Double Naught Spy
New member
Why won't we like the next report?
DOJ gun violence report
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Baba Louie
New member
The wonders of medical science in treating GSWs for one perhaps? Doesn't do a thing for violence per se, but keeping people alive after the fact, even if that trend is winding down.
Otherwise, they could claim the '94 AWB did work after all (and ignore the sunset in '04).
and yet, CA, being one of the heaviest regulated States in terms of gun control, still tops the list.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
(tho I note that IL must not count any of Chicagos murders... or perhaps the DOJ/FBI still won't use their crime stats, actually)
Alabama Shooter
New member
The guns acquisition numbers are stupidly out of date and flawed from the beginning. The internet has changed commerce in a huge way.
In 2004 around 40% of the country was on line. That number is estimated today well over 80%.
In 2004 the percentage of sporting good purchased on line was around 8%. Today it is 22%, nearly triple.
To even imagine that gun sales legal and illegal, are not following the same pattern requires an astonishing level of deliberate ignorance.
Personally I know very few people who buy any guns at gun sales anymore at all unless there is a panic going on. On this very site every few weeks someone posts a thread about how much gun shows suck due to the high prices, lack of gun vendors, sham-wow promoters and various other things. Very rarely does anyone post a positive review about a gun show at all or mention a purchase.
Criminals with warrants and known felons would have to exceptionally stupid to go to one as they are crawling with all kinds of cops. Often there are a couple at the door and then a few wandering the aisles depending upon the show. That does not even count those in plain clothes. So I would say it is unlikely they would go themselves. However, "send a friend" then "buy from said friend" and "presto-chango" now instead of "obtaining the gun at a gun show" they "bought it from a friend". Although I have my doubts they would even bother with a gun show when guns are so readily available on line.
In 2004 around 40% of the country was on line. That number is estimated today well over 80%.
In 2004 the percentage of sporting good purchased on line was around 8%. Today it is 22%, nearly triple.
To even imagine that gun sales legal and illegal, are not following the same pattern requires an astonishing level of deliberate ignorance.
Personally I know very few people who buy any guns at gun sales anymore at all unless there is a panic going on. On this very site every few weeks someone posts a thread about how much gun shows suck due to the high prices, lack of gun vendors, sham-wow promoters and various other things. Very rarely does anyone post a positive review about a gun show at all or mention a purchase.
Criminals with warrants and known felons would have to exceptionally stupid to go to one as they are crawling with all kinds of cops. Often there are a couple at the door and then a few wandering the aisles depending upon the show. That does not even count those in plain clothes. So I would say it is unlikely they would go themselves. However, "send a friend" then "buy from said friend" and "presto-chango" now instead of "obtaining the gun at a gun show" they "bought it from a friend". Although I have my doubts they would even bother with a gun show when guns are so readily available on line.
I believe the proliferation of legal guns, and CCW permits are one of the reasons we are seeing crimes using guns go down. Society is not getting more polite, nor less aggressive, but criminals now legitimately feel they could come up against citizens legally defending themselves, and their homes with guns.
Legal guns, and citizens with CCW permits are certainly a deterrent to crime.
Legal guns, and citizens with CCW permits are certainly a deterrent to crime.
The next one, or the one after will either show a slower rate in the reduction of "gun crime" or an increase - you can bet on it. Then, the antis will cling to it as a legitimate gauge as to whether or not the country needs more gun control. Their argument will go something like this:
Anti: The NRA used this same report to convince the American people that we did not need any more gun restrictions. Since gun crime appeared to be going down, we let it go and no new AW ban or hi-cap bans were enacted. Now, the same report that the NRA used to convince the American people that they didn't need any more gun laws, shows gun crime on the rise. We can no longer afford to let this go. We must act now. It is time that we enact a new AW ban and magazine restrictions.... You can see that if we don't act, gun crime will only continue to increase.....
Alabama Shooter
New member
All the evidence points to a lower "proliferation" of guns in the US.
Notable crime drop has lots of reasons. A better and more often publicly armed and equipped citizenry may be one of them.
Bingo!!
IMO: It's not a coincidence that the murder rate came down with the enactment of "make my day" laws and "stand your ground " laws.
During the Christmas-New years holidays of 1986-87, six elderly OK citizens were murdered by burglars. These murders, coupled with the killing of a burglar by a Tulsa dentist, who was sued by the family of the late burglar; lead to the OK "make my day" law.
After OK passed the "make my day" law in 1987 the number of burglaries were dramatically reduced. In 1987 there were 58,333 reported burglaries in OK. In 1997 there were 40,015 reported burglaries in OK. By 2000 that nimber had been reduced to 31,661.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Day-law-cut-epidemic-of-violent-burglary.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/okcrimn.htm
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay, so the waffling has started. First, it was going to be the next report that we won't like. Now, it will be the next or the one after that. So gun crime will increase? Based on what? You said we can bet on it, but you haven't provided any justification for the claim. What is it that you know that we don't know?
Do we want to cling to a given report? Nope, but there is no reason not to use it to the fullest extent either. Bear in mind that this is a report compiled under the guise of a Democrat dominated government. So we can't claim this is a report negatively biased by the Democrats when it so nicely shows their concerns obviously being alleviated.
To ignore the benefits to us expressed by the data in this report would be extremely short-sighted.
Doc Intrepid
New member
To go one step further,
The extent to which this DOJ report substantiates, even indirectly, the NRA's contention that "the only thing that stops evil men with guns is good men with guns" is nothing short of remarkable, particularly considering that Eric Holder is the US Attorney General, ostensibly at the helm of DOJ.
One wonders whether this DOJ report will factor at all in the media circus which is sure to lead up to the mid-term elections...
The extent to which this DOJ report substantiates, even indirectly, the NRA's contention that "the only thing that stops evil men with guns is good men with guns" is nothing short of remarkable, particularly considering that Eric Holder is the US Attorney General, ostensibly at the helm of DOJ.
One wonders whether this DOJ report will factor at all in the media circus which is sure to lead up to the mid-term elections...
i doubt it. This DOJ report comes out every year. The gun rights organizations have never really emphasized this report: That is a mistake.
Many gunowners are too wrapped around the axle with the "UN is going to take my guns away", "Obama will take our guns by executive order", "the govermnent is buying up all the ammo", "DHS bought 1,500 armored personnel carriers" and numerous other high button conspiracy theories to pay much attention to a favorable crime report from DOJ.
BTW: The numbers from previous reports are more or less locked in stone. If anyone in government would mess with those figures and phoney up a subsequent report there would be a big congressional investigation.
Actually, unless we can prove causation (not just correlation), we have to assume it is a coincidence.
The fact that such laws did not lead to an increase in crime is a good point to make in an argument. However, the idea that the laws are responsible for a decrease in crime is something we can't prove.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
One needs to see if the drop also occurred in states that did not have such gun friendly laws. Lott argued that he co-varied such out but that's been controversial.
You would need steeper slopes in the gun states vs. the nongun states to make that point. Probably been done but I don't recall the gun states being steeper. Also, you need to look at it by a county by county basis to control for demographic differences.
The point about there not being a noticeable increase in crime is well taken.
You would need steeper slopes in the gun states vs. the nongun states to make that point. Probably been done but I don't recall the gun states being steeper. Also, you need to look at it by a county by county basis to control for demographic differences.
The point about there not being a noticeable increase in crime is well taken.
Alabama Shooter
New member
NY would certainly contend the opposite is true. Murder plummeted when gun ownership was severely restricted. There argument also has little validity.
In the US violence is correlated closely to ethnicity, education, age, gender and income related.
For example African American males are murdered at rates 8-10X that of whites males and nearly always by other AA males. If it were possible to separate the statistics we would have a very European type murder rate (around 2.6) for non AA's in the US.
motorhead0922
New member
I will be watching Wisconsin rates. Latest info is here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wicrime.htm
It only goes to 2011, which is a partial year for concealed carry. Violent crime was down in 2011, but it appears to just be following the recent year-over-year trend. It will be interesting to see what happened in 2012.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wicrime.htm
It only goes to 2011, which is a partial year for concealed carry. Violent crime was down in 2011, but it appears to just be following the recent year-over-year trend. It will be interesting to see what happened in 2012.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Have to agree that it's like a fingerprint that had reason to be there at the crime scene.
I am just glad that it's more than the other side has.
Alabama Shooter said:
The statistics are available. The CDC has a query system for fatal injuries; select "homicide" and "firearm" and whatever geographic, race, ethnicity, sex and age factors are of interest.