FBI: Violent crime down by 6 percent in 2010

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44578241/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.Tnd6INTDw8p

"Violent crime dropped 6 percent in 2010, marking the fourth straight year of year-to-year declines, while property crime was down for the eighth straight year, falling 2.7 percent, the FBI reported Monday."

...

"An aging population and continued high rates of imprisonment for criminals are helping to drive down crime rates, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University."

...

"At the same time, the number of murders increased in major cities in the Northeast, including Boston, New York and New Jersey's largest city Newark, which all experienced double-digit increases, the statistics showed."

All of this despite record sales of firearms and ammunition over the last decade, and more and more permissive firearm laws being passed.

Kind of hard to make any kind of case that more guns = more crime. You certainly can't say that more guns = less crime, but it sure is getting hard to defend the idea that more guns will cause more crime. It is also especially interesting that the places with the strictest gun control are the places with the highest crime rates.

[Frustratedlady]

1. How many white collar crimes were noted?

Arrest a few bankers, hedge funders and politicians and it would soar.

[slackmaster]

2. Please re-read the subject line

Note the presence of the word "violent."

[Frustratedlady]

3. Well, some homeless and pretty hungry people might refer to their crimes as violent.

Not to mention those who have been evicted by pretty rough methods.

Just sayin'.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Not enough.

I agree, more bankers need to be feeling the heat, but this is the guns forum, which typically focuses on violent crime.

[Hoyt]

5. Violent rate might have been even less if we'd cut off gun pipeline 50 years ago, instead of pumping

em out.

But, you are right -- can't draw conclusions from report except that gunners keep promoting the need to for more to carry guns in public despite falling violent crime rates. You'd think some might reevaluate the need to carry -- but, slim chance of that.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. It hurts nothing for lawful people to carry firearms.

Even if there was no crime at all, we would probably all still have locks on our doors and use them.

No one is harmed by lawful people carrying firearms, even if they are unnecessary. So in terms of policy, there is no reason to worry about such people carrying firearms.

Violent rate might have been even less if we'd cut off gun pipeline 50 years ago, instead of pumping em out.

It's hard to see how that could be true. We have had record sales of firearms and ammunition in the last 10 years, and yet violent crime has continued to decline over that period.

You'd think some might reevaluate the need to carry -- but, slim chance of that.

I haven't been in a car accident in decades. But I still wear a seat belt every time I get in the car. I've never had a flat tire, but I still carry a spare just in case. Being prepared is easy, cheap, and doesn't hurt anyone.

[MrDiaz]

7. umm.

I think the reason that the violent crime rate is going down is BECAUSE of more and more people carrying their firearm. Criminals know we got them, therefore they would be les likely to commit a crime against a person with CHL.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. You can't say that without data.

There is no data that I am aware of that says that the reason why crime is declining is because more people are carrying firearms.

But it is certainly true that in spite of record firearm and ammunition sales in the last decade, violent crime continues to decline. So we definitely can't say that more guns = more crime.

[SteveM]

25. That is up for debate...

I'm as strong a supporter of the Second as anyone, but the theory that more guns (in the hands of the law-abiding) will deter and thereby lessen crime is not yet proven. I realize John Lott and a few others make that contention, but I am not convinced. What may be a factor is keeping the hard-line thugs in prison for longer sentences, a dogged approach at "tracking" released violent thugs, the institutionalization of "new" drug territories (around crack cocaine, meth, etc.) so that disputes are fewer, etc.

One thing for sure is that more people are carrying concealed. Another thing for sure is the lowering of the crime rate.

But one doesn't necessarily cause the other.

Oh, and another thing: The old slogan that "more guns = more crime" has definitely not been proven.

[gravity556]

9. I have to ask, Hoyt-

Just what injury is done to you by my having a firearm in my pocket or inside my waistband? It doesn't give off radiation, it doesn't distract me or impair me when I'm driving, you can't smell it or see it and while I disagree vehemently with your view on gun rights, unless you threatened me with bodily harm or kicked in my front door, there's no chance I will shoot you with it. They don't go off by themselves-99% of what gets posted here as "accidental discharges" are really "negligent discharges", caused by either an idiot playing with a gun or someone not paying attention and inadvertently pulling the trigger.

My carrying a gun costs you nothing and doesn't infringe on your freedoms whatsoever (in any real sense, anyhow. I know you feel that anyone except you who owns guns scares you, but I don't know what to say about that other than "Buy a nightlight"). Which is why I and the other pro-rights folks in this forum can't understand the butthurt.

[oneshooter]

26. I would not hold my breath waiting for a logical, well thought out answer. n/t

[DWC]

10. Peace Through Strength

It works for individuals just like it works for governments.

Semper Fi,

[benld74]

11. FBI changed their whole method of classifying 'types' of crimes in 2008

[Euromutt]

12. That wouldn't make a difference from 2009 to 2010, then (n/t)

[X_Digger]

That's the second time I've seen someone claim a change in methodology..

.. without citation.

Care to share?

[petronius]

20. It looks like the method for estimating populations in the UCR changed in 2007

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs#methodology

Perhaps that's what the poster is referring to? I can't find any reference anywhere to redefining violent crime classifications, and the most recent version of the UCR reporting handbook I can find is 2004 (which suggests no such major changes since then)... :shrug:

[X_Digger]

21. Same here.. and the FBI did a modeling of 2007 numbers pre- and post- change..

I'll see if I can find a link, but the overall rates didn't change appreciably.

[iverglas]

13. "Kind of hard to make any kind of case that more guns = more crime"

Don't you just wish that some real person would even TRY to make that "case"?

The smell of desperation almost drowns out the straw dust in the air.

[gejohnston]

14. say what?

so are you saying those who do make that claim are computer generated and not real posters? False flag by the NRA? VPC to make themselves look grass roots?

[iverglas]

15. oh, give it up

I'm saying that the only place that meme exists is in the fevered imaginations of gun militants.

[gejohnston]

16. I don't know about Gun Control Canada but

that has been a common feature in propaganda here.

[iverglas]

17. "here"

that has been a common feature in propaganda here

Unless someone HERE, in this forum at this website, is reciting it, what is the point? None.

Even if someone here has done that, unless that person is at least minimally informed and sophisticated and engaged in the discussion of firearms policy, who cares what they say?

All kinds of apparently gun-militant trolls show up here weekly spouting gun-militant noise. I treat them like what they are -- trolls -- for the brief time they're around. Unless regular posters give their words their stamp of approval, I don't go quoting them as representing anything or anyone.

No regular advocate of firearms control who posts in this forum goes around saying "more guns = more crime". So tilting at that particular non-event is quite obviously done for the purpose of making somebody think that this is the "case" that firearms control advocates try to make. Since it isn't, that just isn't really, um, candid.

[gejohnston]

18. here is one example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x460152

Of course, as I understand them, listing specific individuals is against the rules.
did you ever define gun-militant?

[iverglas]

19. failing to take your point

The post you directed me to contained text quoted from a letter to the editor written by some third party, responding to another letter to the editor.

It stated, in part:

The contributor made the argument that because Nevadans are so heavily armed a massacre would be unlikely to happen here.

... Nevada is considered "the gun state" because we have more registered guns on a per capita basis than any state in the United States. We also have 26 gun deaths per 100,000 population, which makes Nevada one of the most violent places on Earth.

What you have there is someone responding to the "more guns = LESS crime" "case" by pointing out that it is has not been made.

So in sum, it's an opinion voiced by a stranger to this forum and that person did not say "more guns = more crime".

Anything else?

[gejohnston]

22. rather old, but I have better things to do

than chase down exact words that more recent people have said exactly that. We both know that. You and I both know when someone drags out UK laws and US laws on your side they are making the claim more guns equals more crime. Granted their claim is often half way logical and mostly nonsense, but your side has made the claim here.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x10169#10222

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382418

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x696832

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x461995#462374

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x461995#462214

[iverglas]

23. yeah, sorry, no cigar

But if you really want to bring international comparisons into the discussion, I'll be happy to oblige.

One I just have to giggle at though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x461995#462374

Try not to be so gullible, hm?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=460898&mesg_id=461326

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=461598&mesg_id=461690

You might want to pick your examples a little more carefully.

Anybody remember Joe Steel? ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=245844

Watch out for those sheep in wolves clothing now!

[gejohnston]

24. why?

hey if you can move goal posts, so can I.

[Kennah]

27. So you're saying more guns = no effect on crime?

Doesn't really seem logical that there is absolutely zero effect.

Perhaps it is a small effect, but I have a hard time buying zero.

I'm not sure why one cannot say more guns = less violent crime