements for purchase and possession of firearms.
• “Assault weapon” ban.
• Ten round limit for all firearms and magazines.
• Strict firearm storage requirements, requiring all guns to be kept locked at all times.
• Many new disqualifications for ownership and legal justifications for firearm confiscation.
All this was on top of the state’s already strict gun control laws. It made Massachusetts one of the 3 strictest states for firearm ownership in the nation.
Gun ownership fell, as did the number of people registering their weapons. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state plummeted from nearly 1.5 million to just 200,000.
So, firearm homicides must have fallen, right?
Nope. In 1998, 65 murders in Massachusetts were committed with firearms. By 2011, that number had nearly doubled to 122. Nationwide during that time, there was only a 3% increase in firearm homicides.
Also, from 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7% in Massachusetts, and robberies with firearms increased 20.7%.
What happened in Massachusetts mirrored what happens in other places that implement onerous gun control laws. Making firearms more difficult to LEGALLY obtain reduces firearm ownership among the law abiding more than it does among those who ignore the law.
And as anyone will tell you, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But thanks to strict gun control, places like Massachusetts, D.C., and Chicago have a lot fewer good guys with guns.
SOURCES:
The nation’s toughest gun-control law made Massachusetts less safe - The Boston Globe
What happened to violent crime in Massachusetts after the the 1998 firearms licensing law? - Crime Prevention Research Center
More Guns, Less Crime - Jhon R Lott Jr
http://www.goal.org/Documents/stat_pdfs/LicensePostAuditReport.pdf
State Firearm Laws - State-by-State
(K.R.) Yesterday I posted 2 charts showing how the 1998 passage of strictest-in-the-nation gun laws in Massachusetts actually led to a sharp INCREASE in murders and robbery, and several people countered that “a state’s gun laws are only as strong as the laws in neighboring states”. In other words, because it’s easy to cross state borders, people can just buy their firearms in a state that has laxer gun laws and bring them into the state with stricter gun control.
At least that’s their theory. In reality, state and federal law prohibit such a transaction. You cannot purchase across state lines what you cannot possess where you live. If your state bans it, you can’t buy it in another state.
Critics will counter that “criminals aren’t going to abide by those laws.” But that’s exactly the point. Criminals, by definition, break the law. Laws don’t stop someone who’s willing to break the law. They’ll buy one on the black market or steal one or do whatever it takes to come into possession of a firearm.
Instead, the people most often hindered by gun control laws are law abiding people who would otherwise have a firearm to defend themselves. And there are far, FAR more law abiding people than there are criminals.
So when a state like Massachusetts (or a city like Washington or Chicago) institute radical gun control laws, all they’re doing is creating the equivalent of a “gun-free zone”, an area where criminals are less threatened by the potential that a home owner or shop keeper will pull out a firearm to defend themselves.
And the numbers prove it. When Massachusetts instituted their strict gun control laws, homicides and burglaries skyrocketed. Even if, as critics contended, strict state level gun laws are undermined by looser laws in neighboring states, passing strict legislation shouldn’t change crime one way or the other. All of New England should have roughly the same crime levels.
But that’s not what happened. By passing stricter gun control than neighboring states, Massachusetts essentially rang the dinner bell for criminals. “Come to the Bay State if you want to rob homes with less fear of getting shot!”
SOURCES:
The nation’s toughest gun-control law made Massachusetts less safe - The Boston Globe
What happened to violent crime in Massachusetts after the the 1998 firearms licensing law? - Crime Prevention Research Center
More Guns, Less Crime - Jhon R Lott Jr
http://www.goal.org/Documents/stat_pdfs/LicensePostAuditReport.pdf
State Firearm Laws - State-by-State