The pro-gun folks seem to think their predictions are all coming true.
Yet, they just cannot explain this.
What's your opinion? Is it possible that overall violent crime has declined due to the many factors that play a part in that complex dynamic and it would have declined still further if not for the tremendous availability of guns?
Please leave a comment.
I suppose it would be silly to look at demographic and socio-economic differences between states with low "gun death" rates, and those with high rates.
ReplyDeleteNah--must be the guns (indulgent chuckle).
So basically the FBI just backed up John Lott. Are you going to call them liars too?
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part:
“No matter how gun prohibitionists try to spin this,” said Gottlieb, “the bottom line is that they have been consistently and demonstrably wrong, and they know it. On the other hand, gun rights organizations have been consistently right when we argued that increased gun ownership would not lead to higher crime rates, and might even have a deterrent effect.”
Thanks for posting this wonderful story.
CNS News??? WTF! It must be the net equivalent of Fox.
ReplyDeleteIt is darkly humorous to note that the Gunnutz actually believe that the rise in gun ownership will equate to lower violent crime.
But then, they 'believe' lots of stupid stuff.
I suppose it would be silly to look at demographic and socio-economic differences between states with low "gun death" rates, and those with high rates.
ReplyDeleteBazinga!
Mud:
ReplyDeleteCNS News??? WTF! It must be the net equivalent of Fox.
If the facts, as presented by CNS News, are too "right wing" for you, perhaps you would be happier with the same facts, presented by the FBI. Or do we have to try to talk Mother Jones into doing an article about the clear trend of declining violent crime in the U.S.?
Ahh, I love data to play with. Using the FBI's numbers, I compared state data on violent crime, gun ownership rates, and murders by firearm.
ReplyDeleteFor non-stats people, a 1 indicates a perfect correlation, and 0 indicates no correlation at all. Negative indicates that as one rate increases, the other decreases.
Violent crime vs. gun ownership showed a negative correlation, although it's heavily skewed by D.C. If you remove D.C., it still a correlation, but somewhat weaker.
(-.28 with DC included, -.10 without).
Violent crime vs. Gun ownership shows a no correlation (.05) (sorry Mike and fans).
And as a 'well duh', violent crime vs. murder rates relates at a moderate .35
MikeB: “The pro-gun folks seem to think their predictions are all coming true.
ReplyDeleteYet, they just cannot explain this.”
What do you mean by “they can not explain this”? In the link to your post there was an epic 1400 word three part essay by an anonymous poster (I am sure it wasn’t Mike W) which “explained” this exactly. You can offer a point by point rebuttal if you wish, but don’t just say “they cannot explain this”. To sum it up in a one-liner; all you are saying is “guns are the leading cause of gun related deaths”.
I’ll point out that the linked article sites 14 million total gun sales for 2009 via the NICS, but that includes transfers of used guns. I would be interested to know how many additional guns entered the market- but I am also sure there would be a direct correlation between gun transfers and new gun sales given the large sample size.
ReplyDeleteAs usual the anti-gunner claims that more guns = more crime is proven false by facts and reality.
ReplyDeleteDoes it ever get old being flat out wrong?
You guys are funny. When it suits your purposes, you want to look at the socio-economic differences.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one who says guns are the only factor. I think some of you say that. "More guns equals less crime," isn't that the mantra?
What I say is guns are a major factor along with a dozen other things, but not one of those other factors is as tangible and as easily restricted. We already have plenty of programs dealing, however poorly, with poverty and education and substance abuse. It's time for proper gun control.
The declining violence, if that really is happening, would be declining faster if not for the obscene availability of guns.
Except that when and where that has been tried, violence increases. Sure, "gun violence" goes down, but violence in general doesn't.
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWhat I say is guns are a major factor along with a dozen other things, but not one of those other factors is as tangible and as easily restricted.
Well, if guns are so "easily restricted," why has your side failed to come close to restricting them enough to make you happy--aren't you always whining about how hard it is to pass new anti-liberty outrages in the U.S.?
Do you see it getting any easier any time soon? Do you think we're backing down? Do recent political trends indicate to you that support for gun rights is collapsing?
Some of us are just beginning to fight. Got the stomach to take us on? Let's dance, then, Cupcake.
Yeah, your side certainly is not backing down. And shame on you for it. The country would be a totally different place if not for that 5 to 4 balance you've enjoyed on the Supreme court recently. When that changes, sensible and enforceable gun laws will be established, aimed primarily at 10% I'm always talking about. The rest of you will carry on with your gun fetishes as before, but because the worst among you will be most effected, gun flow into the criminal world will begin to slow up. Things will seriously improve then and everyone will be happy.
ReplyDeleteNo, MikeB, you and your ilk will never be happy. Let's assume for the moment that you're right, and what you just described, happened. There would still be people who commit murder, and horror of horrors, there will still be people that do it with guns. And you'd continue to tout your .00001% theory and push for more gun control.
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWhen that changes, sensible and enforceable gun laws will be established, aimed primarily at 10% I'm always talking about. The rest of you will carry on with your gun fetishes as before, but because the worst among you will be most effected, gun flow into the criminal world will begin to slow up. Things will seriously improve then and everyone will be happy.
Hey! Maybe I'm finally starting to figure out your wacky sense of humor--another of your "jokes," right? I think I get it--good for a chuckle.
Mike: “The declining violence, if that really is happening, would be declining faster if not for the obscene availability of guns.”
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, you’ll never admit you’re wrong. No matter how good things are- “it’d be better with more gun control”. No matter how bad things are- “It’d be worse without gun control”.
TS:
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, you’ll never admit you’re wrong. No matter how good things are- “it’d be better with more gun control”. No matter how bad things are- “It’d be worse without gun control”.
Bingo!!!
The forcible citizen disarmament lobby's "argument," in a shell of nuts.
One thing I've always wondered about the forcible citizen disarmament pushers is if it bothers them that their agenda is served by--depends on, really--a lot of violence and death. We liberty advocates, on the other hand, benefit when violent crime drops (meaning pretty much all the time, for the past few years), because the evening news can't find enough grim incidents to scare Suzie Soccer Mom into getting on board with the forcible citizen disarmament agenda.
ReplyDeleteThat's clearly a big reason that support for restrictive gun laws has steadily fallen (along with violent crime rates), from the peak in the late 80's/early 90's (the other reason, I surmise, being the advent of the internet, and the resulting explosion of information now available to anyone interested--information is the bane of the "gun control" agenda).
In that their agenda depends on death, the anti-liberty folks are kinda vulture-like, aren't they?
I'm afraid you've got it exactly backwards about the internet, Zorro.
ReplyDeleteOne of the big myths of the pro-gun crowd is the frequency and number of DGUs. Yet, among you guys who comment here regularly and the other dozen or so gun sites I read and all their commenters, we're talking about 100 guys let's say, you know how many first hand DGU reports we've had over the last year or so? Only one from Caleb. You remember his coffee story, right?
You know how many second hand DGU stories we've seen over the last year. Not a one that I remember. Now, that's very significant because you've got to figure each of those 100 guys knows a lot of gun owners and if any one of them had a good story to tell, our guy would have relayed it.
So, you see, the internet is the bane of the pro-gun agenda which is largely based on lies and exaggerations.
Before the advent of the internet, few people would likely have been aware of liberal (and respected) scholar Laurence H. Tribe coming around to the realization that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the individual citizen's right to own firearms, likewise Sanford Levinson, Akhil Reed Amar, and Benjamin Wittes, who is so troubled by this realization that the Second Amendment means what it says that he wants to repeal it. Tribe, by the way, is also quite open about his unhappiness with the realization:
ReplyDelete“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
I commend them for their intellectual honesty, even if I find their "Eww, icky guns!" attitudes annoying and contemptible.
The internet allows rights advocates to marshal the growing body of pro-rights scholarship, and to incorporate it into our arguments.
I don't base my arguments on stats and "greater good" calculations (although such arguments are often made quite well)--I base them on rights, which are, in the end, the real issue here.
Here's how my side has benefited from the dramatically increased availability of information (specifically, the large and growing body of scholarly research that has won the debate about what the Second Amendment guarantees). Even Helmke had to admit it:
ReplyDelete"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right."
I guess three out of four people noticed that the Second Amendment does not say anything about it being the "state's power to arm militias" that shall not be infringed. Does the truth hurt, Paul?