Yeah, I posted that too quickly. But upon further investigation, the numbers stay almost the same after 2004.
The point is you guys always talk about a decline since 1993 since that was the peak. If you look at "from 2000" comparisons, there's nothing to talk about.
The decline is still there in the rate, it's just not as pronounced. Meanwhile, as you like to point out, that was when the majority of the increase in gun ownership happened. If gun availability leads to more crime, as you state, then WHY haven't the numbers skyrocketed?
So it levels out at a time when gun ownership and carry is on the rise, once again showing that the cause of violence is something other than gun availability.
1. There's no link and no source named.
ReplyDelete2. The graph ends in 2004, but there's a drop from 2003 to 2004.
I believe I saw it earlier on Wikipedia.
DeleteYes, that's where I found it.
DeleteWhere's the rest of the graph--this one shows less than a third of the period in question.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I posted that too quickly. But upon further investigation, the numbers stay almost the same after 2004.
DeleteThe point is you guys always talk about a decline since 1993 since that was the peak. If you look at "from 2000" comparisons, there's nothing to talk about.
The decline is still there in the rate, it's just not as pronounced. Meanwhile, as you like to point out, that was when the majority of the increase in gun ownership happened. If gun availability leads to more crime, as you state, then WHY haven't the numbers skyrocketed?
DeleteThat's the thing you never want to talk about.
So it levels out at a time when gun ownership and carry is on the rise, once again showing that the cause of violence is something other than gun availability.
DeleteThis is total, not rate, and it stops at 2004.
ReplyDelete