More on That Joyce Study

Here’s a quick analysis of something mentioned in that Joyce study that SayUncle linked to.

According to the study, cities with the lowest levels of in-state gun trafficking were Santa Ana, CA; Camden and Newark, NJ; New York, NY; and Boston, MA. Each of these cities was in a state that regulates private sales of handguns, four had strong gun dealer oversight and four had discretionary handgun purchase licensing systems. Cities with the highest levels of in-state gun trafficking were Gary, IN; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; and Indianapolis, IN. None of these cities had any of the gun sales accountability measures examined in the study.

Funny, because if you look at the average violent crime rate for the cities mentioned that have the least gun trafficking, it’s 1083 per 100,000.   If you look at the cities mentioned that have the most gun trafficking, it’s 884 per 100,000.  So it would seem if your city has more gun trafficking, it’s actually safer.

What good are passing these dumb laws if they don’t actually reduce crime?

16 thoughts on “More on That Joyce Study”

  1. The intent of the Joyce Foundation and their proxies is not to reduce crime, but to reduce Liberty. I don’t think they’re trying to hide this agenda, we’re just trying to find a rational explanation to that horrifically irrational mentality which is called Socialism.

  2. What good are passing these dumb laws if they don’t actually reduce crime?

    Think of all the additional crimes that would happen if they didn’t keep their cities safe with strict gun control! Just like all the jobs we wouldn’t have saved if we didn’t have all these stimulus packages passed that no one had the time to read!

    Wow, acting like a statist is so easy it’s scary!

  3. Define “in-state gun trafficking”.
    Is it straw purchases?
    Is it private sales?
    What is it? Without defining your terms for everyone to understand and agree on, your study is moot, and your arguement is meaningless.

  4. Well then. We must mandate more gun traffiking to enhance safety.

    I think mandatory open carry would be a good start. Phobics and conscientious objectors may apply for an NOC permit ( permit to not open carry ).

    NOC holders should be made to pay for the lack of safety their decision causes, however. Maybe a 5% sales tax surcharge for not carrying.

  5. Using the same vague BATFE trace data that the gun banners like to use (when it suits their needs):

    The #1 source state for crime guns traced in Massachusetts is….Massachusetts.

    How come they never report it from that angle?

    Gee, I wonder.

  6. You fellows have a very bad attitude, and I agree with it whole-heartedly.

    As much as I admire the efforts of those who turn these statistical assaults on their originators, I feel we lose a little every time liberty is reduced to cost/benefit analysis.

    Should a million souls perish in a year due to others’ misuse of their freedom, that would be no argument for depriving me of mine. I do not question its source. The Creator must have had something in mind.

  7. I don’t think the fact that it’s funded by the Joyce people necessarily means its conclusion is false. Some people think they’re so witty by comparing it to the tobacco industry funding a study showing cigarettes are good for you, but it’s not a good comparison. This is Johns Hopkins we’re talking about.

    I think the article explained very clearly what they mean by trafficking. The key is to differentiate between in-state and out-of-state. In other words, Phoenix gun shops are not only supplying Arizona criminals but also those in New York and New Jersey.

  8. It means that its conclusion is inherently biased MikeB and you know it.

    But of course you believe that the NRA forced the BATFE to include their disclaimer that Trace Data alone cannot be used for statistical analysis.

  9. I didn’t say the conclusion is false, just that their cities with the most gun trafficking are safer on average than the cities with the lowest amount of gun trafficking. I haven’t read the study to have much of an informed opinion on it yet, but if it’s using trace data, it’s likely flawed, as trace data is not a measure of trafficking rates. Even ATF only uses trace data to look for patterns, which is different than measuring magnitude.

    If you think about the problem, it’s really quite impossible to get an accurate measure of an illegal market. Even for drugs we only really have very rough ideas of the size and magnitude of the market, and rough ideas where drugs are coming from. And the government dumps a hell of a lot more money into studying that than it does the black market in guns.

  10. I read the post and came to a different but I think more reasonable conclusion.

    If you NEED your gun at home, you are less likely to sell it.

    More violence equates to less trafficking because folks in those violent places want to keep their guns….

  11. The source of funding must always be taken into account for any study, just as the identity of the individual doing the studying must be taken into account as well. It is not exactly like an organization/company/corporation will pay for a statistical determination that makes them look bad or something…

    The only way to ensure an objective and unbiased study is to make use of researchers and funding that are both dispassionate and separated from the subject at hand, or at least one that is not attempting to impose their own restrictions/requirements/rules on the situation.

    Obviously, this is impossible with an organization as bound up in the gun-control agenda as Joyce Et Al.

  12. You know it’s not actually fair to site facts when you are refuting a study. I mean think about all those people at the Joyce Foundation who you make look like utter idiots when you do that. Don’t you know that if you keep that up some of them may end up shooting themselves creating a new reason for all us to not own handguns? I can see it now: “Extremist Gun Right Bloggers increase suicide rates among common sense gun regulation study groups.”

    I can see Eric Holder already holding his press conference……LOL!

  13. Where is one supposed to find unbiased academic studies? Was the work of Prof. Kleck unbiased? What about Dr. Lott, did he produce anything?

    My question is, aren’t these studies always biased?

  14. There’s no problem if a particular study is biased. I have little doubt that many researchers research a topic due to a bias they have. The problem is when the conclusions are biased.

Comments are closed.