"Gun homicides didn’t decline 49 percent over the last 12 years -- rather, they declined precipitously over six years in the 1990s, then have remained basically stagnant for the past decade or so.
Why is this important? Because the decline, to a large degree, has to do with a specific reason -- the end of the crack epidemic."
If you look at the graphs, there was a sharp decline from 1993 to 1999, then it has been pretty flat since 1999/2000 with small increases/decreases in some areas.
Unless the graphs for mitigating factors show a similar (or mirror) shape, then it is unlikely the reasons cited are valid.
The lead crime hypothesis has some pretty compelling evidence, including a consistent time-lag for the effect that fits crime rates in a variety of countries and states as legislation went into effect: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis
That decline correlates perfectly to the huge increase in gun ownership in 1992-94, as gun purchases got a huge boost in advance of the onset of the Brady Bill and the "assault weapons" ban.
I'd want to look at which states went shall issue during that period, or in which did the perception that people were legally carrying a lot changed. It would be past the first burst after Florida did it in 1986 and the "blood in the streets!" and "Dodge City!" predictions failed to come true.
8 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 25.9 ms ] thread"Gun homicides didn’t decline 49 percent over the last 12 years -- rather, they declined precipitously over six years in the 1990s, then have remained basically stagnant for the past decade or so.
Why is this important? Because the decline, to a large degree, has to do with a specific reason -- the end of the crack epidemic."
Unless the graphs for mitigating factors show a similar (or mirror) shape, then it is unlikely the reasons cited are valid.
Not that any but a 1st half of the 20th Century progressive would be happy with the possible mechanism you mention.