New gun study

[Brain357]

Cato are obviously pro gun hacks. I have debunked them many times, they can't be taken seriously.

Brain....pointing your finger at Cato and yelling "I Debunk Thee!!!!!" Is not debunking them.

I have gone into detail many times with you about how ridiculous they are. They don't seek the truth. They seek ways to push the gun lobby.

You should re read their study...well..all the studies, then look at the FBI and CDC numbers which show that gun murder rates are declining as well as gun accident rates as well as gun accidental death rates....all as more than 11.1 million people own and carry guns for self defense, with over 90 million homes with guns in them.

If you want to cut down on gun violence even more.....arrest criminals...then you can leave law abiding gun owners alone....

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

And if no guns equal less crime the countries with extreme gun control would have less gun murders than we do...and that isn't the case....we only rank 90 or so in the gun murder rate in the world...

And don't tell me those are 3rd world countries.....you guys say that gun control will reduce gun murder.....and if that is true then these 3rd world countries with absolute gun control should have almost 0 gun crimes...and they don't.....

There are many countries with fewer guns and less crime than us. The countries we should be compared to...

 

[2aguy]

And there are countries with absolute gun control with higher gun murder rates than we have.....

And no...gun ownership has gone up....reporting gun ownership has gone down......

Yes I don't think ownership effects crime rates.

Sure you are back in fantasyland again. Ownership is up, but the gun range industry is down. All the facts point to it being down.

Sorry....you can't show that.....and the fact that there are many gun ranges that can't get a licesne to open because of gun grabbers preventing them from opening shows how unreliable your point is.....

If it's hard to start new ranges the existing ones would be packed and doing lots of business. They are not however as business is declining.

Sorry....they are seeing increases in use and more variety of shooter as more and more women take up shooting and more minorities are heading to the ranges.....

If that were true the ranges would be doing well. Again, business is down. Stop making shit up.

Blow it out your ass moron.......

 

[2aguy]

Brain....pointing your finger at Cato and yelling "I Debunk Thee!!!!!" Is not debunking them.

I have gone into detail many times with you about how ridiculous they are. They don't seek the truth. They seek ways to push the gun lobby.

You should re read their study...well..all the studies, then look at the FBI and CDC numbers which show that gun murder rates are declining as well as gun accident rates as well as gun accidental death rates....all as more than 11.1 million people own and carry guns for self defense, with over 90 million homes with guns in them.

If you want to cut down on gun violence even more.....arrest criminals...then you can leave law abiding gun owners alone....

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

And if no guns equal less crime the countries with extreme gun control would have less gun murders than we do...and that isn't the case....we only rank 90 or so in the gun murder rate in the world...

And don't tell me those are 3rd world countries.....you guys say that gun control will reduce gun murder.....and if that is true then these 3rd world countries with absolute gun control should have almost 0 gun crimes...and they don't.....

There are many countries with fewer fewer guns and less crime than us. The countries we should be compared to...

Yeah...because you don't want us compared to the countries that have extreme gun control and way higher gun murder rates than us.......those are the countries that show how full of crap the anti gun theories are.....

 

[Brain357]

I have gone into detail many times with you about how ridiculous they are. They don't seek the truth. They seek ways to push the gun lobby.

You should re read their study...well..all the studies, then look at the FBI and CDC numbers which show that gun murder rates are declining as well as gun accident rates as well as gun accidental death rates....all as more than 11.1 million people own and carry guns for self defense, with over 90 million homes with guns in them.

If you want to cut down on gun violence even more.....arrest criminals...then you can leave law abiding gun owners alone....

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

We have less and less gun crime....as more Americans are armed.....and our violence is like the gun violence in Europe and Australia, confined to very small geographic locations...while the rest of the country is relatively crime free.....and those places with the most gun crime....are cities with highly restrictive gun control....Chicago, Baltimore, D.C.....and coming soon to New York now that they stopped stop and frisk......

Studies like this one have shown crime rates are not effected by an increase in ownership.

And there are 29 studies I have linked to in the past....18 said guns do reduce crime, 10 said they do not effect crime and 1 said it increases crime..............

Yes 18 by Lott who can't even produce his surveys. He is a joke.

 

[Brain357]

I have gone into detail many times with you about how ridiculous they are. They don't seek the truth. They seek ways to push the gun lobby.

You should re read their study...well..all the studies, then look at the FBI and CDC numbers which show that gun murder rates are declining as well as gun accident rates as well as gun accidental death rates....all as more than 11.1 million people own and carry guns for self defense, with over 90 million homes with guns in them.

If you want to cut down on gun violence even more.....arrest criminals...then you can leave law abiding gun owners alone....

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

And if no guns equal less crime the countries with extreme gun control would have less gun murders than we do...and that isn't the case....we only rank 90 or so in the gun murder rate in the world...

And don't tell me those are 3rd world countries.....you guys say that gun control will reduce gun murder.....and if that is true then these 3rd world countries with absolute gun control should have almost 0 gun crimes...and they don't.....

There are many countries with fewer fewer guns and less crime than us. The countries we should be compared to...

Yeah...because you don't want us compared to the countries that have extreme gun control and way higher gun murder rates than us.......those are the countries that show how full of crap the anti gun theories are.....

Yes you need to use 3rd world countries without stable governments or economies. Proves your arguments are weak.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I don't think ownership effects crime rates.

Sure you are back in fantasyland again. Ownership is up, but the gun range industry is down. All the facts point to it being down.

Sorry....you can't show that.....and the fact that there are many gun ranges that can't get a licesne to open because of gun grabbers preventing them from opening shows how unreliable your point is.....

If it's hard to start new ranges the existing ones would be packed and doing lots of business. They are not however as business is declining.

Sorry....they are seeing increases in use and more variety of shooter as more and more women take up shooting and more minorities are heading to the ranges.....

If that were true the ranges would be doing well. Again, business is down. Stop making shit up.

Blow it out your ass moron.......

You are the one in fantasyland.

 

[August West]

This is the abstract from the research. It seems pretty straightforward to me. They used statistics about events of firearm violence and rates of gun ownership in different regiions of the US. The areas with more gun ownership had higher levels of gun violence.

Why do you doubt what is fact supported by empirical evidence? I suspect the only reason you doubt it is that you don't want to accept it: very logical indeed.

Do the extra guns cause the extra crime, or do law abiding citizens own more guns because they live in areas with high crime?

You could look at Chicago during the period when legal gun ownership was outlawed.
Did the anti-gun legislation reduce gun crime or non-gun crime. Not so much.

They found that gun ownership increased before crime. I think this study does more to show more guns does not equal less crime, than more guns equals more crime.

Pinpointing causation

The results do need to be interpreted with caution — this study method proves that more guns are linked to more gun crime and overall homicide, but not that access to guns directly causes this criminal uptick, said study researcher David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

"This study suggests that it's really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes," Hemenway told Live Science.

It's possible that people stockpile guns in response to higher levels of crime. The researchers tried to tease out whether this was the case by testing whether gun ownership levels were a prerequisite for crime or a response to higher crime levels. Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around.

"It's difficult to imagine how the hypothesis that increased ownership reduces criminal behavior could be valid, given our findings," Monuteaux said.

Except they intentionally restricted the crime parameters. Not all violent crime...just the small subset that gives them the result they wanted.

How do I know?

Because there are many more guns, and much fewer violent crimes across the board.

And when we look at the smallest gun ownership per capita states:

And then look at the Homicide Rate:

​

And then compare to Homicide By Firearm:

​

You see that states like Maryland, California and Illinois have low firearm ownership rates and higher murder rates and higher murder rates by firearms...whereas West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana have very high firearm ownership and low murder rates with even lower murder rates by firearms.

Pretty much blows the whole "by state" statistical model to smithereens.

But what we do know without doubt is Gun Ownership is on the increase, and Violent Crime is on the decrease nationwide.

As conceal carry increased, and the population increased by 50 million people, all violent crime decreased...and in many categories the decrease has been almost 50%.

The graph won't fit the page...here is a thumbnail
of the FBI Graph:

View attachment 44043 ​

Increased Conceal Carry:

​

These too are correlations...but pretty darned convincing correlations that More Guns = Less Crime.

Crime has been trending down since long before concealed carry started trending up.

Not really, they both went hand in hand...and to that point..concealed carry has been increasing...to over 11.1 million today...and the gun murder rate is going down.....so again, that study is crap...anything with hemenway attached to it is crap...

Indeed the gun murder rate is going down because there are less homes with guns in them. Chickenshits like Biff and Bubba who are too afraid to leave their homes without a gun are having zero effect on the murder rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

 

[2aguy]

Do the extra guns cause the extra crime, or do law abiding citizens own more guns because they live in areas with high crime?

You could look at Chicago during the period when legal gun ownership was outlawed.
Did the anti-gun legislation reduce gun crime or non-gun crime. Not so much.

They found that gun ownership increased before crime. I think this study does more to show more guns does not equal less crime, than more guns equals more crime.

Pinpointing causation

The results do need to be interpreted with caution — this study method proves that more guns are linked to more gun crime and overall homicide, but not that access to guns directly causes this criminal uptick, said study researcher David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

"This study suggests that it's really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes," Hemenway told Live Science.

It's possible that people stockpile guns in response to higher levels of crime. The researchers tried to tease out whether this was the case by testing whether gun ownership levels were a prerequisite for crime or a response to higher crime levels. Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around.

"It's difficult to imagine how the hypothesis that increased ownership reduces criminal behavior could be valid, given our findings," Monuteaux said.

Except they intentionally restricted the crime parameters. Not all violent crime...just the small subset that gives them the result they wanted.

How do I know?

Because there are many more guns, and much fewer violent crimes across the board.

And when we look at the smallest gun ownership per capita states:

And then look at the Homicide Rate:

​

And then compare to Homicide By Firearm:

​

You see that states like Maryland, California and Illinois have low firearm ownership rates and higher murder rates and higher murder rates by firearms...whereas West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana have very high firearm ownership and low murder rates with even lower murder rates by firearms.

Pretty much blows the whole "by state" statistical model to smithereens.

But what we do know without doubt is Gun Ownership is on the increase, and Violent Crime is on the decrease nationwide.

As conceal carry increased, and the population increased by 50 million people, all violent crime decreased...and in many categories the decrease has been almost 50%.

The graph won't fit the page...here is a thumbnail
of the FBI Graph:

View attachment 44043 ​

Increased Conceal Carry:

​

These too are correlations...but pretty darned convincing correlations that More Guns = Less Crime.

Crime has been trending down since long before concealed carry started trending up.

Not really, they both went hand in hand...and to that point..concealed carry has been increasing...to over 11.1 million today...and the gun murder rate is going down.....so again, that study is crap...anything with hemenway attached to it is crap...

Indeed the gun murder rate is going down because there are less homes with guns in them. Chickenshits like Biff and Bubba who are too afraid to leave their homes without a gun are having zero effect on the murder rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

Yeah...that crap comes from the General Social Survey.....and that group is run by a gun grabber who told John Lott that he hoped his work would help encourage politicians to pass more gun control....
On top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they own guns.............done in 2012 or 2011 and you gun grabbers think that people are more likely to admit they own a gun.....now that is really stupid thinking.......

 

[2aguy]

You should re read their study...well..all the studies, then look at the FBI and CDC numbers which show that gun murder rates are declining as well as gun accident rates as well as gun accidental death rates....all as more than 11.1 million people own and carry guns for self defense, with over 90 million homes with guns in them.

If you want to cut down on gun violence even more.....arrest criminals...then you can leave law abiding gun owners alone....

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

And if no guns equal less crime the countries with extreme gun control would have less gun murders than we do...and that isn't the case....we only rank 90 or so in the gun murder rate in the world...

And don't tell me those are 3rd world countries.....you guys say that gun control will reduce gun murder.....and if that is true then these 3rd world countries with absolute gun control should have almost 0 gun crimes...and they don't.....

There are many countries with fewer fewer guns and less crime than us. The countries we should be compared to...

Yeah...because you don't want us compared to the countries that have extreme gun control and way higher gun murder rates than us.......those are the countries that show how full of crap the anti gun theories are.....

Yes you need to use 3rd world countries without stable governments or economies. Proves your arguments are weak.

No, it proves your gun control theories are crap...you guys always say if you just have more gun control...and the nuttier gun grabbers say if you just ban guns....then the gun murder rate...and the violence rate in general will be as low as in Europe....so these 3rd World Countries have extreme gun control....Like Mexico and the rest of Central and South America....and they have higher murder rates than the U.S.....

Even Puerto Rico...an Island nation, with stricter gun laws than any other territory in the U.S. without direct access to the states on the mainland where you can just drive across a border to buy a gun......their gun murder rates are the highest in the world...according to VICE t.v.......

So you guys are full of crap when it comes to the effect of gun control laws on the crime rate....culture more than anything else determines violence levels....proven again by Europe where their criminals easily get fully automatic rifles and 30 round magazines in spite of their extreme gun control.......

 

[2aguy]

You should re read their study...well..all the studies, then look at the FBI and CDC numbers which show that gun murder rates are declining as well as gun accident rates as well as gun accidental death rates....all as more than 11.1 million people own and carry guns for self defense, with over 90 million homes with guns in them.

If you want to cut down on gun violence even more.....arrest criminals...then you can leave law abiding gun owners alone....

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

We have less and less gun crime....as more Americans are armed.....and our violence is like the gun violence in Europe and Australia, confined to very small geographic locations...while the rest of the country is relatively crime free.....and those places with the most gun crime....are cities with highly restrictive gun control....Chicago, Baltimore, D.C.....and coming soon to New York now that they stopped stop and frisk......

Studies like this one have shown crime rates are not effected by an increase in ownership.

And there are 29 studies I have linked to in the past....18 said guns do reduce crime, 10 said they do not effect crime and 1 said it increases crime..............

Yes 18 by Lott who can't even produce his surveys. He is a joke.

Sorry, Lott and his partner have done 6, that leaves at least 12 that he didn't work on and then you have the other 10 that show that nothing changes with concealed carry laws......and those aren't even all the studies.........

 

[Brain357]

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

And if no guns equal less crime the countries with extreme gun control would have less gun murders than we do...and that isn't the case....we only rank 90 or so in the gun murder rate in the world...

And don't tell me those are 3rd world countries.....you guys say that gun control will reduce gun murder.....and if that is true then these 3rd world countries with absolute gun control should have almost 0 gun crimes...and they don't.....

There are many countries with fewer fewer guns and less crime than us. The countries we should be compared to...

Yeah...because you don't want us compared to the countries that have extreme gun control and way higher gun murder rates than us.......those are the countries that show how full of crap the anti gun theories are.....

Yes you need to use 3rd world countries without stable governments or economies. Proves your arguments are weak.

No, it proves your gun control theories are crap...you guys always say if you just have more gun control...and the nuttier gun grabbers say if you just ban guns....then the gun murder rate...and the violence rate in general will be as low as in Europe....so these 3rd World Countries have extreme gun control....Like Mexico and the rest of Central and South America....and they have higher murder rates than the U.S.....

Even Puerto Rico...an Island nation, with stricter gun laws than any other territory in the U.S. without direct access to the states on the mainland where you can just drive across a border to buy a gun......their gun murder rates are the highest in the world...according to VICE t.v.......

So you guys are full of crap when it comes to the effect of gun control laws on the crime rate....culture more than anything else determines violence levels....proven again by Europe where their criminals easily get fully automatic rifles and 30 round magazines in spite of their extreme gun control.......

I have repeatedly said I don't think crime is effected by gun ownership. Not sure who the you guys is.

 

[Brain357]

If more guns equals less crime we would have the least crime in the world since we have by far the most guns. Gun ownership does not effect crime rates.

We have less and less gun crime....as more Americans are armed.....and our violence is like the gun violence in Europe and Australia, confined to very small geographic locations...while the rest of the country is relatively crime free.....and those places with the most gun crime....are cities with highly restrictive gun control....Chicago, Baltimore, D.C.....and coming soon to New York now that they stopped stop and frisk......

Studies like this one have shown crime rates are not effected by an increase in ownership.

And there are 29 studies I have linked to in the past....18 said guns do reduce crime, 10 said they do not effect crime and 1 said it increases crime..............

Yes 18 by Lott who can't even produce his surveys. He is a joke.

Sorry, Lott and his partner have done 6, that leaves at least 12 that he didn't work on and then you have the other 10 that show that nothing changes with concealed carry laws......and those aren't even all the studies.........

I agree with the 10. Throw in this one in the OP.

 

[2aguy]

And here is the take down of this stupid new study with david hemenway distorting the research...again......

Evaluating new research Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S. An Ecological Study By Monuteaux Lee Hemenway Mannix Fleegler - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


But their paper (available here) isn’t testing what they claim. It isn’t testing whether increased gun ownership causes crime rates to increase. The study is far too simplistic and doesn’t include even the basic control variables that are typically included in other crime studies.

*******************


The controls that are being used in this paper can’t begin to account for the differences in crime rates. The regression estimates reported in Table 2 don’t tell what percent of the variation in crime rates are being explained by the variables used in these regressions, but I am willing to bet that it is less than 10 percent.

Yet, this paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine doesn’t account for either of these factors. It is essentially making a purely cross-sectional comparison across states. On account of that, if they had included Washington, DC in their estimates (with its high crime rates and low gun ownership), it would have dramatically altered their results.

It is easy to see how the results are reversed by just including these state fixed effects. The first estimate below corresponds to the first estimate reported in Monuteaux, Lee, Hemenway, Mannix, Fleegler’s paper. The first estimate uses regional fixed effects. The second includes state fixed effects. The gunBRFSS variable is their survey measure of gun ownership by state. In order to get at the nonlinear concern that they raise, I do want academics normally do and have both a linear and a squared version of that variable. You can see that including the state fixed effects causes their result to go from positive and insignificant to negative and significant. It seems clear that they broke the survey measurement into arbitrary fifths to help get the result that they wanted.

We used the negative binomial approach used by these authors in these estimates, but there is no truncation issues here and the data fits a weighted least squares estimate. However, just for the sake of argument we will use the approach that they want used. (Click on results below to enlarge them.)

*********************


While these “fixed effects” will pick up the average differences across places, there are other differences that won’t be accounted for. One example is they don’t account for differences in any type of law enforcement (e.g., arrest or conviction rates, death penalty, per capita number of police, percent of the population in prison). The above results include the arrest rates for aggravated assaults, but removing the arrest reduces the statistical significance for both estimates.

The authors ignore previous refereed published research on this in More Guns, Less Crime(University of Chicago Press, 2010) (see discussion here). In those estimates state level fixed effects are used to pick up the average difference in crime rates. Possibly citing this research would have forced the authors to explain why they got such difference results.

Finally, there is also the issue of whether people in high crime areas are more likely to get guns for protection. The question is whether increased gun ownership is caused by higher crime rates or the reverse.

Here are the results with weighted least squares.

Here is what happens if you use weighted least squares and a linear version of the percent of the population with guns and no state fixed effects.

 

[whitehall]

Wait a minute. Look at the link. It seems that the "study" didn't like the results of actual FBI statistics so it included some idiotic phone survey to bolster it's alleged "data" .

 

[Brain357]

And here is the take down of this stupid new study with david hemenway distorting the research...again......

Evaluating new research Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S. An Ecological Study By Monuteaux Lee Hemenway Mannix Fleegler - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


But their paper (available here) isn’t testing what they claim. It isn’t testing whether increased gun ownership causes crime rates to increase. The study is far too simplistic and doesn’t include even the basic control variables that are typically included in other crime studies.

*******************


The controls that are being used in this paper can’t begin to account for the differences in crime rates. The regression estimates reported in Table 2 don’t tell what percent of the variation in crime rates are being explained by the variables used in these regressions, but I am willing to bet that it is less than 10 percent.

Yet, this paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine doesn’t account for either of these factors. It is essentially making a purely cross-sectional comparison across states. On account of that, if they had included Washington, DC in their estimates (with its high crime rates and low gun ownership), it would have dramatically altered their results.

It is easy to see how the results are reversed by just including these state fixed effects. The first estimate below corresponds to the first estimate reported in Monuteaux, Lee, Hemenway, Mannix, Fleegler’s paper. The first estimate uses regional fixed effects. The second includes state fixed effects. The gunBRFSS variable is their survey measure of gun ownership by state. In order to get at the nonlinear concern that they raise, I do want academics normally do and have both a linear and a squared version of that variable. You can see that including the state fixed effects causes their result to go from positive and insignificant to negative and significant. It seems clear that they broke the survey measurement into arbitrary fifths to help get the result that they wanted.

We used the negative binomial approach used by these authors in these estimates, but there is no truncation issues here and the data fits a weighted least squares estimate. However, just for the sake of argument we will use the approach that they want used. (Click on results below to enlarge them.)

*********************


While these “fixed effects” will pick up the average differences across places, there are other differences that won’t be accounted for. One example is they don’t account for differences in any type of law enforcement (e.g., arrest or conviction rates, death penalty, per capita number of police, percent of the population in prison). The above results include the arrest rates for aggravated assaults, but removing the arrest reduces the statistical significance for both estimates.

The authors ignore previous refereed published research on this in More Guns, Less Crime(University of Chicago Press, 2010) (see discussion here). In those estimates state level fixed effects are used to pick up the average difference in crime rates. Possibly citing this research would have forced the authors to explain why they got such difference results.

Finally, there is also the issue of whether people in high crime areas are more likely to get guns for protection. The question is whether increased gun ownership is caused by higher crime rates or the reverse.

Here are the results with weighted least squares.

Here is what happens if you use weighted least squares and a linear version of the percent of the population with guns and no state fixed effects.

Looks like crap to me. I don't see in the paper where they claim an increase in ownership increases crime. The study shows an increase in ownership does not lower crime. That response starts with a lie. What a joke.

And they talk about lotts book. That guy uses imaginary surveys.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL @ libs that want to take our guns away so they can steal our stuff. Sorry guys, it ain't happening.

 

[Brain357]

LOL @ libs that want to take our guns away so they can steal our stuff. Sorry guys, it ain't happening.

Still scared of imaginary people? Why so much paranoia with the right wing? Can't be healthy.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL @ libs that want to take our guns away so they can steal our stuff. Sorry guys, it ain't happening.

Still scared of imaginary people? Why so much paranoia with the right wing? Can't be healthy.

Turn on the news sometime. Libs doing all kinds of shit. Stealing, raping, murdering, busting into homes, etc.

 

[Brain357]

LOL @ libs that want to take our guns away so they can steal our stuff. Sorry guys, it ain't happening.

Still scared of imaginary people? Why so much paranoia with the right wing? Can't be healthy.

Turn on the news sometime. Libs doing all kinds of shit. Stealing, raping, murdering, busting into homes, etc.

Think you are talking about criminals. Most of them don't or can't vote.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL @ libs that want to take our guns away so they can steal our stuff. Sorry guys, it ain't happening.

Still scared of imaginary people? Why so much paranoia with the right wing? Can't be healthy.

Turn on the news sometime. Libs doing all kinds of shit. Stealing, raping, murdering, busting into homes, etc.

Think you are talking about criminals. Most of them don't or can't vote.

Voting has nothing to do with it.