NJ gun owners

[Aguila Blanca]

There is a significant difference between a relationship, and a cause/effect conclusion.

Correlation is not causation.

Understood. Which is why my statement included the word "maybe." However, if statistics following the passage on an anti-gun law (or three, or six) show NO decrease in violent crime, then I think it's fairly safe to say the law(s) didn't accomplish what they were [purportedly] intended to accomplish.

Let's not forget the original question that started this discussion:

Since the mainstream media declines to print any news that may present private gun ownership in a positive view or the failure of gun control legislation to reduce crime, if anyone has crime vs legislation stats I would appreciate same.

If we know the date of passage of a law, the FBI stat can be used to compare crime rates before against crime rates after. It may not prove causation, but if there isn't even a correlation, then we've learned something.

Secondly, you can dig into the FBI stats beyond the state level, to get data on individual cities and metropolitan areas. By comparing the stats for states and cities with strict anti-gun laws against states and cities with "lax" gun control laws, we can at least see if there's a correlation. If the stats don't show a statistically significant correlation ... again, we've learned something.

 

[raimius]

There are also MANY related factors to crime rates. How common is organized crime, drug use, youth unemployment, etc? Were there sentencing changes for crimes? Did the definition of crimes change? How was the economy? How much of the young adult population was exposed to significant quantities of lead as children (which actually correlates really well to many crime statistics!).

 

[JERRYS.]

violent crime and non-violent crime stats generally follow demographics and certain political strongholds. a comparison between NJ and Penna was made but this includes violent political strongholds of Philadelphia and Pittsburg. "breaking" in to unlocked cars and stealing laptops and Rayban sunglasses does not equal night club shootings. I know politics is not welcome here but if you want an honest look at what is truly violent crime you have to look at the local stats which sway the state average as a whole. Illinois is a good example of how political strongholds and their violence make the rest of the state look bad in aggregate. Vermont is a left leaning state with low violent street crime and very few gun restrictions. it is also a bit more homogenous population wise.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

violent crime and non-violent crime stats generally follow demographics and certain political strongholds. a comparison between NJ and Penna was made but this includes violent political strongholds of Philadelphia and Pittsburg.

And New Jersey includes such bucolic locations as Newark and Camden.

"breaking" in to unlocked cars and stealing laptops and Rayban sunglasses does not equal night club shootings.

Breaking into unlocked cars is also typically not classified as a violent crime.

I know politics is not welcome here but if you want an honest look at what is truly violent crime you have to look at the local stats which sway the state average as a whole.

Which is why I mentioned that the FBI statistics also include data by city and by metropolitan area if you want to drill down that far.

The opening post in this thread asked for sources of statistics. The FBI has statistics. Are they infallible? No. If you know of a better source to which to refer the OP, feel free to provide a link.

Another potential resource would be the work of John Lott. However, I don't have any links.

 

[JERRYS.]

And New Jersey includes such bucolic locations as Newark and Camden.


Breaking into unlocked cars is also typically not classified as a violent crime.


Which is why I mentioned that the FBI statistics also include data by city and by metropolitan area if you want to drill down that far.

The opening post in this thread asked for sources of statistics. The FBI has statistics. Are they infallible? No. If you know of a better source to which to refer the OP, feel free to provide a link.

Another potential resource would be the work of John Lott. However, I don't have any links.

which is why I cautioned the OP with general crime stats. As I said before, a better understanding of violent crime which would effect the general populous is to omit sexual offenses and domestic abuse because of the majority of victim/offender familiarity.

 

[44 AMP]

As I said before, a better understanding of violent crime which would effect the general populous is to omit sexual offenses and domestic abuse because of the majority of victim/offender familiarity.

I'm a little confused on your reasoning here. Aren't people who are sexually abused, and the people they know who did it part of the general population??

If you're saying overall violent crime statistics include so much that they aren't good measures of GUN crime, I get that, but I think it could be better said.

 

[JERRYS.]

I'm a little confused on your reasoning here. Aren't people who are sexually abused, and the people they know who did it part of the general population??

If you're saying overall violent crime statistics include so much that they aren't good measures of GUN crime, I get that, but I think it could be better said.

street crime for the average person is generally not committed against them by people with whom they are familiar; sexual offenses and domestic assaults generally are. if my personal life is in reasonable order, I'd be more concerned with what the violent crime stats are for street crime.