In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.
As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
"We're happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win," said Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry Inc., a pro-gun-rights advocacy group.
But other state and national data suggests a more nuanced picture of gun violence.
Florida statistics show murderers are increasingly using firearms. Between 2000 and 2005, Florida's firearm-involved murder rate never topped 3.5 per 100,000 residents. Every year since, it has exceeded that number. And in 2011, for the first time on record, guns were used in more than 70 percent of homicides.
Mirroring the 33 percent decline in gun violence since 2007, the violent crime rate also dropped 26 percent during that time, which could suggest other factors at play in causing fewer criminal acts.This article was linked on my facebook account by one of the most ignorant and biased gun-rights fanatics out there. He/she offered it as "proof" that more guns means less crime. I guess the part about "a more nuanced picture" and the part about "other factors at play" went unnoticed.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The article states that violent crime is down, and even gun crime is down. The only thing that has increased is the percentage of murders committed with guns.
ReplyDeleteSo most of the murderers use guns rather than knives or clubs? What's your point? Violence is still in decline. Whether it's because of the gun permits or other factors doesn't matter. You claim that more guns will mean more violence, but this article contradicts that.
My point is that since an increasing percentage of murders are being committed with guns, it stands to reason the increase in gun ownership is fueling that. The diminsihing numbers of violence in general and gun violence specifically is attributed to many factors, but when the gun murders go up, it's fair to blame guns (or gun availability).
DeleteWhat do these number tell us? The gun crime rate is going down, the murder rate is going down, and the rate of knife and club killings are going down faster than the number of gun killings, leading to a larger percentage representation of guns in the murder stats.
DeleteThe fact that you would twist these statistics to argue for gun control shows why I usually avoid commenting here when statistics are involved. You and Dog Gone have made an art of torturing numbers to fit your narrative. Perfect examples of liars using statistics.
If I were you, I'd drop this line of argument--it just makes you look more like a dishonest fraud.
Mikeb, it may be interesting from a perspective of criminology as to what methods murderers use, in terms of public utility, a decline in the rate of murder is what matters.
DeleteYou say that's what matters, but does it really? Isn't it conceivable that if gun ownership had gone down, the overall murders would have gone down even more?
DeleteNot on the basis of the evidence. The rate of homicide has gone down across the country. Homicides occur at a higher rate in densely populated areas. There's no correlation between homicide rates and gun laws. You were shown that fact earlier, but you rejected it.
DeleteHomicides occur independent of the methods available. What the evidence here shows is that murderers will do their deeds with whatever is at hand. Since you can't show that there is a strong link between the rate of murders from all kinds and the rate of gun ownership, your argument for limiting our rights fails.
Is it conceivable? Sure. But it's also conceivable that if there had been MORE guns and permits in FL over this time, the crime rate and murder rate would have gone down even more.
DeleteBoth are conceivable, and neither one is PROVABLE, so your question and theory don't matter when debating policy. What does matter is that before these laws were put in place, your side said "There will be blood in the streets! Shootouts! Increases in crime." We ignored you, and lo and behold, your predictions didn't come true.
Whether guns caused the decline or not, they obviously didn't result in the horrible violence you predicted. There's nothing to support restricting rights further as you wish to.
Well it all depends on your definition of "blood in the streets." I believe guns are responsible for exactly that. You just have a higher threshhold for pain when your precious fetish items are being blamed.
DeleteYour blood in the streets arguments were that we'd see a spike in crime. It hasn't materialized. The opposite has, and even if guns didn't cause the decline, they certainly didn't cause your prophesied spike.
DeleteNow, you're changing the standards by which we judge the issue so that you can claim you were right.
Weak sauce.
And typically, you completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how a murder or other violent crime is done. The fact is that all violent crime is down. Regardless of why that is, the total rate and the specific rate of homicide are on the decline. You want to get worked up over the fact that guns take a larger share of the murders committed, but when the total murders are fewer and fewer, the method becomes less important.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd figure out how to analyze data, you'd understand this.
Mike - which scenario would you rather have:
ReplyDeleteA - 0% gun ownership with 20 murders/100,000 people none of which are comitted by guns
or
B - 75% gun ownership with 5 murders/100,000 people all of which are committed by guns
Mike, didn’t you just tell me that using “gun murders” is deceptive?
ReplyDeleteYep, here it is. Only eight days ago. That didn’t take long.
Mike (3/14/2013): “By the way, I agree with you totally that limiting the analysis to gun murders is deceptive.”
This is a different argument, TS. Your comment is a pitiful attempt at a gotcha but it failed.
DeleteHow so? Murders are down, but you are saying gun murders are what counts.
DeleteI'm not saying that. I'm saying that since the percentage of murders committed with guns has increased while the gun ownership has increased, there's an obvious connection.
DeleteThe other thing which agreed with you about was a total deception. It said where there are more guns there are more gun murders. I agreed that's meaningless.
But even in this case, there are MORE guns and LESS gun violence, and you are on about the percentage used.
DeleteBut Mikeb, if the rate is on the decline, making big changes isn't the right thing to do.
DeleteHe just wants rid of the icky, scary guns, and is willing to use any argument it takes. Poor, pitiful, dishonest man.
Delete