Monday, December 19, 2011

FBI: U.S. violent crime down in 2011 with fewer murders, rapes

I have to wonder if this trend might disappoint our gun loonz who now clearly have even less of an objective, rational, valid justification for having to keep their guns on their hips or in their armpits at every moment they go forth into the wide world, you know - 'just in case'.

From Reuters and MSNBC.com

FBI: U.S. violent crime down in 2011 with fewer murders, rapes 

updated 12/19/2011 10:05:14 AM ET
Murders, rapes and other violent crimes dropped sharply in the United States in the first six months of 2011, continuing a downward trend that has lasted 4 1/2 years, the FBI reported on Monday.
The federal law enforcement agency said preliminary January-through-June figures showed the number of violent crimes declined 6.4 percent from the previous year, led by a 5.7 percent drop in murders and a 5.1 percent decrease in rapes. In other violent crime categories, robberies declined 7.7 percent while aggravated assaults fell 5.9 percent.
The FBI's regular statistical report did not give any reasons for the lower crimes nationwide. But the latest numbers provided further evidence of no crime spike coinciding with the tough economic conditions and high unemployment.
The report is based on information from more than 12,500 police and other law enforcement agencies across the country.
Violent crimes went down about the same amount in all four regions of the country and decreased in big cities, smaller cities and rural areas.
Property crimes, such as burglary, larceny, theft and motor vehicle theft, also declined in the first half of the year, with burglaries down 2.2 percent, larceny and theft down 4.0 percent and stolen vehicles down 5.0 percent.
The separate arson category declined 8.6 percent in the first six months of the year, the FBI said.

17 comments:

  1. Crime is down across the board, and yet the country is filled with guns. I wonder how that could happen. If guns are as bad as is often claimed, we should see a vast chaos of violence across the nation, but we don't. Perhaps gun control advocates should reevalute their goals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. With significant decreases in violent crimes as well as significant decreases in the number of households that own guns, gun ownership for self-protection is on its way to becoming an anachronism clung to by paranoids and extremists. No wonder the NRA and its lap dogs are getting desperate in their assertions of "Obama conspiracies" and rush to get pro-gun legislation passed no matter what the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If it is dropping, then the relaxation of gun laws you complain about must be working.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have been reviewing the FBI's uniform crime reports recently and noticed an even more interesting long term trend. Not only is violent crime per capita decreasing, it is at levels not seen since the mid 1960s or 1970s depending on which particular category of violent crime you are viewing.

    Here is a list of the violent crime categories and the last time that the U.S. experienced the same rate (per 100,000 people) of those crimes:
    Aggravated assaults ... 1977-1978
    Robbery ... 1967-1968
    Rape ... 1976-1977
    Murder ... 1963-1964
    This data is readily available at the FBI website. I found a convenient summary here:
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    Note: while the murder rate has decreased the most, it is the only violent crime category where advances in trauma care impact the "success" rate. In other words some attempted murders that would have been successful in the late 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s are no longer successful because of advances in trauma care. How much trauma care has played a role is whole topic for debate in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The larger trend that is most interesting is that violent crime rates per capita have been generally increasing from 1960 until about 1992 and then generally decreasing ever since. (As far as I can tell, the FBI began keeping records in 1960.)

    Let's start discussion with dog gone's assertion that the violent crime rates in the U.S. are not high enough to justify a person's desire to be armed everywhere "just in case" ... or that people who want to be armed everywhere "just in case" are irrationally fearful and paranoid.

    How many violent crimes per capita would justify general citizens carrying everywhere? Or asking the question another way, how high would the violent crime rate per capita be before a person was not irrationally fearful or paranoid for wanting to be armed everywhere?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gun sales up in 2009

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/gun-sales-continue-to-soar-in-2009

    Crime down in 2009

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls


    Gun sales up in 2010

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/

    Crime Down in 2010

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls



    crime down in 2011

    This post

    Gun sales up in 2011

    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/firearm-sales-up-in-2011-1231765.html

    Criminal are afraid....as they should be.... of getting shot..... and since most criminals are recidivists, TA-DA!!!! lower crime rates....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's ban guns when crime rates are up, because guns are causing crime. Also let's ban guns when rates decrease, because then there's no reason to need a gun. Brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
  8. MAgunner writes:
    MAgunowner said...

    Let's ban guns when crime rates are up, because guns are causing crime. Also let's ban guns when rates decrease, because then there's no reason to need a gun. Brilliant!


    Lets restrict guns until we have gun crime rates comparable to those civilized, developed, comparable democracies like those in Europe, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

    Ah, MAgunner, you gun loons do so love your false analogies.

    We have too many instances of gun violence - threats, crime, fatalities,suicides, and injuries from fire arms. They are avoidable, they are largely preventable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The pro-gun voices love to mix up that causation/correlation thing when it suits their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thomas wrote:
    Criminal are afraid....as they should be.... of getting shot..... and since most criminals are recidivists, TA-DA!!!! lower crime rates....


    Bureau of Justice statistics indicate 40% of guns used in crimes come from friends and family members. Approximately another 10% were from straw sales.

    If those transfers of firearms to criminals were registered, if the people who provided the legal firearms to criminals - those straw purchasers, and the friends and family - we'd have 50% reduction in the firearms used in crime.

    But instead, people like you object and oppose holding those people accountable who provide previously legal guns to criminals.

    Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe they could add another item to the Eddie Eagle gunzganda course.

    "After you call an adult, call the police and tell them where you saw the gun and who the adult is that you told about it. Then, if you see the person who sold it to whoever brought it into your space, tell the police who that person is.".

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Lets restrict guns until we have gun crime rates comparable to those civilized, developed, comparable democracies like those in Europe, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada."

    Whoa, wait a sec. Which are these "uncivilized" countries you speak of, with mongrels roaming the jungle, living as savages, impulsively murdering? Is this a thinly veiled racist reference to Africans? Seriously, which countries are these?

    I have an alternative proposition. Let's loosen the gun laws until the US suicide rate becomes comparable to that of Japan. How's that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dog Gone,

    Let's restrict guns? Nah, no deal. How about we just keep the trend going: more guns, less crime.

    Mikeb302000,

    I do realize that correlation doesn't equal causation, but the argument that your side makes is that guns are too dangerous to allow many people (and by implication, any private citizen) to have them. The numbers are going in the right direction, something that shouldn't be possible if guns are really all that bad.

    Baldr Odinson,

    I don't know what numbers you've been looking at. I see reports of brisk gun sales in Wisconsin, for example, thanks to the change in carry policy there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. GC writes:
    The numbers are going in the right direction, something that shouldn't be possible if guns are really all that bad.


    The larger trend has been the same in other countries as well Greg, that crime is going down. It is attributable, from studies, to things like closed circuit tv cameras aiding in preventing crime and catching criminals when there is crime. It is NOT from more guns. It IS from techniques like hot spot policing.

    Countries with stricter gun laws have FAR fewer gun deaths, injuries and suicides. Homicides and suicides with firearms are down, but not as steeply as the other declining numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, Greg, if you really accept the difference between causation and correlation then you cannot credit the decline in crime, if there really is one, to the increase in guns. If you can open you mind that far, then I'd dare to temp you with the idea that if crime goes down when gun sales go up, crime would go down much more if gun availability diminished.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikeb302000,

    If there's no link between guns and crime, as these numbers hint, then there's no link, and what you suggest has no basis in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wrong Greg. There's a direct link.

    ReplyDelete