I'll never need a gun - Part 6
- Thread starter JustThisGuy
- Start date
The problem with statistics is that they often do not tell the whole story. For example the murder rate in 1933 was quite high (9.7 per 100,000 versus 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 according to the FBI) due in no small part to Mob wars and motorized bandits like John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Baby Face Nelson. However, historical perspective must be taken into account. While the murder rate was quite high due to organized crime and bank robbers, these entities very seldom victimized ordinary people. By and large, the victims of these sorts of crimes were police, celebrities/very wealthy people (targets for kidnapping and ransom), or other criminals. The average person had little to fear from the violent criminals of the 1930's because they had nothing which the criminal was interested in taking from them.
Today, however, the world is quite different. The types of criminals that contributed to the violent crime rates of the 1930's are, for the most part, a thing of the past due to years of work from the FBI and other agencies. However, random crime against ordinary individuals was tolerated much less in the 1930's than it is today. This is due in no small part to the increasing urbanization of the population. In the 1930's, a much larger percentage of the population lived in either a rural area or a small town. While people were largely unconcerned about the victimization of some gangster or bank, a crime against an ordinary person was much more likely to be a crime against a family member, friend, or neighbor and that was of concern. Today, however, the majority of the population lives in larger cities. Larger communities means that the average person is well-acquainted with a smaller percentage of his or her community. The murder, rape, or robbery of an average person was much more likely to draw public outcry, and therefore be punished, in the 1930's than it is today.
My point in all this is that just because the violent crime rate as a whole has declined, that does not necessarily mean that the risk of victimization for the average person has decreased or even remained linear. Basing one's personal risk assessment on the raw numbers of crime rates is unwise because raw numbers are too easily misinterpreted or misrepresented.
Today, however, the world is quite different. The types of criminals that contributed to the violent crime rates of the 1930's are, for the most part, a thing of the past due to years of work from the FBI and other agencies. However, random crime against ordinary individuals was tolerated much less in the 1930's than it is today. This is due in no small part to the increasing urbanization of the population. In the 1930's, a much larger percentage of the population lived in either a rural area or a small town. While people were largely unconcerned about the victimization of some gangster or bank, a crime against an ordinary person was much more likely to be a crime against a family member, friend, or neighbor and that was of concern. Today, however, the majority of the population lives in larger cities. Larger communities means that the average person is well-acquainted with a smaller percentage of his or her community. The murder, rape, or robbery of an average person was much more likely to draw public outcry, and therefore be punished, in the 1930's than it is today.
My point in all this is that just because the violent crime rate as a whole has declined, that does not necessarily mean that the risk of victimization for the average person has decreased or even remained linear. Basing one's personal risk assessment on the raw numbers of crime rates is unwise because raw numbers are too easily misinterpreted or misrepresented.
JustThisGuy
New member
Statistically, for any single given trip to the grocery store, I will not need to wear a seat belt.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need a fire extinguisher.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need life or health insurance.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need an attorney.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need my smoke detectors.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need to set my home alarm system.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need a gun.
Should I not carry a gun when I routinely wear a seat belt, have a fire extinguisher near each exit, maintain both life and health insurance, keep good batteries in my smoke detector, always set my home alarm system and keep two attorneys on retainer?
This discussion is not and never has been about crime statistics. If so, why would anyone ever carry a gun? Or insurance, or alarm system, or, or, or...
No, statistically... I'll never need a gun.
Forgive me wild cat, but you prove my point.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need a fire extinguisher.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need life or health insurance.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need an attorney.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need my smoke detectors.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need to set my home alarm system.
Statistically, for any given day, I will not need a gun.
Should I not carry a gun when I routinely wear a seat belt, have a fire extinguisher near each exit, maintain both life and health insurance, keep good batteries in my smoke detector, always set my home alarm system and keep two attorneys on retainer?
This discussion is not and never has been about crime statistics. If so, why would anyone ever carry a gun? Or insurance, or alarm system, or, or, or...
No, statistically... I'll never need a gun.
Forgive me wild cat, but you prove my point.
Steam Boat
New member
According to the original post, this happened in CA. Can an ordinary private citizen even get a Concealed Carry Permit there without a gubenatorial letter of permission if you are not a movie star or millionaire that makes large reelection contributions ?
Colorado Redneck
New member
I don't care one way or the other
But it seems that Wildcat Mccane was asking for any credible source that other posters here might produce showing statisitcs that violent crime has not decreased.
But it seems that Wildcat Mccane was asking for any credible source that other posters here might produce showing statisitcs that violent crime has not decreased.
There was never any mention of those stats until he inserted them into the thread. doing so was a troll.
This thread was a cautionary story warning others to keep their guard up. Wildcat diverted the thread off into a game he wanted to play.
The last post I saw of his declared that he is going to be a lawyer with a Masters in Public Policy. He is, as far as I can tell, wanting to become a high ranking government official who is involved with the legal system. that worries me.
This thread was a cautionary story warning others to keep their guard up. Wildcat diverted the thread off into a game he wanted to play.
The last post I saw of his declared that he is going to be a lawyer with a Masters in Public Policy. He is, as far as I can tell, wanting to become a high ranking government official who is involved with the legal system. that worries me.
Colorado Redneck
New member
I should learn to keep my nose out of these things
Evidently things like that evade me.
Evidently things like that evade me.
He is a college student... give him a break... they all think they are the smartest people on the planet until they actually hit the real world... I should know.. I went to college too.
I tend to agree mostly because my very own college... while I was there... got in trouble for not reporting all the attacks and rapes.
Your right about one thing Wild Cat Mcane... statistics are math... however the first thing I was taught in statistics class... and most other students... is that you can manipulate the data in different ways to stack it in your favor, or vice versa.
I tend to agree mostly because my very own college... while I was there... got in trouble for not reporting all the attacks and rapes.
Your right about one thing Wild Cat Mcane... statistics are math... however the first thing I was taught in statistics class... and most other students... is that you can manipulate the data in different ways to stack it in your favor, or vice versa.
The exact reason statistics should NEVER be taken at face value.
After all, statistics once made people think the planet was flat.
Wonder what university was teaching those stats back in the day?
Didn't know it was round till we sailed around it.
If you believe crime has decreased due to what the stats say, maybe you need to hangout more in the high crime areas or even go talk directly with a few LEO's that actually have some whiskers. Maybe look at a few studies of the expansion of high crime rate areas. Funny the stats say crime rate is down when most every major municipality have certain labeled 'high crime rate' areas and those areas have greatly expanded over the years. According to Cols.Ohio Police Dept., the high crime rate area located in the short east side of Cols. has tripled in size over the last 15 yrs. The west side area has doubled.
Too, wonder why our penal systems are at an all time overcrowded state.
So much for statistics.
Last edited:
I said in an earlier post, no matter what the study is for, no matter who did it, and especially, if it supports your personal beliefs, you need to automatically dismiss whatever conclusions it feeds you, and look a little deeper. If you want to believe that crime is down, there are plenty of agencies out there that will tell you what you want to hear. Google "crime is down" and that's what you will be reading.
Nobody wants the common american citizen to think anymore. As long as we are smart enough to do our jobs and keep business flowing, that's all it takes. Nearly every individual in this country, probably on the planet, has a vested interest in keeping every person on the planet at about a 6th grade level.
Seriously, I own shares in the company that publishes the enquirer. I love morons. They are funding my retirement.
Nobody wants the common american citizen to think anymore. As long as we are smart enough to do our jobs and keep business flowing, that's all it takes. Nearly every individual in this country, probably on the planet, has a vested interest in keeping every person on the planet at about a 6th grade level.
Seriously, I own shares in the company that publishes the enquirer. I love morons. They are funding my retirement.
While I would agree with the carry and always watching your back crime does in fact appear to be down like that wildcat guy said. On the other hand when the 2011 stats are out I for one expect a bounce... just look at all the unrest and picketing in the streets. Anyway See #'s below. Also it turns out despite the lower stats that the third leading cause of death in my age group is homicide (see set 2). For me this is all the evidence I need to carry and be watchful. Enjoy all. 
Set 1: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
Set2: (note select Top 20 under "Number of Causes" under advanced options)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
also maybe swatch out Sat and Sunday
set 3: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable14.pdf
EDIT: Idea #2 persons age 17-34 seem to commit more murders: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl39.xls.
However the age distribution curve of the USA looks like this:
http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_United_States.pdf notice the right side of the pdf with the population by age graph for males and females. Notice the bubble in people ages starting at 35 and ending at 55. Could it be we had a population bubble (ala baby boomers) and because people are less likely to commit murder when they are older then age 34 that the stats on murder fell when the population fell? Anyway just an idea...
Set 1: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
Set2: (note select Top 20 under "Number of Causes" under advanced options)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
also maybe swatch out Sat and Sunday
set 3: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable14.pdf
EDIT: Idea #2 persons age 17-34 seem to commit more murders: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl39.xls.
However the age distribution curve of the USA looks like this:
http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_United_States.pdf notice the right side of the pdf with the population by age graph for males and females. Notice the bubble in people ages starting at 35 and ending at 55. Could it be we had a population bubble (ala baby boomers) and because people are less likely to commit murder when they are older then age 34 that the stats on murder fell when the population fell? Anyway just an idea...
Last edited:
youngunz4life
New member
good discussion
and also, even if the overall crime rate is down across America as an example or for the sake of my point: 'across the world'...
...one must delve further to have pinpoint statistics. America is a big place, your state is a big place, your main area is the main issue for you. Statistics don't look at "you"..you are a number if you are counted.
I live on one side of the country, I am labeled with people from the other side of the country by people abroad. People that deal w/numbers in America label me with the block of country I live in: southwest, northeast, eastcoast, etc. If I am living in downtown Los Angelos, what the numbers for Cali say doesn't mean squat to me.
I just posted a thread last night that was rightfully closed because I forgot to add the firearm aspect. I think I was worked up while starting it. Please check out the article from the national news.
search: 'ranchers are scared' to find it or check out my recent post section under my profile to find it.
Politicians are telling these ranchers that the border is safer than ever and not an issue. tell that to the rancher dealing with the cartels on his property. Someone is right and someone is wrong or these is a miscommunication somewhere(or maybe someone besides the ranchers are looking at a broader or skewed picture//the rancher and all of us should trust our gut). These old-timers are saying they have walked+lived here there entire life and have never seen it more dangerous. I believe them...they are saying that the border jumpers, cartels, etc today are much more bold and aggressive. The news of recent years lead me to believe this is true.
and also, even if the overall crime rate is down across America as an example or for the sake of my point: 'across the world'...
...one must delve further to have pinpoint statistics. America is a big place, your state is a big place, your main area is the main issue for you. Statistics don't look at "you"..you are a number if you are counted.
I live on one side of the country, I am labeled with people from the other side of the country by people abroad. People that deal w/numbers in America label me with the block of country I live in: southwest, northeast, eastcoast, etc. If I am living in downtown Los Angelos, what the numbers for Cali say doesn't mean squat to me.
I just posted a thread last night that was rightfully closed because I forgot to add the firearm aspect. I think I was worked up while starting it. Please check out the article from the national news.
search: 'ranchers are scared' to find it or check out my recent post section under my profile to find it.
Politicians are telling these ranchers that the border is safer than ever and not an issue. tell that to the rancher dealing with the cartels on his property. Someone is right and someone is wrong or these is a miscommunication somewhere(or maybe someone besides the ranchers are looking at a broader or skewed picture//the rancher and all of us should trust our gut). These old-timers are saying they have walked+lived here there entire life and have never seen it more dangerous. I believe them...they are saying that the border jumpers, cartels, etc today are much more bold and aggressive. The news of recent years lead me to believe this is true.
It still comes back to one thing. the original post and intent of the thread was to state simply that there are dangers lurking in america. Everywhere, from little old carl junction missouri to washington DC. People are attacked, raped, murdered, abducted and fed to pigs, and set upon by vicious dogs. Up, down, stats don't matter. what matters is that everyone is at risk, and a person has to determine what level of risk they are at, and prepare for that risk to the point that they are comfortable with it.
The situation in america isn't bad enough that every person should go packing when they mow their yards. It is serious enough that children were shot down in a school yard by a homicidal freak and a teenaged boy.
We have gone through flu scares every year for a while, during these scares, warnings that 95% of the population, give or take 94% or so, would get sick. The same agency warned that the flu vaccine would sicken or kill a certain number of people.
Weigh the risks. Take appropriate measures. ignore the numbers.
General Norman Schwartzkopf said it well.
"one mine in a minefield is dangerous."
The situation in america isn't bad enough that every person should go packing when they mow their yards. It is serious enough that children were shot down in a school yard by a homicidal freak and a teenaged boy.
We have gone through flu scares every year for a while, during these scares, warnings that 95% of the population, give or take 94% or so, would get sick. The same agency warned that the flu vaccine would sicken or kill a certain number of people.
Weigh the risks. Take appropriate measures. ignore the numbers.
General Norman Schwartzkopf said it well.
"one mine in a minefield is dangerous."
doctor_brevic
New member
See... this is what I love. A quite, silent, justice. All the idiot liberals who don't want to carry (and probably should'nt anyway) will get theirs. sounds cruel? I don't have any sympathy for anyone who is so ignorant that they cannot even grasp the concept that you throwing your guns away will not in any way prevent the "bad guy" from shooting you with his! You wanna stop concealing because some egg head moron says less people are killed today than in the past? go ahead! I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, think about it... you are the very kind of person that I despise most! Go ahead and get yourself killed, I will laugh and dance over the grave that is an effigy of a better America. You have no say in my decision to carry, legal or not. the guns will always be there somewhere, I am willing to bet my life on it. survival of the fittest, your ideas, simply put, are flawed to the extent of costing you your life. If you're not around to reproduce and spread your absurdities about then how will your kind last through the ages? Nature has a way of ridding itself of what does not work, and I am sure that in due time your false logic will be watered down as were all other things inferior thorughout history. So please, if you are indeed so stupid as to assume that you will never need a firearm, don't carry one. Believe me, the world can live without you.