Summary of Death Penalty Research

Deterrence

• 17 studies find deterrence, 5 find no deterrence, 2 are non-conclusive. The NRC (nap.edu) report is often falsely cited by abolitionists. It actually says evidence exists for the hypothesis, but is weak. They also concede, however, that research saying it has no effect (or increases crime) is also non-conclusive.

“Tally of Death Penalty Deterrence Studies, Published Peer-Reviewed Journals from 1996 to 2010,” CJLF, 2010 http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrence.htm

•  Many people still cite Donahue and Wolfers (2005) in order to refute the deterrence hypothesis. They claim the studies are not robust and lead to bias. However recent rebuttals dispel these claims and it is irrelevant anyway, many of these deterrence authors oppose the death penalty for other reasons. 

 An example of one of these rebuttal papers:  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036841003670804

Example of an abolitionist author: Nancy Moacan 

• There is mountians of evidence the DP deters. Gary Becker notes, “the
  frequently stated claim that these studies prove that capital punishment does not deter is clearly
  false.”

 http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2005/12/further-comments-on-capital-punishment-becker.html

• Even if we agree with D & W 2005, we can still believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent. For example, 99.9% (actual statistic) of criminals fight for life, not death. This indicates criminals fear death more then a life time in jail. Many studies have found higher incarnation rates deter crime, and if the DP is not preferred it is illogical to think it has no effect (this also lends the to the fact the DP is a stronger deterrent then LWOP).  

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html#B.Deterrence

Cost 

• Many claimed the death penalty is more expensive then LWOP. This claim is false and has been rebutted. The threat of a death sentence causes many murderers to admit to their crimes, if this happens during a trial it saves a lot of money after, and if done before leads to the trial costing zero. These pleas are four times higher in death penalty states then in abolitionist ones (note: this lends more evidence to deterrence as they fear death--plea bargains mean they get LWOP as maximum punishment). All studies that claim the death penalty costs more ignore this variable. 

Kent Scheidegger, "The Death Penalty and Plea Bargaining to Life Sentences," CJLF, (2009), http://www.cjlf.org/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf

• Many have claimed states (like California) have high costs because of death row. Look at it like this: That's an argument for reform not repeal. States like Virginia have made these reforms where you can only be on death row for 5 years. The costs of geriatric healthcare (among other things) are cut nearly to zero if the time is cut under the Virginia experience. LWOP would lead to much more health care costs then a Virginia type DP system. 

Virginia AG 

• A estimate done by Dudley sharp in 1997 summarizes his findings, "Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years.  Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases" In other words, LWOP costs 1-3 million dollars MORE then DP cases,

 http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html#D.Cost

•  An article which I wrote cites many academic findings on the issue

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2012/09/04/wait-does-the-dp-really-cost-too-much-an-analysis.aspx

• “In recent years, studies, articles, and reports have been published on the costs associated with the death penalty at state level. They have generally concluded that, contrary to what many people believe, death sentence cases cost more than non-death sentence cases. However, we found these conclusions were not adequately supported. Most of the studies did not actually compare death sentence cases with non-death sentence cases, and some of the studies did not contain actual cost data. Further, even cases where cost data were cited, these data where incomplete” 

 US General Accounting Office, “Limited Fata Available on Costs of Death Sentences”, Report to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, (September 1989).

• Many studies find the DP only costs 117,000 more (same ballpark range). After other variables are accounted for, however, the number shrinks. A Virginia type system makes the DP cost thousands less.  Analysis by John Sorensen and Rocky Pilgrim found the DP costs the same OR LESS then LWOP cases. 

Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. “Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era.” Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006. Print.

• Many studies suffer flaws by not even comparing LWOP to DP, or only compare the extreme cases.  Many studies also ignore LWOP healthcare costs. These studies are wrought with so much error, they have been discredited.

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx

• A 1997 report by Gary D. Beatty (a lawyer) finds many of these states are using the appeals process irresponsibly, and if used correctly the DP would be much cheaper. He notes, "If the multiple layers of appeal are pursued in an ethical, and fiscally responsible manner, execution is less costly than warehousing a murderer for life." He actuslly finds death penalty opponents stalling and supporting murderers appeal raises the cost, and without them DP costs would plummet to (record in the modern era) lows!

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-next-time-someone-says-the-death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article

Racial problems?

• RAND studies actually find whites are are at a higher risk to be executed then blacks, and white defendants murdering whites are the most likely to be executed. Wait, its still discrimination! True, however when RAND took the heinousness of the crime into account the unfairness factor washed away. In other words, they choose the DP based on the crime, not race. This data is extremely compelling compared to the studies concluding the opposite. Three teams using the same data, but different methodologies, got the same results. In other words, the other studies where REALLY missing something.

 Stephen P. Klein, Richard A. Berk, Laura J. Hickman, eds., "Race and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in Federal Cases" Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, (June 2006).

•  40% of those death penalty cases involve blacks, and they are only 12% of the population, this is evidence of discrimination. Here is my question: is it? Not really. Separate analyses show these basic comparisons are weak and cannot be relied upon to make a case for racial discrimination. The problem with studies that argue its racially biased is simple: they fail to control for many of the legal factors. Jon Sorensen and Rocky Pilgrim decided to control for these factors. When they did, the racial effect disappeared. Further, 50% (about) of those committing murder are black and, therefore, giving them only 40% of cases is generous! statistically, we can get to 50% before being racist. “Studies that use the proportion of blacks involved in murder as the baseline *note this is the only accurate way you can do it* often conclude that there is no discrimination against black defendants … [E]vidence of racial disparity has all but disappeared.”

  Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. “Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era.” Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006. Print.

• “For both capital charges and death sentences, race either played no role or a small role that is very difficult to specify. In short, it is very difficult to find convincing evidence for racial effects in the Maryland data and if there are any, they may not be additive.” He even further noted, “cases with a black defendant and white victim or 'other' racial combination are less likely to have a death sentence”

 Richard Berk, Azusa Li, and Laura J. Hickman, “Statistical Difficulties in Determining the Role of Race in Capital Cases: A Re-analysis of Data from the State of Maryland,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 21, No. 4 (December, 2005), 365-390.

• A study done using the baseline described by Sorensen and Pilgrim (though used the baseline before Sorensen brought it up) concluded the criminal justice system (including the DP) had no racist effect--it was a myth!

William Wilbanks, "THE MYTH OF A RACIST CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM," 

CONCLUSION: 

Based on current research, when the facts are released support for the DP should rise.

 

Assortment of links on the death penalty

This is a less formal post of links for those looking for info on the PRO death penalty position.

Specific must reads:

Alexander Adams, "Wait, does the Death Penalty really cost too much An analysis", 2012 http://homicidesurvivors.com/2012/09/04/wait-does-the-dp-really-cost-too-much-an-analysis.aspx

Dudley Sharp, "Death Penalty Costs: California", 2012
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2012/09/07/death-penalty-costs-california.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart


Wesley Lowe, "Pro Capital Punishment Webpage", http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Dudley Sharp "Death Penalty IS a deterrent"  http://www.wesleylowe.com/deter.html

"Tally of Death Penalty Deterrence Studies" CJLF http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrence.htm

"Death Penalty Deterrence Articles" CJLF http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrencefull.htm

Dudley Sharp "Understanding Deterrence", 2010 http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/06/18/understanding-deterrance.aspx

Dudley Sharp "Lethal Injection: Controversies resolved", 2009 http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/12/07/lethal-injection-controversies-resolved.aspx

Dudley Sharp "Death Penalty and Sentencing information", 1997 http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html

Dudley Sharp "Innocence issues--The death penalty" 2000 http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm

Ward A. Campbell "Critique of the DPIC "Innocence" List", 2001 http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm

Jay Johansen "Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?" 1998, http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capdeter.htm

David Muhlhanusen, PHD "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives", 2007 http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm
Pro Death Penalty sites with even MORE links:

http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Death%20Penalty.aspx
http://prodpinNC.blogspot.com/
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm 
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm 
http://www.coastda.com/archives.html
http://www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2    
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Have fun :)

Death Penalty innocents? What a scam.

A mere Google search of executed innocents you get the ACLU, but you also get the famous DPIC innocents list [1]. This list, however, is highly misleading.

Many critiques have been given to the list. For example, 68 of those people on the list should not even be there, and this means less then 1/5 of 1% of those executed where "innocent". Many of their sources where weak and the writers of their main study argued their work was uncertain and weak. And many of the cited works agree there are many policies in place preventing false executions. Further, the time frame is biased as it includes pre-Furman trial cases before rigorous tests preventing innocents being executed being in place. Due to the fact is uses executions before these tests where mandated it easily increases innocents chances of being executed. Post-Furman executions reduce the likelihood of  innocent execution and, therefore, only data after Furman can be used (the modern executions). The time frame, therefore, is biased towards an anti-death penalty position [2].

Further, the list does not differentiate between actual innocence and legal innocence. In many of these cases, they are let out from clemency or legal technicalities. In other words, the people on the list might actually be guilty,  however they are let out based on technicalities [3]. Its funny! The DPIC to increase their list to promote anti-death penalty propaganda are arguing based on legal innocence, not actual innocence!

Further, innocents are safer with the DP! The DP has a 99.6% accuracy rate. Further, the death penalty prevents recidivism and therefore saves many innocent lives. Dudley Sharp notes, “Murderers that we have allowed to murder again, recidivist murderers, MIGHT number around 28,000 since 1973, based upon existing studies.” Basically we see the amount of lives saved hugely outweighs the weak innocents claim which I have shown to be false anyway. He further notes, “28 studies, beginning in 2000, find for a deterrent effect, ranging from 1-28 innocent lives spared per execution, or totals from 1,254 - 35,112 innocent lives saved”[4]. Innocents are, on balance, helped by the DP.

When facts prevail, we see the anti death penalty crowd is struggling for air.



[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
[2] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dpic.htm
[3] http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
[4] http://homicidesurvivors.com/2012/04/06/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death-penalty.aspx

Death Penalty deterence: Reply to the DPIC

The DPIC, death penalty info center, is an anti death penalty site. Its owners are all abolitionists. Now, the claim of deterrence in their database has many arguments—all flawed—buts lets focus on one: 88% of criminologists think it does not deter. Yep, that's the argument. Instead of numbering the numerous fallacies this falls into lets merely look into the claim head on.

Now, what the DPIC ignores is the important fact that 100% of the criminologists for question twelve answered "yes". In other words, they concede the DP may deter some. Just a major fact they where missing. Now, question eight noted 61% of criminologists think there is valid evidence deterrence exists in peer reviewed studies. But they must agree with this as 16 studies (slightly higher now) agree with the deterrence hypothesis. In question six it was asked if the DP significantly reduced murder, 57% said this statement was false. Here is the catch: this means 43% think it is (or is possibly true). That is a huge minority that cannot be overlooked. Questions 1-3 is where the 88% number came up, again ignoring the 100% number. However, these questions where not even relevant to the DP, and where poorly worded, leading to weak results. Also in relation to question six, they never defined significant giving bias towards the abolitionists.

Further, the study was biased. Dudley Sharp notes:

"This Survey was funded by Sheilah's Fund at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco and was arranged through the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) in Washington, D.C.

 

The Tides Foundation Death Penalty Mobilization Fund's sole purpose is the end of the death penalty. Sheilah's Fund is a direct contributor to anti death penalty efforts, as well. 

 

The DPIC is one of the leading anti death penalty groups in the US and, in my opinion, is one of the most deceptive.

 

Prof. Radelet has been one of the most active anti death penalty activists for decades. 

 

Jeffrey Fagan is a ASC Fellow and has been an anti death penalty activist for decades."

(Sharp 2009)

So this study isn't even accurate anyway. And remember question 12, 100% of criminologists think the DP deters some.

Overall source:

Dudley Sharp, "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock," Justice for all, <http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx>

 

Response to media matters Carlos Maza

Carlos Maza in his media matters column criticisms FOX news for citing a recent study which has claimed homosexuals are not the parents we thought they where. He argued his data shows the opposite to the APA's no difference claim and notes heterosexual parents are indeed superior.

He cites examples of poor methodology, his source? Equality matters. He is titled a researcher, but citing that really disqualifies him. Even the FRC websites cite credible studies making them superior to other think tanks. His main criticism is its failed comparison. But I doubt he has even read the study!  Regnerus actually controls for the marriage gap through regression, and therefore needn't compare them the "right" way. Now, I agree with the assumption this should not be THE evidence, as more studies are needed on the subject. He quotes Regnerus out of context. In reality he said he just is a starting point. He never said his study was false. However, studies looking into his brief note, "Regnerus (2012) provides convincing evidence that various young adult outcomes are associated with having a parent who had a same-sex relationship."[1]

Sure, its not the evidence or holy grail, but it is a start and is the best study on the issue. In reality, his study is supported by basic social science anyway. So really his theory cannot either be treated as gold nor like dirt. It should be, however, considered the best we have for now.

Now, the article then criticises the fox news writer:

1. His first criticism is arguing the man is biased and should not cite pseudoscience. However, his argument is the one using pseudoscience. The Regnerus has gotten much praise and criticism, however all of these criticisms are actually either showing the readers of the study cannot read (I doubt he even read the study). Basically, the study itself refutes most criticism. A great deal of its refuted by Osborne [1]. 

2. He then says the writer ignores this "credible" evidence the gay agenda has. The Fox news author rightly states we need the data that doesn't exist for no differences theory. However, all previous studies have methodological problems such as almost literally no sample size, bias authors (homosexual authors), statistically insignificant results. I will just make bullet points:

• Unclear hypothesis or research design


• Missing or inadequate comparison groups


• Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements


• Non-random sample sizes, much of the time other participants asked other friends to join or advertisements put up


• Samples too small to get any valid results (all studies had this problem except Cameron 1996)


• Missing or inadequate statistical analysis [2]

 In another analysis:

• here is no nationally representative sample. Most of them are non-random, selective, etc.


• They also express concern about small sample sizes as homosexuals are a small group, and although many studies have moderately sized samples they too have the non-random problem.


• And this study has even worse concerns: the outcomes are biased as they only look into psychology and not into the child’s well being like sociologists would look into (many of the unisex parenting advocates arepsychologists).


• And another great concern is that there is no long term studies, they are all short term. All of them are questions saying how are you now… None of them (or at least ones that claim “no difference”) follow them to adult hood.[3]

 Where is the "credible" in evidence?

If you are interested in the truth, either use blogs with accurate citations and credible studies (like this), and stop citing equality matters.....



[1] Cynthia Osborne "Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus," Social Science Research, vol. 41, issue 4, (July 2012)
[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D. “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t tell us about Same-Sex Parenting,” Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C. (January 2001)
[3] aggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker “Do Moms and Dads matter? Evidence from the social sciences on family structure and the best interests of the child,” Margins Law Journal, (2004)

Is no differences theory correct?

No differences theory: The no difference theory states ON BALANCE children of gay parents—married or not—have little differences then those raised by married heterosexual couples. "The widely circulated claim that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children—a claim widely known today as the "no differences" thesis."[1]

This is not about gay adoption laws, this is merely if homosexuals on balance raise "no difference" kids. 

Now, a mere Google of the subject gives you an onslaught of  gay parenting papers that they are "not" different. However, these papers are usually dated to the nightnties. And these papers have been discredited. Two sociologists note, “We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about ‘homosexual vs. hetero- sexual’ parenting. Their claims have no basis.”[2]

All of these studies had unclear data sets, hidden data (would not give them out for research), bias, too small of a sample size, non-random samples, etc. All of the studies had at least two or more methodological problems meaning there is  “no basis” for the theory. 

In 2004, another analysis gathered the same results as the report in 2001. They have gathered many experts in their law review who really say no conclusions can be made at the current time. They all agree, however, children are raised best with biological parents. In many court cases they show the judges who ordered the research for a specific case usually argue no decision can be made from the evidence. They conclude:

Studies comparing children of single lesbian mothers with children of single heterosexual mothers cannot credible be used to contradict the weight of social science evidence in general on the benefits of the married, intact biological family over alternative family forms [3].

The review also cites many studies not looking directly into gay parenting, however the evidence does conclude children to best with a mother and a father. Two men might make good fathers, neither can be a mother. 

Now many can argue sure, the evidence is flawed, but I have no evidence myself and, therefore, my argument is invalid. Here is the problem: I have evidence. 

Many have argued lesbians are the best parents (specifically lesbians). However, the social science concludes this, “something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions”. Mothers, too, have different effects on a child's outcome. She acts an an equal, unlike fathers who act like teachers, which help grow a child's emotional stability. Further, even if the woman is lesbian, her nature is to be more lenient unlike fathers which are, on balance, more strict then women. Nearly all evidence (just looking at father/mother differences) have shown without one a child grows differently. And this is a fact. Two men might be fathers, neither a good mother, two women good mothers, neither a good father [4].

 Further, it has been observed homosexuals (even when married) are less stable. Children like stability. Much of the time these homosexuals are previously married and them coming out of the closet leads to much turmoil. It has also been shown the absence of a mother or father (even if it is temporary) harms the children’s development.  After controlling for marriage laws (he has a weighted system controlling for “possible” marriage “discrimination”). He found even after controlling for marriage those families where much less stable. And as he noted “children like stability”. These homosexuals have more affairs, fights, higher parent molestation rates (sadly), and more of them had gender problems. Most of the population is straight, only 3% is gay, and the study found much higher homosexual rates coming from these homes. This means, likely, these parents can affect these children’s outcomes. Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant—it is still a difference—and I would prefer not get into a debate on whether being gay is ok. Further, he has found based on his interviews a statistically significant difference amongst the groups of their perceived negative impacts. Family of origin negative impacts when comparing heterosexuals and homosexuals had a significance of (P < 0.05) which is significant in this study. Overall academic achievement was also lower in homosexual groups [5].

When I cite this, many argue the APA (a highly credible source) has argued no difference theory is correct. However, the studies the APA claims to be fact are weak. 26 of 59 have no comparison groups. When a group existed, rich homosexuals where compared with poor single parent families (leading to bias), none of their studies had a large enough sample size to be statistically significant (small sample size basically destroys its credibility...), the definitive claim the APA has is not well supported by the studies [6].

Note on sources: all of them are accessible online.

[1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640

[2]  Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting” Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, (2001)

[3] Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker “Do Moms And Dads Matter? Evidence From The Social Sciences On Family structure And The Best Interests Of The Child” Margins Law Journal, (2004)

[4]  A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. “Gender Complimentary and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science agree” QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, Vol. 6, (2005) 

[5] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)

[6] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)

Gun control: the response to Aurora?

A delayed response... I know. I don't think anyone follows this blog anyway :P

How many of you have heard we need more gun control in response to Aurora? We need "sensible" regulations? In my former posts, we have seen there are many benefits to guns, for example the 2.5 million defensive usages a year outnumber the amount of times they are used in murder (Kleck 1995). We have also seen more guns, such as conceal carry, has reduced crime in the United States (Lott 1997, Moody and Marvel 2008, Lott 2012, and many others). The question here is, though, does gun control work at reducing these crimes? You know, if these regulations worked this would be a sensible response. On the surface it also makes sense. However, when examining the facts, that "sensible" solution seems to fall apart.

Many saw the need to limit the possible bullets one could sell. The current proposals say a sensible regulation would be 1,000. Other then the fact prepers would get pissed, would this stop mass shootings? Unlikely. Most shootings have months or years of planning and investment put into them.  It would still be possible to legally buy all the ammunition, just spread out the purchases. And they could easily go to some black market venue, or reload their shells from previously used ones (for those who don't know what reloading is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading).

Others say we need a magazine cap. But this was ineffective when tried in 1994 in the assault weapons ban! Crime in states that passed these bans murder actually rose 11.9% on average. And no credible evidence suggests the ban has had any positive effects. Studies usually have found "mixed" results, and two separate analysis's have found increases in crime [1][2].

But lets look into the most common argument on this issue: Assault weapons serve no purpose.  There are two problems with this: 1) this is false, and 2) this logic does not work.

Lets start with one... obviously. Although well placed shots can take down a deer from an assault rifle (generally .223 caliber), it is usually used for small game like rabbits. Why? When you shoot it, unlike with a thirty caliber, you would actually have meat left. And even better: they shoot at high speeds making them more beneficial for the job. Although other weapons, such as pistols, shoot at the same speed or faster they are less accurate. //these guns purpose is used in crime!!!// Um... actually assault weapons are only used in .20 percent of all violent crimes [3].

Wait, I heard from the Brady campaign and John Kerry they have no purpose! Deer hunters don't need guns, and there is no sporting purpose. Sorry to say, assault weapons are a great sporting weapon. Literally many gun sports revolve around the existence of these weapons. Here is the fact:.

"In fact, the AR-15, M1 and M1A -- semi-automatic rifles that gun control say are "assault weapons" -- are the rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions and training in the United States, such as the NRA's National Rifle Championships, the Civilian Marksmanship Program's National Matches, and the regional, state and local competitions that precede the national events each year. All 1,300+ men, women and teenagers who competed in the National Trophy Rifle Matches in 2010 used semi-automatic rifles that gun control supporters say should be banned as "assault weapons."[4]

No sporting purpose is a lie. It is the most common used weapon in sports and I dare say that it has no purpose to the 1,300 Americans who have been in competitions. And this does not count the thousands, like me, who shoot these things at paper which is considered a "sport". So, really, when you see blogs and opinion articles with no references (other then the Brady Campaign or another such organization), know they are liars.

And, anyway,  this logic is flawed. Even if it was true, that's not a justification for banning assault weapons. Lets use an example, grapes. Grapes have no purpose as they are not needed to be healthy, use strawberries instead. No, this argument does not work. One must give a compelling reason to affirm or justify the assault weapons ban. Saying there is no reason to to X is not compelling. Many might criticize me as my position on Same Sex marriage uses that logic, however [maybe if I remember] in a later post I will explain the harms that some if SSM is allowed and my argument invalidated.

So if they are right: they lose. If I am right: they lose. If their laws pass: we lose (higher crime).

Also, gun control never has worked. Here is an important piece of information: the theater was a gun free zone. Its a textbook example of gun control failing, it was already like a gun ban in there: as extreme as it can get. So how are more laws that criminals ignore help? Seriously, its like putting a speed bump in the road will stop me from getting to my house...

Now, any of you out there still support gun control? I ask this question: Name one gun ban that has reduced crime. Just one. Why do I ask? Because you cant.

Here is a good fact to begin your research if you are trying to find a ban that has decreased crime: "Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."[5]

Hey, wait a minute, the UK has more gun control and lower crime!

Hey, guess what, Israel has an extremely high gun ownership and no crime, same as switzerland.

And, anyway, this logic does not prove your point. Using these comparisons hardly makes a case for gun control.  Ideally, one must examine the crime rate before and after the law in trends to examine the actual crime change of these laws. To correctly estimate a policy and its effect on crime, one must find and isolate the variable they are trying to prove (or disprove, or just find an answer) its effect on crime. NO STUDY HAS DONE THIS THAT PROVES GUN CONTROL WORKS, the ones that properly do these studies either find no correlation between guns and crime or more guns less crime [1].

So, is gun control the response to Aurora? No.


[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
[2] Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.
[3] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
[4] http://www.gunbanfacts.com/Get_the_Facts/Ban_Supporters_Wrong/no_sporting_purpose.aspx
[5] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/crime/gun-laws-dont-reduce-crime/