Justice Department survey confirms downward trend in violent crime

[X_Digger]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/us/violent-crime-decline/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- Violent crime in the United States continues to drop significantly despite the difficult economic environment, according to new statistics released Friday by the Justice Department.

According to the Crime Victimization Survey released annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2010 violent crimes dropped about 13% among U.S. residents ages 12 or older.

In spite of anecdotes to the contrary, crime was down last year, continuing an almost two decade long trend.

The FBI's full UCR for 2010 is due out Monday. Should be interesting.

[Kolesar]

1. Due to demographics, not due to our "weaponized wonderland"

peace

[RSillsbee]

2. I don't see anywhere in the OP

that claims our "weaponized wonderland" is the cause of the downward trend. I can,however, infer from the OP that the common restrictionista claim that more guns equals more crime is untrue

[DanTex]

5. Actually, the more precise claim is that higher rates of gun ownership lead to more homicide and gun

violence. The exact number of gun sales is less important than the fraction of people/households who own guns. Of course, the two are related, but actually, during the last few decades the number of guns has increased, but the gun ownership rate has decreased. How is this possible? Because most people buying new guns already have guns. Apparently this point is way subtle for many in this audience, because so far on the DU board the number of pro-gunners I've found who understand this is exactly zero. But among people who look at this issue scientifically, it is common knowledge.

Also, the link between gun ownership rates and higher homicide and gun violence has been confirmed by several scientific studies. It is not based on crude time-comparisons like this because since crime rates are affected by many factors, this single time-comparison is not much evidence for anything. For example, the gunners like to distract attention from the gun violence epidemic by saying we should ignore guns and just focus on the root causes like poverty. Well, are you aware that poverty has increased since 2000, while crime has dropped? So are you now ready to accept that there is no link between poverty and crime? I hope not. Another root cause most people agree on is unemployment, which you may have noticed has skyrocketed over the last few years. So how can it be that crime rates continued to drop? Does that disprove the crime/unemployment link? Maybe in the gunner world...

So the question is, why, if you won't accept the same argument for poverty and unemployment, are you and many others to claim that stats like the OP disprove the guns/crime link? Could it be something having to do with looking for ways to validate a pre-existing bias?

[spin]

6. The reason that surveys show that the number of gun owners has decreased ...

may be that many new gun owners are hesitant to tell an interviewer that they own firearms.

My daughter worked for the Census last year and had a lot of difficulty getting people to answer the simple questions such as how many people lived in their house. If she would have asked if the people owned firearms, a high percentage would have simply lied and answered, "No."

I will definitely agree that there are many factors that affect the crime rate. The advent of cell phones and cameras plus better policing are more likely the cause of the drop in the violent crime rate than firearm ownership. However, the idea that existing gun owners are largely responsible for the increase in the sales is debatable.

While it is true that many gun owners have upgraded their collection of firearms, gun owners often trade or sell firearms in order to buy new ones. Some have sold their older weapons to others who did not own firearms. Many of these new owners actually prefer to buy used firearms as they feel there is no record to show that they are gun owners in case the government ever decides to ban and confiscate all firearms. In many states, like Florida, there is no firearm registration.

It's not that the people who prefer to buy used firearms or lie to surveys about their gun ownership are dishonest, they merely have a healthy distrust of their government.

[DanTex]

12. Doubtful that it accounts for the entire drop.

The magnitude of the drop is from around 50% to around 32% for households and from around 30% to around 21% for individuals:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
(and before you say that you don't trust VPC, notice that those numbers come from the General Social Survey -- VPC just put them into a graph).

I agree that many gun owners are paranoid anti-government types, but the question is have they become more paranoid over time, enough to account for these significant drops in ownership rates. And, yes, these are paranoid times, but remember, so were the times of David Koresh and TimMcVeigh. And I've also seen numbers indicating that today's average gun owners owns more guns than the average gun owner 10/20 years ago, which is right in line with these numbers.

Another factor is demographics -- gun owners tend to be rural and white, and these have been declining over time.

In any case, at the end of the day, the bigger point that we agree on is that there are many factors that affect crime, so the fact that gun sales increased in the last few years while crime dropped doesn't disprove the guns/crime link anymore than the fact that unemployment increased while crime dropped disproves the unemployment/crime link.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I always answer 'no'.

So, depending on how far back you go, I guess I don't move the survey-based ownership rate at all.

[Kolesar]

35. that was insightful...eom

[X_Digger]

14. I'm looking for the link, but..

I remember a study comparing gun ownership polls v gun ownership permits, and the difference between the two. I'm sure Euromutt has it bookmarked if he sees this thread..

There was a difference of about 20%, if I recall, between the percentage of people who admit to owning firearms among those with pistol permits (I recall the study was done in a state that requires permits for ownership).

It showed a reluctance to admit firearm ownership to a random pollster that was significant.

[DanTex]

16. I believe that whatever percentage it is (let's say 20% for argument's sake)...

...refers to the percentage among gun owners -- this would be the rate of false negatives. So this would imply that if 50% of people owned guns, it would only show up as a 40%, because 20% of 50% is 10%. Of course, what is most important here is not the actual number, but the change over the last few decades. In order for this to be explained by false negatives, that means the rate of false negatives would have to have increased over the last two decades, and by a huge amount.

Let's take the most recent household estimate from GSS (which is generally considered the highest quality data for gun ownership, superior to private phone surveys), which is about 32%. If we have zero false positives, and a false negative rate of 20%, as you suggest, that would mean that the true household rate is actually 40%. But two decades ago, when crime rates were much higher, the GSS number was around 50%. So that means that even if gun paranoia increased from zero (all owners reply "yes") to a 20% false negative rate, you still find that gun ownership rates have dropped. So even if the 20% is correct, and even if the tendency of gun owners to deceive pollsters has increased dramatically, it remains the case that gun ownership has dropped over the last two decades.

[X_Digger]

22. That study was one point in time (nothing to compare to..)

But I know I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about gun ownership with a random pollster, where I wouldn't have given it a second thought before the 90's.

That could be a result of my change in age, or a change in attitude, or a general feeling of loss of privacy.

I give free gun safety classes to my and my wife's friends (and friends of, etc).. and I've been busy this year. Not statistically relevant, for sure, but interesting nonetheless. As is the composition of those classes- more women, more GLBT, more minorities. My last class covered all three- a Puerto Rican transgender and hir partner. Both are weighing getting concealed carry permits.

[DanTex]

24. Right, but you see the extreme change in paranoia that would be necessary to explain away the GSS...

...results. To even arrive at the conclusion that ownership rates haven't changed at all, you'd have to go from 100% of gun owners reporting their guns accurately around 1990, to almost 40% lying about it right now.

[spin]

26. Explain why my daughter had a such hard time when she worked for the Census ...

to get a high percentage of people to honestly answer how many people lived in their house or what their income was.

I can guarantee that if she had been asking about firearm ownership a much higher percentage of the people would have refused to answer or would have simply denied that they owned firearms.

I don't think that you know just how much distrust of our government exists today especially among gun owners. I know quite a few people who are gun owners and I would estimate that 50% or more would deny that they did own these weapons if asked by a interviewer they didn't know. Much of this distrust is generated by the propaganda pushed by organizations such as the NRA and the GOA. Also many gun owners honestly feared that when Obama took office and the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, draconian gun laws would be passed and confiscation of semi-auto firearms was quite possible in the near future.

Obviously the government has good reason to suspect that I own firearms as I have a concealed weapons permit. Even if I didn't have a carry permit, I'm sure with the data mining capacities of the government and the outside agencies that they hire to do research, our government could come up with a very accurate list of everybody who does own firearms in our nation. But even so, I would be hesitant to tell an interviewer about my firearm ownership honestly unless I was absolutely certain that he represented a legitimate organization. I would never reveal that information over a phone and I damn sure would want to examine and verify the credentials of any interviewer who showed up at my door.

[DanTex]

28. As much as I love anecdotal evidence...

...unless your daughter worked the census in 1990 and 2000 as well as 2010, and found that in the past everyone was thrilled to tell the census workers everything, then even your anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. Because the question is whether paranoia has increased over time. If you look at the numbers, it is more or less impossible that the paranoia has increased anywhere near enough in the last 20 years to account for the drop in gun ownership found by GSS.

I get that there is a lot of paranoia out there. However, anti-Obama sentiment can't be responsible, because is a general trend over decades. So if paranoia explains the results, it would have to mean that people have gotten gradually more paranoid since well before Obama even made it into the senate. Besides, it's not like the anti-government gun culture didn't exist in Clinton years, with Waco and McVeigh.

As far as not revealing stuff over the phone, good point, phone surveys are less reliable that face-to-face surveys in most cases. That's why the GSS is a face-to-face interview, and that is why, on a range of issues GSS is considered to be more accurate than private phone surveys.

[Euromutt]

33. There's no link, just a cite

Rafferty, Ann P. et. al. "Validity of a household gun question in a telephone survey." Public Health Reports. May-June 1995 v110 n3 p282(7)

The researchers found that found that 10.3% of respondents known to hold hunting licenses, and 12.7% of respondents known to have a handgun registered to them, denied owning firearms when interviewed.

The Devil only knows whether that's at all representative, but suffice to say it does indicate that some gun owners will lie to pollsters.

[petronius]

39. Here's a link, with full PDF available...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382119/

[rrneck]

8. So

increasing numbers of guns are collecting in the hands of people who don't use them to commit crimes.

[DanTex]

13. Most gun owner's don't use their guns to commit crimes.

The point is, the data is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that more gun ownership means more homicide.

And in fact, it's also consistent with the hypothesis that more total guns results in more homicide, because there are plenty of other factors that influence crime rates, so the fact that over a certain period one thing went up while another went down doesn't disprove the link, as the examples of poverty and unemployment show. It is likely that if unemployment hadn't shot up over the last few years, we would have seen an even bigger decrease in crime. Wouldn't you agree?

[rrneck]

27. I think there is a mountain of research that fails to tell people

what they really want to know.

Studies can chart trends, statistics can quantify them, experts can prognosticate about what it all means and amateurs can shop among their output like the frozen food aisle at Albertsons.

The real question is who will be next in the assault lottery. That's what people really want to know. Until you can answer that question people will continue to buy guns.

Why don't you produce a better self defense solution than a gun. Can you do that? Or will you trot back to some survey study and calculate the odds for us again? If you do, imagine yourself running for office and telling people that when they get assaulted there won't be anyone around from your administration to help them but chances are they won't get hurt anyway, and "studies show" that their chances of survival are better without a gun than with one even though they might get the living shit kicked out of them. Plus, the fact that they own a gun makes them a statistical hazard to the community. People just LOVE condescending politicians treating them like a number.

[SteveM]

38. Live by the bumper-strip, die by the bumper-strip...

For years gun-controller/prohibitionists have said "more guns = more crime." It was they who defined their own playing field, complete with fixed goal posts. To come on now and say: "no, no, it's "...the fraction of people/household who own guns," is to self-correct. Admirable, but a self-correction of propaganda nevertheless.

This we know from the data: The old bumper strip used by the gun-controller/prohibitionist has not been proven.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. Love to see a citation for that.

Actually, the more precise claim is that higher rates of gun ownership lead to more homicide and gun violence. The exact number of gun sales is less important than the fraction of people/households who own guns. Of course, the two are related, but actually, during the last few decades the number of guns has increased, but the gun ownership rate has decreased. How is this possible? Because most people buying new guns already have guns. Apparently this point is way subtle for many in this audience, because so far on the DU board the number of pro-gunners I've found who understand this is exactly zero. But among people who look at this issue scientifically, it is common knowledge.

I'd love to see a citation that the number of firearm owners is in decline.

From what I've read, the number of people applying for CCW permits is only increasing.

Also, the link between gun ownership rates and higher homicide and gun violence has been confirmed by several scientific studies. It is not based on crude time-comparisons like this because since crime rates are affected by many factors, this single time-comparison is not much evidence for anything.

And of course, the violent crime trend for the last 20 years probably is not much evidence for anything, either.

For example, the gunners like to distract attention from the gun violence epidemic by saying we should ignore guns and just focus on the root causes like poverty. Well, are you aware that poverty has increased since 2000, while crime has dropped? So are you now ready to accept that there is no link between poverty and crime? I hope not. Another root cause most people agree on is unemployment, which you may have noticed has skyrocketed over the last few years. So how can it be that crime rates continued to drop? Does that disprove the crime/unemployment link? Maybe in the gunner world...

That's easy. Ever since the 1990's, we have gotten much tougher on crime, and prison populations have skyrocketed. Rightfully or wrongfully, and entire generation or more of criminal youths have been taken out of circulation. I suspect this more than anything else is why we have seen crime rates decline. But also, theory has it that narcotics turf battles have stabilized since the cocaine and crack heydays of the 90's.

So the question is, why, if you won't accept the same argument for poverty and unemployment, are you and many others to claim that stats like the OP disprove the guns/crime link? Could it be something having to do with looking for ways to validate a pre-existing bias?

Personally, I don't really care if there is a gun/crime link. It would not matter to me in the slightest if there were a thousand rifle murders every year, or more. To me, it is ridiculous to allow the debate to focus on crime anyway. I am not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse to restrict the rights of everyone else, including myself.

[Logical]

61. Please provide links to these studies. I would like to read them.

[SteveM]

37. Straw men are -- ahem -- fast on the draw...

You will note, of course, that there is no claim in this forum that "more guns = less crime." That only comes from the gun-controller's straw harvesters, so they can tear down Wickerman yet again.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. So does the justice department now have time to pursue fraud and conspiracy?

I'm just saying, it's here in our communities, and has been for some time. What's taking you all so long?

[Sanity Claws]

4. Violent crime is up in NYC

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/09/17/2011-09-17_2crime17m.html

[spin]

7. NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation ...

Basically only the rich, the famous and the well connected can own or legally carry firearms in the Big Apple.

[Sanity Claws]

9. but it has been this way for years

that doesn't explain the recent surge in violent crime.

If anything, the increased laxity in laws elsewhere may explain the upsurge in NY

[hack89]

10. So cutting 5000 policemen since 2002 had no impact on crime? nt

[spin]

18. Less police = more crime. More firearms does not = more crime ...

Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

[DanTex]

20. Actually, it's both...

...along with a lot of other factors. For guns, it's not so much that guns increase crime as it is that they increase the lethality of crime. If it is easier to get guns, more escalating arguments and fights result in people getting shot and killed, more robberies turn into homicides, etc.

[spin]

23. Then why have we seen a large drop in violent crime since 2001?

National Crime Victimization Survey
September 2011, NCJ 235508
Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

During 2010, U.S. residents age 12 or
older experienced an estimated 18.7
million violent and property crime
victimizations, down from 20.1 million in 2009
and 24.2 million in 2001, according to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). These criminal
victimizations in 2010 included an estimated
3.8 million violent victimizations, 1.4 million
serious violent victimizations, 14.8 million
property victimizations, and 138,000 personal
thefts. Violent and serious violent victimizations
declined by nearly 34% between 2001 and 2010.

***snip***

Violent victimization rates fell to their lowest levels since
1993

The double-digit percentage decline in the violent crime
victimization rate in 2010 continued a longer-term trend. Since
1993, the violent crime victimization rate declined steadily
from 49.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1993 to 14.9 per
1,000 in 2010, a decline of 70% (figure 2). Most of this decline
occurred between 1993 and 2001, when the violent crime rate
declined by half to reach 25.1 in 2001.
The serious violent crime victimization rate followed a similar
pattern of decline as the violent crime victimization rate.
It declined by 73% since 1993, from 20.5 per 1,000 persons
age 12 or older to 5.4 per 1,000. The serious violent crime
victimization rate declined by more than half between 1993
and 2000, reaching 10.1 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
in 2000. It declined by almost half again from 2000 to 2010,
reaching 5.4 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

If you are correct than why after 14 million new firearms were sold in 2009, why didn't we see a corresponding increase in violent crime?

[DanTex]

25. Well, if I wanted to, I could claim that it was due to the drop in gun ownership

that occurred over the same time period. As I've mentioned, even though gun sales are up, gun ownership rates are down. I know you disagree here, but in so doing you are running square in the face of the statistical data -- as is common on the pro-gunner side, you accept the statistics you like, and you come up with a story to ignore the statistics you don't like.

But actually it is more complicated than that, because a lot of things affect crime.

Besides, let's assume, for argument's sake, that we didn't know about the gun ownership rates, and all we had was gun sales to go by.

Let me ask you this. Since 2001, there has been an increase in poverty in the US. In the last few years, unemployment has skyrocketed. And yet crime has been dropping. Now, would you be prepared to argue that this shows no link between poverty and/or unemployment and crime? Or do you think it is more likely that without the unemployment and the poverty, crime would probably have dropped even more.

Since I'm assuming you agree with me (and everyone else who studies crime) that what happened in the last decade in no way refutes the overall link between poverty/unemployment and crime, the next question is why are you so quick to claim, based on the similar observation that gun sales increased while crime rates dropped, that this shows no link between guns and crime?

[hack89]

29. Isn't criminal ownership of guns the real issue here?

are there fewer guns available for criminals (unlikely) or are there fewer criminals?

[spin]

30. And I would simply point out that the surveys you feel are accurate ...

are simply wrong. Many gun owners will simply lie if asked about their gun ownership if contacted by an interviewer.

Let's suppose there was a survey conducted on how many people plan to cheat on their income tax. How accurate do you think the results would be? Now you could argue that owning firearms is not illegal, but many gun owners feel that it may be in the future.

Out of curiosity, I asked my daughter how many of her gun owning friends would tell an interviewer that they owned firearms. She estimated that higher than 80% would refuse to admit this. Gun owners are very hesitate about discussing their collection with strangers. I know a good number of NRA members who would never put an NRA bumper sticker on their car. I'm one.

[russ1943]

31. Not wrong....................

DanTex’s survey’s are simply wrong?
Maybe you are of the opinion that the surveys he’s referenced aren’t as accurate as you think your information is, but hey, that is just your OPINION.
There are no better or well known reputable surveys than the GSS conducted by the National Opinion Research Center.
The GSS is widely regarded as the single best source of data on societal trends. The GSS is the largest project funded by the Sociology Program of the National Science Foundation. Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.
The fact is that there are numerous subjects surveyed where some respondents are going to deceive. You aren’t the only person to consider that there is some deception involved in some areas. The lack of gun licensing and registration laws in this country makes all the statistics regarding gun ownership suspect. That said, there has been a variety of efforts to ascertain a best estimate and the GSS is considered a leader in determining difficult statistics. The NORC, known since its founding in 1941 as the National Opinion Research Center and the NCVS are professionally staffed and they know full well the appropriate measures to minimize that deception and are constantly making adjustments to improve accuracy. It isn’t DanTex’s survey’s that are wrong.

[Euromutt]

34. You seem to lack a certain measure of introspection

<...> as is common on the pro-gunner side, you accept the statistics you like, and you come up with a story to ignore the statistics you don't like.

You mean like this?

And in fact, it's also consistent with the hypothesis that more total guns results in more homicide, because there are plenty of other factors that influence crime rates, so the fact that over a certain period one thing went up while another went down doesn't disprove the link, as the examples of poverty and unemployment show. It is likely that if unemployment hadn't shot up over the last few years, we would have seen an even bigger decrease in crime.

Now who was it who came up with that particular story to ignore the statistics he doesn't like? I wonder...

[PavePusher]

63. "...they increase the lethality of crime."

Hmmmm.... Got cite?

[virginia mountainman]

17. Than why don't those guns cause problems in their home states???

If the "lax laws from other states" are the reason violent crime is RISING in NY, why is the crime rates, NOT rising in the states with the "lax laws"??

[gejohnston]

19. no because

the repealing of old carry laws in other states have absolutely nothing to do with NYC. The federal purchasing regulations, which have been in place since the 1930s and strengthened in the 1960s and 1990s, remain in place.

[ileus]

11. Looks like it's time to ban the nasty habit of strapping a gun or two on and going into public...

the US is getting safer no reason to be rude and impolite to society by carrying a firearm in public...time for a nationwide ban....leave them at home gunners.

:)

[Hoyt]

36. I'll bet if the crime rate miraculously fell to Zero, toters would still carry a gun (or two).

Do you really think they would give it up after being addicted to the dang things for all these years?

[LAGC]

40. If the crime rate did miraculously fall to zero, why would anyone care who had guns?

Indeed, that could be part of the reason we see less and less support for stricter gun control laws.

As over-all violent crime decreases, there is less concern about gun violence.

[Hoyt]

41. Simple, guns in public aren't good for society.

[oneshooter]

42. Do you have any proof of that, or did you do a squat and grunt again. n/t

[Hoyt]

43. OneSHOOTER, nothing I post will convince you - you've built your life around guns, even ur UserName.

[oneshooter]

46. So you have no proof. More of your crap then. n/t

[Hoyt]

47. Nope, not "crap." Some crud maybe, but no crap. Do you really think guns in public are good?

[oneshooter]

50. Still waiting for your "proof" Need to squat again? Hope it hurts a lot. n/t

[Hoyt]

54. Such anal retentive drivel. Get a hold of yourself. LMAO

[rl6214]

68. "anal rententive drivel"? You are accusing someone else of this?

How about your constant blathering about cowboys practicing in their fast draw in front of a mirro with a gun or two stuck down their pants. Talk about anal rententive drivel.

[oneshooter]

51. Legally owned and possessed firearms have, to this point done very little if any harm. n/t

It is up to you to proove otherwise.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

53. Shooter, we are talking about the future -- sometimes there is no PROOF, only reason.

We gonna sit around waiting for gunners to start taking sides in the street?

[oneshooter]

70. And this is how you see it?

"waiting for gunners to start taking sides in the street?"

I would recommend that you open your eyes, firearm injuries are DOWN, violent crime is DOWN. Prove that your dream of the future is consistent with the REALITY of today. Stop watching Mad Max films as your future. If you truly believe that then do your part and dispose of all of your firearms, after all that IS what you want others to do.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

72. Proof? Reason?

You don't seem to actually use either.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. But if the crime rate was zero, how could they be bad?

[Hoyt]

59. They would be unnecessary unless you just have to have a gun or two in your pants.

But obviously it won't happen. Gunners will keep buying more guns, promoting more gun toting, etc. And more guns will go to the wrong people.

[Atypical Liberal]

60. But unnecessary does not equal bad.

Sure it would be unnecessary if the crime rate were zero. But if the crime rate were zero, that does not mean that it is bad.

What this does is highlight the problem with the anti-gun attitude, and why there is no ground to be gained in any kind of compromise on the issue.

It doesn't matter how little crime there is, even if there was no crime, one gun will always be one gun too many for them.

[Hoyt]

62. That was my point. You guys HAVE TO carry. Crime, self-D, etc., are just BS. Guns not good.

[Atypical Liberal]

71. If the crime rate was zero, how is carrying them not good?

[rl6214]

69. There ya go, more anal retentive drivel

"a gun or two in your pants"

Again you are worried about what is in another mans pants.

[PavePusher]

64. Good ghod, how many logic classes did you fail in college? n/t

[russ1943]

44. Deaths & injuries for one, or is that two?

Deaths & injuries from firearms are more of a concern for many than crime per se.
In the US there are more unintentional (accidental) shootings of people than there are murders by guns.

In 2008 for example there were 17,215 unintentional non fatal firearms injuries and 592 deaths for a combined total of 17,807 persons unintentionally shot with firearms. Of all the 16,272 murders in the US in 2008, 71.9% or 11,700 were committed with firearms.

[LAGC]

45. Good point.

But considering that there are over 283 million guns in civilian hands in the U.S. today, that's an accident rate of less than 0.01%

I'd dare say the accident rate of electrocution by hair dryer falling into the bathtub is probably more likely.

[Hoyt]

48. Yea, but there are only 80M owners. Most of owners here, have a bunch. And they are proud of it.

And most of those owners have the good sense to leave their guns at home where they can do just about whatever they want with the things.

[rl6214]

67. Still waiting for that picture of the cowboy with a gun(or two)

Maybe you can find one with a red dot scope?

[russ1943]

15. FYI

The surveys’ results showing diminishing violent crime rates are certainly a good sign. It is important however to recognize that the term “violent crime” as used here is different from the term violent crime as used in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports due out next week. This National Crime Victimization Survey, being a survey, is commonly referenced for the purpose of indicating at what volume crimes are actually occurring as opposed to what crimes are being reported which is reflected in the FBI’s UCR. Another significant difference is that the number of murders aren’t included in this NCVS definition of “violent crime”, (they’re dead and difficult to survey).
The actual U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics NCVS is available at ; http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

[spin]

21. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows a 34% drop in serious violent victimizations since 2001 ...

National Crime Victimization Survey
September 2011, NCJ 235508
Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

During 2010, U.S. residents age 12 or
older experienced an estimated 18.7
million violent and property crime
victimizations, down from 20.1 million in 2009
and 24.2 million in 2001, according to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). These criminal
victimizations in 2010 included an estimated
3.8 million violent victimizations, 1.4 million
serious violent victimizations, 14.8 million
property victimizations, and 138,000 personal
thefts. Violent and serious violent victimizations
declined by nearly 34% between 2001 and 2010.

***snip***

Violent victimization rates fell to their lowest levels since
1993

The double-digit percentage decline in the violent crime
victimization rate in 2010 continued a longer-term trend. Since
1993, the violent crime victimization rate declined steadily
from 49.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1993 to 14.9 per
1,000 in 2010, a decline of 70% (figure 2). Most of this decline
occurred between 1993 and 2001, when the violent crime rate
declined by half to reach 25.1 in 2001.
The serious violent crime victimization rate followed a similar
pattern of decline as the violent crime victimization rate.
It declined by 73% since 1993, from 20.5 per 1,000 persons
age 12 or older to 5.4 per 1,000. The serious violent crime
victimization rate declined by more than half between 1993
and 2000, reaching 10.1 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
in 2000. It declined by almost half again from 2000 to 2010,
reaching 5.4 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

While it is impossible to attribute the drop in violent crime to the advent of "shall issue" concealed carry laws there is an interesting correlation.

[Hoyt]

49. Heck, some T-Bagger will point to that as a george bush accomplishment.

More guns haven't made the rate drop.

[oneshooter]

52. Then what has? Proove it with the proper cites. n/t

[Hoyt]

58. You mean citations like you have for guns being responsible?

More likely: tougher sentences; better survelliance; better law enforcement; aging population; and more.

We'd be a lot better off if we'd taken some tough actions on gun proliferation 50 years or so ago. Might as well start now, so that 20 years from now we don't have another 100 million guns to deal with.

[gejohnston]

55. I don't think they have either

but certainly fewer guns had nothing to do with it too.
Given that his only least worst real accomplishment was redefining "ranch", they have to come up with something.

[PavePusher]

65. Fortunately, he did not make that claim.

In fact, he specifically said he wasn't making that claim.

Nice try with the insinuation/misdirection.

[Hoyt]

66. But your gunner buddies do make that claim, though somewhat obfuscated.

[X_Digger]

73. The fact that you can't understand the difference only underlines your lack of knowledge..

Here, let me explain it one more time in the (admittedly small) hope that you'll finally get it.

We've seen a lot of bumper-sticker sloganeering that 'more guns = more crime' / 'more guns = more gun crime' / 'more guns = more gun deaths' / etc.

Those statements are easily disproven by existing data showing more guns and less crime / gun crime / gun deaths, etc.

That in no way makes a claim that 'more guns = less crime' or similar statements.


If I claimed that chewing gum causes crime -- 'more gum = more crime', and it was disproven as an absurd claim, that doesn't mean that one claimed that chewing gun lowers crime.

Do you finally see how absurd your leap in- I hesitate to call it logic- really is?