IN 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.
“Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence,” said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. “It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities.” Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Democratic attorney general, agreed: “This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”
Comments
Very good column, Jeff. To those who ascribe to the belief that more government regulations solve all problems, Your concise data on gun control prove them completely wrong. To the left wingthere're is simply no other solution, and when it fails, they find someone else to blame.
facts are facts. thanks
Our gun laws have prevented many deaths. Jacoby sees the truth, twists it into lies.
Kate: You actually have no proof of your statement, only conjecture. Jacoby has not twisted anything into lies. If you pay attention to his article, it is pretty much pure reporting of what has happened. He did not make any statements about "if we had less stringent gun laws.." He did not speculate, as you did above.
Please do not start tossing in suicide and accidental deaths, this article was about gun crime, not other issues.
I would agree that by trampling on folks constitutional rights to own guns, limiting the numbers, no doubt decreased the numbers of accidental and suicide deaths.
Interesting stats, there coul be somehting here, but I wish there was a little more analysis here. For example, is there is anything to say that if the gun laws had not been enacted, the rate in Mass would not have been even higher? What happened to accidental/overall gun deaths or injuries? Masss is hardly a monolothic society; I think it would be reasonable to expect that rates would have gone up in some geograpical areas/social strata, even if only by chance, but does that tell us somehting. For either the left or the right to jump to conclusions with knee-jetk reaction just does not seem particularly helpful to anyone, unless the only onjective is chest-thumping
This is a very fair response. I think Jacoby has jumped to a conclusion with a limited set of data.
The facts are the facts though. I think his point was that the data he presented flatly contradicted those who assumed the new gun law in 1998 would bring down gun-related violent crimes.
Facts are indeed facts.
Jacoby has just told us that more than a decade after installing some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, Massachusetts residents are still kept safer than most of the country by a murder rate that's not quite just half of the national average.
Jacoby goes on to inadvertently argue that if all other states would follow Massachusetts' lead, the availability of guns would continue to fall since the import rate from other states would decrease.
I sometimes wonder if Jacoby's Sunday modern conservative drivel would be better placed in the paper next to the crossword puzzle. There's always a flaw in his logic, and there's amusement to be had for intelligent readers to work that flaw out for themselves.
This comment has been removed.
Hey There 'Muggs' ;
Not sure we read the same article - Mr Jacoby did cite a decrease in number of Gun Licenses after the legislation was passed but offered no arguments about Guns or ownership itself and , in my reading, no information to support your extrapolation of the argument.
What the article did offer was that the Decrease in Crime that was used to justify the legislation Did Not Occur, in fact Crime Increased over the period.... If you wish to extend the arguement - it would sound like "Fewer licensed gun owners is associated with More Crime" I wont say result in because neither of us has data to show causal relationship.
If you wish to better inform yourself about what does in fact happen in neighboring states, etc - Please read the most comprehensive research on the topic "More Guns - Less Crime" (ISBN-10: 0226493660)
Not enough guns is not what's causing the gun death number. It's a gang problem, and they're using guns to knock each other off. Giving the benefit of the doubt Jacoby would like to do something about the gun death problem in this country, I don't see anything here to help solve the problem, only condoning paralysis.
Fair enough but why didn't / isn't government doing something about the real problem other than taking away the ability of law abiding citizens to better defend themselves from the disparity of force that arises when the multiple members of a gang invade the home of one or a few people?
Whether you are for or against guns or gun control the Massachusetts and Federal noise on gun control is deafening all of us to the lack of attention to the real, hard to solve problems of our society that cannot be addresses with a knee-jerk reaction, a single piece of legislation or even more government spending. Also notice that those who quietyly most want more gun control are those that don't want to face a gun while commiting a crime. Stats from other nations bear this out but that isn't my point here. My point is that we need leadership that sets a better example, reasonable labeling on violent influences along with guideance for parents (why protect free speech to the point of teaching our kids to enjoy being first person shooters in video games while throwing the right to bear arms out the window?), and an economy that employs more people and leaves fewer people desperate for other people's money and property. We also need to admit the war on drugs has failed and we need a different approach. Drugs and gangs are tightly linked and cause even more gun violence daily than the mentally challenged that have gotten so much press since Sandy Hook.
This comment has been removed.
A nice use of meaningless numbers that support an argument that no one is making. Here in Florida we have more murders in a few months than Mass has in a year. Since the passing of the "self-defense" law in Florida killings under this law has risen 250%. An investigation into concealed weapons permits shows that, " Florida issued concealed handgun permits to more than 1,400 people who plead guilty or no
contest to felonies; 216 people with outstanding warrants, including for murder; 28 people with active domestic violence restraining orders against them; and 6 registered sex offender."
Murders per 100,000 in Florida are much higher than in Mass. although Florida has very little gun registration regulations and those that it does have are loosely enforced.
Does this prove that loose gun laws lead to more killings? No, it doesn't it proves very little.
Neither does Mr. Jacoby's numbers prove anything. When analyzing the number of murders in any given location with any given weapon there is much more to assess than pure numbers. Everything from the level of "drug" activity in an area, to changes in demographics, to population density.
We cannot have a rational discussion regarding gun legislation if it is to be based upon bs numbers, which is all Mr. Jacoby has shown here. Great for those who are absolutists on the issue meaningless to those of us who want to look for rational legislation that protects lawful gun ownership while searching for a means to reduce some of the horrors we have seen. No legislation will be perfect, but that does not mean no legislation is necessary.
Turk, actually it does mean no legislation relative to gun ownership is required.
As many people keep asking: Why is this a gun problem? (remember, we are talking about the use of guns in crime here, not Sandy Hook events) Isn't this a law enforcement/criminal justice problem?
I will use a worn out example. The right to free speech and shouting "FIRE!" in a theater. Many state that our freedom to do that is limited by regulation and therefore so too should our right to own gun be regulated. But in reality, we all still have the ability to shout "FIRE!" in a theater, injurying or killing people in the process. If we regulated that right as is proposed with guns, we would tape everyone's mouth shut before entering the theater.
In other words, we do not fight crime in this country by passing laws that violate other people's rights.
Keep in mind, Jacoby's article was NOT about Sandy Hook, it was about gun crimes in Mass. You spilled over into "some of the horrors we have seen".
I couldn't agree more strongly with attatork. Statistics are best understood in a context, and there is little meaningful context here. One of the things I thought of as I read the article was "what happened within the first few years after the law was enacted?" To draw wide-sweeping conclusions from limited data over a long period of time fails to take into account many significant indicators. Just look at the economy. Folks like Jeff have been saying that Obama has taken us down the road to ruin, yet the economy is clearly turning around. I'm beginning the think that the specific "theories" of turning around the economy have less to do than a sort of natural normalization process where that which was bad becomes less bad, and that which was good can't last forever. It's human nature to find a scapegoat, and making it harder to get guns seems to be reducing the sort of accidental deaths and suicide attempts that are linked to readily available weapons. I'm not sure gin activists have much in the way of stitistics to refute that.
Good article. The second amendment was never about hunting or target shooting.Take the cops of the construction detsails and put them in our schools.
You do know that there was an armed guard in the school at the time of the Columbine massacre, don't you?
Mugg: And you know that guard was tasked with wandering the halls playing "hall monitor". Columbine did NOT have an effective security plan in place, it was all loosey goosey.
According to the CDC Massachusetts still had the second-lowest rate of gun related fatalities in the nation. Imagine where would be if controls were looser. But actually Mr. Jacoby proves the point here. Since gun control laws don't work we can conclude that Americans clearly can't play responsibly with their toys. The logical extrapolation then is that we need to take away the guns -- that following England's lead would clearly be the most effective way in mitigating gun violence. By arguing against more reform Mr. Jacoby you just proved the point of your opponent. The immutable law of unintended consequence triumphs again.
Nice dodge, Bumpy, you moved from gun crimes, to gun related fatalities. Of course we are going to have lower fatalities when the Nanny state takes things away.
How about Nanny Mass takes away all the cars? Then we can have the lowest vehicle fatality rate in the nation.
So much for your "logic". Pure blather.
Nice try History, but you're out of you're depth here. Equating my assertion to taking away cars is specious. Obviously you don't have any understanding of logic considering you illogical argument.
And then there are all the suicides that having more guns would encourage.
Yes - just about half of all firearm deaths are accidents or suicides. But we should make it easier for there to be an abundance of guns for all?
Having a gun "encourages" suicide? That is a new one. You would be hard pressed to find a psychologist that would agree having a gun "encourages" someone to committ suicide. Guns really do not talk to their owners.
But this is not an article about suicide, is it? This is an article about GUN CRIME.
Among the statistics quoted here, perhaps I am just missing one that seems of crucial relevance: what fraction of gun crimes in Massachusetts are committed with guns purchased or carried in from surrounding states?
As the most populous and urban state in the northern New England, I'd still expect the vast majority of guns involved in crime here to be purchased (or stolen) in MA. If it doesn't happen this way, I would severely question Mr. Jacoby's reasoning.
And the argument that legislators didn't put the prospect of guns from other states front and center during legislative discussion seems purely poppycock: they're not legislating for VT, NH, ME, RI, NY, and CT. You have to start somewhere and it's not places that you don't write the laws for.
Recent article in the Globe revealed that Mass has the 3rd highest rate of out-of-state guns found at crimes scenes in the nation. Just proof that federal laws are needed.
Jacoby doesn't seem to read the Boston Globe, either. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/04/gun-crimes-increase-massachusetts-despite-tough-gun-laws/HLXk8k1G0TiyNFJxmilzqL/story.html
The comparison to the national murder rate is meaningless. Many other factors go into why the gun murder rate is higher or lower including population density, urban vs. rural etc. rather than arbitrary state borders.
I never bother reading the comics in the Sunday Globe. I just read Jacoby's silly right wing drivel. His moronic columns are always good for a few laughs.
Comments like this are why the uninformed remain. . . uninformed, or to put it another way, ignorant.
Well Bob, that added a lot to the conversation, didn't it.
The point being...we should do nothing about guns? In any event, restricting access to guns is almost always correlated with reduced gun violence. Where does Jacoby come up with this stuff, and why does the Globe continue to publish his ideologically reflexive nonsense?
The highest rate of gun violence is found where gun laws are most restrictive as in Chicago.
"Almost always"? It is quite the opposite. Even in the UK, where guns are banned, gun violence by criminals has risen dramatically. "Ideologically reflexive nonsense" seems to be projection on your part as the facts on gun restrictions are easy to obtain.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Scott, you riled 'em up for sure! They have been very happy touting their "lowest murder rate in the country, that is why the rest of the US should follow OUR lead" drivel for quite a while. That statistic was the antigunners "nuke".
It appears many of the commenters skimmed your article. Ones who read it realize that your point is: statistics don't mean anything in this discussion. All some of them saw was that it did not agree with their viewpoint that there needs to be more legislation, thus revealing their extreme narrow mindedness.
Some are so narrow minded they accuse you of "twisting" the facts somehow.
One of our legislators, Paul Heroux, from Attleboro (dem) has an interesting viewpoint about gun statistics. None of them being quoted are the result of any real studies. He is right, along with several of the other commenters here, all we are seeing is numbers that are effected by many other factors.
But, let the antigunners rant on!
Deaths by firearms in New Hampshire occur at twice the rate in Massachusetts; in Maine, the rate is triple.
New Hampshire and Maine, unlike Massachusetts, do not require a permit or license to buy a gun, although weapons bought at federally licensed gun shops are subjected to a background check.
Both quotations from: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/04/gun-crimes-increase-massachusetts-despite-tough-gun-laws/HLXk8k1G0TiyNFJxmilzqL/story.html
Imagine if in the far more densly-populated Bay State, we had the same failure to regulate deadly weapons?
Jacoby presents no alternative to gun control, just the vague hope that maybe it doesn't really work. He is taking the same ridiculous stance as Wayne LaPierre: if the law doesn't solve the probelm entirely, then we should do nothing. Of course, if that were true, there'd be no point to any laws at all.
"death by firearms". Title of Article: "Crime Soared..." Then Kate tells us that the rates in NH and ME are double and triple respectively.
Here are some real numbers to digest. These are from the FBI Uniform crime reports.
NH murder by firearm: 6 Population: 1.3M
ME murder by firearm: 12 Population: 1.3M
MA murder by firearm: 122 Population: 6.5M
Mass has 5X the population of NH or ME. So, if MA were doing as good as NH or ME, our MURDER RATE should be either 30 or at worst, 60. But no, it is 122.
Kate does a typical antigunner shuffle sidestep misdirection. The article is about gun crime, not overall death rates due to gun ownership.
NH and ME are both huge hunting states with a large portion of the populations owning guns. They will obviously have more accidental shootings due to the higher percentage of gun ownership.
That was not the point of Jacoby's article.
This type of argument is why statistics need to be examined very carefully.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Check your facts, "History." Don't make stuff up: the right to own designated types of firearms in Mexico is guaranteed by law. There are restrictions (being underage, a convicted felon, etc.), but most law abiding adut citizens may purchase a firearm for personal protection.
You check YOUR facts, "designated types of firearms"...and an almost impossible to obtain license, just like the antigunnners would like to have happen here.
"History" Your argument is simply this, "Laws don't prevent any particular action, they just make it illegal." Following that argument we shouldn't have DUI laws or any laws for that matter. It is not the purpose of legislation to disarm the public any more than DUI legislation is meant to get people to not drink. The purpsoe of legislation is to regualte, to minimize, to gain some control over a particular situation. Legislation is not meant to solve the problem in its entirety it is meant to hopefully gain some control over the distribution of arms. If that is simply to regulate or control who gets them as best as we possibly can. It is not foolproof nor perfect but it is also not some denial of one's second amend. rights. I can purchase a gun. I can carry here in Floirda. I simply must pass a background check. Big deal.
Have to agree with your DUI example, it does not stop anyone from drinking and driving, it is exactly like my FIRE example. It does penalize those who operate UI. No problem. But notice, there is no DUI law that states "You may only have a 4 oz glass of beer at the bar every hour".
"History" I'm a smoker. I can't smoke in restaurants or bars up in my old state. Is my right to smoke taken away? No, it is however regulated. Do I like it. Not particularly. But I get it. Do I think it is fair. No, but one life isn't fair and two, I'm biased because I'm a smoker. I'm also a gun owner and recognize my own biases but also recognize the necissity for legislation. That is pretty much my position. I support the second but I'm not married to an absolutist position regarding it.
The United States has the highest gun ownership rates in the world and the second highest rate of gun deaths among industrialized nations. Massachusetts gun deaths per 100,000, 3.1, gun ownership, 12.8%. Louisiana gun deaths per 100,000, 18, gun ownership, 45.6%. Do the math.
Do the Math on gun laws in Chicago vs their gun violence. Throw in Washington DC to boot.
This is an article about GUN CRIME, not gun deaths. But your comment goes to "Nanny State" thinking.
Of course, you cherry picked the state of Louisiana for added effect, as any good nanny stater would do.
But, doing the math as you suggest, since a lot more people do own gun in LA, one would expect that there would be more gun deaths, just like there are more traffic deaths in states where there are more cars, duh.
The only first world countries with gun ownership that even approach ours are Switzerland and Canada, both of which have far lower rates of gun violence than the US. Both Switzerland and Canada regulate guns much more tightly than the US does. That's less likely to be a coincidence than the cherry picked statistics that Jacoby uses.
Jacoby did not "cherry pick" his statistics, as did you.
Canada has not seen any appreciable change in it's trends since enacting the knee jerk laws. Switzerland has always been very different culturally from us. Talk about cherry picking, you flat shook the tree.
Culturally? Oh, I get it..euphemisms today? Do enlighten us.
Please stop with the car death analogies. Anaologies are hell to begin with, but the fact that MA generally has the lowest auto fatality rate in the nation makes this one even more spurious.
No, the point is that if you eliminate all cars, you will have no car deaths. It is not "spurious".
By the way, we are all more likely to be killed in automobile accidents than by gunfire.
Yes, and if we eliminate all fluids, we'll have no drowning.
Mr. Jacoby's argument does not probe the nubers enough to assume the conclusion he is making. The fact that gun deaths still went up in MA does not tell us what the effect of the gun law was, since we don't know what it would have been without the changes in law. The big enchilada for this issue, as far as I can see is this: if more guns do not create more gun deaths, or might even save lives, then how do you rationalize that countries such as Great Britain, France, and Japan, who watch the same movies, play the same video games, have just as much mental illness, drug use, and on and on and on, have very little gun violence? How do you even approach that question without examining the number of guns in each society?
You sound like Piers Morgan...please think more broadly before regurgitating his lies.
This is just meaningless gun nut blather. It is a matter of how easy it is to get a gun in other states that is missing from this so-called "analysis". What we need is nation-wide gun control. I snicker at how easily the pawns of the NRA do the bidding of the gun manufacturers...Jacoby is at the top of the list.
The point of the article was the meaningless blather from the antigun nuts. The anti gun nutters enacted laws without any true analysis. Now you announce that what we need is nation wide gun control, without analysis. Snicker all you want, but the way it really works is that the NRA does the bidding of the gun owners who manufacture what gun owners want. Ever hear of the theory of supply and demand? Without buyers there would be no market.
Oh, in case you did not notice, the best gun salesmen of all time is not the NRA, it is Barrack Hussein Obama. Since his reelection, he has sold over 5 million guns. He has had some help though, Mario Cuomo, Feinstein and Linsky.
messed up a sentence there, manufacturers in turn produce what gun owners want. Sorry about that.
Well, I've got guests from out of town so I'll just say two things. First, Attaturk vs. Historyisjustthat...Attaturk wins. Second, after all is said and done, History wants an armed citizenry so that, in case the democratic process doesn't go his way, he and his friends can accomplish their goals with military grade hardware and the level of violence that allows. It's not about burglars. It's not about hunting. It's about a new breed of Lee Harvy Oswalds and it is disgusting. OR, he's just a shill for gunmanufacturers. Disgusting either way.
mature response. go back to your guests.
Huh! Sanity check here please!
The poor, poor gun owners. I lay awake at night worrying about their rights.