Legislation & Lobbying
Prof Says D.C. Handgun Ban Didn’t Affect Number of Murders
Posted Jun 30, 2008, 08:29 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A Florida State professor says the handgun ban in the District of Columbia did not affect the murder rate.
Gun control advocates argue handgun bans are needed to keep the weapons out of criminals’ hands. Gun control opponents, on the other hand, say the bans take guns away from law-abiding citizens who can use the weapons to deter crime.
Neither side is right, according to a study by Gary Kleck of Florida State’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Kleck concludes in an interview with the New York Times that “the law itself had no effect one way or the other.”
The issues were highlighted last week when the U.S. Supreme Court held the D.C. law violated the Second Amendment.
Kleck studied the murder rates in Washington, D.C., which adopted its handgun ban in 1976, and Baltimore, a city similar to the District that did not enact a similar ban, the Times story says. Kleck says the crime rates in both cities were similar in a before-and-after study, proving that the ban didn’t have an effect.
Kleck says one measure that does work is statewide background checks of would-be gun owners.
Another study cited by gun proponents found that the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders for every 100,000 people, while the nine nations with the fewest guns had 4.4 murders per 100,000 people, according to the story.
Related Stories
- Police Bribed Judge to Get Search Warrant, Ex-Chicago Cop Testifies
Nov 20, 2008, 03:49 pm CST - 5 Gitmo Detainees Held Unlawfully, Federal Judge Says
Nov 20, 2008, 01:30 pm CST - Prognosticators Dissect Calif. Supremes’ Vote to Review Prop 8
Nov 20, 2008, 06:15 am CST - Tasered Accountant Gets $60K in Excessive-Force Case
Nov 19, 2008, 06:00 pm CST
Related Topics
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments
Posted by Darrell G. Stewart - 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 52 minutes ago
Study has an invalid premise, that the lack of city laws, alone, is indicator. Author of study compares D.C. to Massachusetts, which has one of the most restrictive (as to gun rights) laws in the 50 states. Premise is therefore invalid, as author compares two very similar cities with similarities in restrictions on gun ownership.
Posted by Chris - 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes ago
Darrell, perhaps I’m missing something but the article above says D.C. was compared to Baltimore—this doesn’t appear to have anything to do with Massachusetts.
Posted by associate - 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 53 minutes ago
What kind of junk article is this?
The study alone is a sample size of 1. To have a valid study, you must compare DC and Chicago to every other major metropolitan city in the country without a gun ban. Why in the world would you write an article on a sample size of 1?
The only legitimate way to compare DC is either to itself over time, or to a national average.
And by the way, how can you write an article on the effects of gun control on crime without citing professor John R. Lott?
Facts are facts, and we know that DC is one very dangerous place whether upstanding citizens have guns at home or not.