According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
It's so often repeated that it's gaining credibility, at least among the biased gun-rights fanatics who don't mind a bit of mendacity as long as it supports their pre-conceived notions. Firearms crime has decreased while gun ownership has increased. In order to make this comparison really work for their argument do you see what they did? They went back 18 years in order to maximize the decline in murders and suicides, even admitting that "The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame."
The major increase in gun ownership, as everyone knows, began a mere 6 years ago with the advent of the first black president. To me, that's blatant dishonesty.
I suppose in an attempt to deliver the old one-two punch to their adversaries' argument, they went on to cite one of the most misleading studies ever, over 40% of criminals obtained guns from other criminals.
As I've explained before, "other criminals" is not one of the major sources of guns used in crime.
First we need to identify the ways in which they currently do come into possession of weapons. We'll eliminate one common fallacy right away, that criminals get guns from other criminals. This may be true as far as it goes, but it doesn't help us in our analysis. We're interested in the original source of guns that are used in crime. If, for example, a gun is stolen during a burglary and passed from criminal to criminal before being used in a murder, that gun came from "Theft," which is one of our main categories.
The question that keeps arising is this: if gun-rights folks have "right" on their side, why do they so often resort to dishonest means to make their points? The answer to me is obvious. They do not have "right" on their side. They are dead wrong and they know it.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mike why don't you post the link so every one can see the HOLE story, and see what side is really telling the lies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
ReplyDeleteThe link is up there. Are you denying the lies I pointed out?
DeleteAre you denying the lies I pointed out?
DeleteI'm still looking for these "lies." Noting that violent crime has declined over the last two decades isn't a "lie," just because the decline was less precipitous in the second decade than in the first.
And attributing the soaring gun market to the "first black president"? You are as racially-obsessed as anyone I have ever had the misfortune of encountering. Enjoy your racial hate.
Kurt, you're playing dumb and it's not very convincing. The first lie is that crime is going down [BECAUSE] gun ownership is going up. The second lie is that criminals getting guns from other criminals is a legitimate source of guns used in crime. It's not.
DeleteThe lie is you saying that's what the article said. The decrease in violent crime and increase in gun ownership and carry are concurrent events. Most of us here who argue for gun rights don't claim that the two events are in a cause-and-effect relationship. They may be, but that's more than the data support. What we can say for a certainty is that the claim of gun control advocates is wrong. More guns does not necessarily mean more crime.
DeleteAlso Mike "40% of criminals obtained guns from other criminals." How is that not a major source of "guns used in crime."?
ReplyDeleteDidn't you see my explanation? I understand why you want to deceive yourself about the true source of guns used in crime. But that doesn't make it true.
DeleteMike, I've tried to make that point also, and was told thar correlation doesnt equal causation. Related to that is that some studies have shown that the percentage of households with firearms has been steadily dropping. So while we might be able to claim that one has caused the other, we dont really know.
ReplyDeleteAm I hearing correctly that you're questioning or finding fault with a government funded study on gun crime? I seem to recall not too long ago that you and Laci were quite excited and hopeful that the President had removed the congressional restrictions of the CDC doing studies on gun violence. Can you explain what seems to be a contradiction here? Other than you not agreeing with their conclusions.
Thanks for pointing out the correlation/causation thing. I didn't mention it but it's a basic mistruth in a lot of these stories.
DeleteI'm not finding fault with any study. My complaint is with the interpretation. It's misleading, at best, to talk about a decrease in gun crime which pre-dated the increase in gun ownership, as if one has something to do with the other. But, as you rightly said, it's a correlation/causation thing anyway.
Mike,
DeleteThe biggest spike has happened in the past few years, but the beginning of it predated Obama becoming the Democratic candidate. I had been picking up parts every so often and building my current varmint hunting AR during W's second term. I had to hurry up and get the parts as the prices started to climb once Hilary threw her hat in the ring. Nobody really had Obama on their radar at that point (except some of Alan Keys' followers).
The post election part of the spike had nothing to do with his being black, but everything to do with his being a Democrat (moreover, one from Chicago), having a history of supporting gun control, and the super-majority that the Democrats won in that election.
As for the first part of the period, it's dishonest for you to act like there was no increase in gun ownership during the first 12 years. Yes, it wasn't as large, but it was significant. Stores weren't hurting for revenue, and they kept turning over their inventory. The sheer number of AWB period firearms on the market shows how many guns of that type alone were bought after that law was passed (some in reaction against the law). Pre-ban guns are still rare on the market, and "assault weapons" manufactured after the sunset in 2004 are only now starting to be as common at Gun Shows in my area as the ones manufactured during the ban.
And yes, this only shows correlation, not causation. However, your side claimed, and continues to claim, that more guns lead to more crime--a claim that this period shows to be false.
"other criminals" is not one of the major sources of guns used in crime."
ReplyDeleteYou like to keep saying that all guns begin with being owned by lawful gun owners. So at what point in a gun's life does the owner stop bearing a responsibility for it? You seem to suggest that if a burglar breaks into a house and steals a gun that they are, in some part, responsible for the criminal getting the gun. Isnt this sort of like blaming the victim? This could make for some interesting logic in using deadly force against a burglar, not counting the castle doctrine. Or as Laci put it not long ago, extra-judicial execution. Saddling the owner of a firearm with responsibility for crimes committed after being stolen could suggest that it might even be mandatory to stop this theft, with deadly force if necessary, to protect the public from possible harm. It could also be argued that a straw purchase or lying on a background check form, fraud I think it would be called. You have said just recently that you consider it to be a simple paperwork crime if the sale doesnt go through. But it could potentially be just as serious as that burglar stealing a gun from a house.
Or, we could stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs, on the person who is taking overt action to unlawfully aquire these weapons. In the cases of theft, its called initiation of force.
It's definitely not blaming the victim if he failed to secure his guns properly and they got stolen. It's not blaming the victim if he sold his guns to someone without a background check and the buyer turned out to be a criminal. No.
DeleteSo tell me Mike in what way would it help maybe the seller knew the buyer should not own a gun, if that was the case do you really think a back round check would matter? You also left out the part where they say as gun sales go up crime goes down.
DeleteYou brag about finding lies, then fail to show any. While Obama has been great for gun sales, gun ownership is on the rise for more reasons than just one. 9/11, for example, created a renewed interest.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can't get around the fact that while the rates of gun crimes have gone down, the rate of ownership has gone up. That shouldn't be possible if you're beliefs were correct.
Regarding your insistence that all guns came from law-abiding gun owners, you neglect the possibility that it's been decades since a particular firearm was purchased from the manufacturer originally. Guns last a long time.
But hey, your "explanation" must be better than what the Department of Justice says. After all, the DOJ also claims that the number of defensive gun uses in a year is into six figures. Nothing the DOJ says fits your narrative, so it must be wrong.
Ahh thank you said that much better then I did. I have gave Mike the FBI links showing gun sales going up as gun crime goes down. He claims they're wrong however.
DeleteGun sales go up, but fewer Americans own, or bought a gun. What does that tell you?
ReplyDeleteIn order to make this comparison really work for their argument do you see what they did? They went back 18 years in order to maximize the decline in murders and suicides, even admitting that "The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame."
ReplyDeleteThe major increase in gun ownership, as everyone knows, began a mere 6 years ago with [Mikeb's typical, tedious race card-laying bullshit].
I'll tell you what, Mikeb. How about we fudge the stats, but in your favor. We correlate the "gun violence" stats over the last eight years, when the decline has been more gradual than before, with the increased gun sales of the first eight (or however many you want), before Obama "stimulated" the gun industry.
Is there not still both a decrease in "gun violence," and an increase in gun sales? Then how could Forbes' chosen time span, and the conclusions drawn, be in any way "dishonest"?
I was a bit surprised you didn't address this part of the article:
Those attendees weren’t all guys either…not by a long shot. Last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that participation by women increased both in target shooting (46.5%) and hunting (36.6%) over the past decade. Also, 61% of firearm retailers responding to a NSSF survey reported an increase in female customers. A 2009 NSSF survey indicated that the number of women purchasing guns for personal defense increased a whopping 83 percent.
Haven't figured out a way to call that a "lie" yet, even with the amazingly low standards of plausibility you apply to claims you want to make?
Mike, why do you call it "blatant dishonesty" and a "lie" when you also claim that they "admitted" the part that doesn't make the point as strong. That is actually the exact opposite of dishonesty. They showed DOJ stats (those weren't a lie, right?) and expressly pointed out that the biggest decrease in crime was not during the biggest increase in guns- not hiding anything. Um, so where is the lie?
ReplyDeleteThey also took the data from the peak in 1993, a completely acceptable place to start. Compare that to your Kennesaw post where your started the data 17 years after the law went into effect so you could blame the law on a slight uptick that happened at that time period. That is a much better case of dishonesty.
So Mike, what would be a honest way to talk about guns and crime trends over the last 20 years? If you are going to call this a lie, what way can we address it without making you look bad?
ReplyDelete