Of course there is no cause and effect

We have more guns, more concealed carry folks, and we are almost six years past the expiration of the stupid Clinton “assault weapon” ban.

The last two years have seen record increases in gun sales. So, with all these guns, how bad has crime gotten?

It will come as no surprise to those with more than a room-temperature IQ that crime continues to go down. According to the FBI, violent crime is down 6.2 percent over the same period in 2009, and homicide is down 7.1 percent. Further, robberies are down 10.7 percent, rapes down 6.2 percent, aggravated assaults down 3.9 percent, and burglaries dropped 1.4 percent.

More here. This is a well known “fact” among people who have been paying attention to these things but it may be a little shocking to those who don’t.

Comments

  1. The “facts” of this article would have you believe that the drop in crime is because of increased gun sales. I would speculate that the increases in gun sales are to people who already owned guns – the just have more now – not to more people owning guns. Although, it is true that gun sale surged when Obama took office because people thought he was going to try and take guns away, for the record I believe he has only increased gun rights.

    It is true that the anti-gun people like to attribute any gun sales to crime I believe that most guns used in crimes are not purchased legally anyway.

    I would note also that I believe that the stats show another anomaly in that crime has gone done even with the economy going down.

    1. Shutesie the article clearly states…

      It’s not possible to directly attribute these drops in crime to the increase in guns — there are just too many variables at work. But, we can say with absolute certainty that more ARs, more pistols, (we’ve seen two years of record gun sales), and more people carrying guns for their own protection (Alaska and Arizona removed the requirement for a permit!) has NOT resulted in an increase in violent crime or homicide.

      That is the complete opposite of

      The reason this is such and important point is that when Michigan was in the early stages of becoming a “Shall Issue” state the opposition kept claiming it was going to lead to more crime, more deaths and more murder. The facts are that it hasn’t happened and (possibly coincidently) the opposite did happen.

      I agree with you on your point about the economy though, which I think proves another point. It is not the availability of guns or widespread poverty that causes crime stats to increase in numbers. I won’t speculate what it is that does but it certainly isn’t the aforementioned.

  2. Judy why the hostility? I understand you don’t agree with my views on the Second Amendment (or personal protection or probably much else) but our differences of opinion don’t have to get personal.

  3. They may have stated that you can’t directly attribute it but their slant “can you say “harder to get a carry permit?” suggests they believe otherwise.

    I don’t think criminals are really thinking about whether someone is carrying. If they are playing the odds they figure people are not carrying. They could just as easily be carrying a knife or be some kind of kung fu fighter.

    It is nice that crime didn’t go up otherwise I think you would see a backlash against gun ownership.

    The people I know who own firearms are responsible people who may own guns for hunting, protection, enjoy owning fine pieces of craftsmanship or history, or they enjoy shooting as a demonstration of skill. They are not violent or criminal and certainly would never go out and shoot each other.

    In fact, the last thing they ever wish to do is that very thing.

    1. On one side you have more states beoming “Shall issues” states therefore making it easier for lay biding citizens to get and carry guns. On the other side you have violent crime rates going down accross the country (and during an economic decline). Those are facts. This report, on the other hand, uses a LOT of statistics to “prove” there is no cause in effect, which means nothing. Who cares? Reality proves that more guns do not mean more crime.

    2. On one side you have more states beoming “Shall issues” states therefore making it easier for lay biding citizens to get and carry guns. On the other side you have violent crime rates going down accross the country (and during an economic decline). Those are facts. This report, on the other hand, uses a LOT of statistics to “prove” there is no cause in effect, which means nothing. Who cares? Reality proves that more guns do not mean more crime.

  4. As someone once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.” Statistically, as the report shows, there is no valid correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Incidentally, though not all caused by firearms, Michigan’s murder rate jumped over 13% between 2008 and 2009 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/micrime.htm).

    1. I have stated several times on the forum that it doesn’t matter to me whether there is a correlation or not. The numbers are what they are and you don’t have to be a statistician to figure it out.

      Those stats you linked to show that the trend has been going down since the 70’s Yes there have been ups and down but the overall trend points down. There was a jump in 2009 but only because 2008 was a very low year in comparison.

      The red line is the year that Michigan became a “shall issue” state and yes the trend started long before that year. My only point is that more guns in the hands of law biding citizens do not equal more crime or more deaths as many people seem to think.

      state

  5. You are correct. The simple answer, the final result of the study, is that “We don’t know” whether more guns mean more violent crime or less violent crime. One can try to ignore or disparage the statistical term “correlation,” but it is the most recognized and valid mathematically tool available for ascertaining whether two variables such as gun ownership and the incidence of violent crime bear any relationship to one another. With the data available, they do not.

  6. Why don’t you ask Gabrielle Giffords’ family what they think about President Clinton’s stupid “assault weapons” ban? Please note that I repositioned the word stupid, because obviously it doesn’t belong in front of President Clinton’s name who had the common sense to propose this type of ban. The stupid ones are those who feel they need to own one of these things. It’s kind of like purchasing a Maserati because it’s a fast car with the knowledge that the speed limit on our highways is 70 mph. Where would one use one of these weapons? Oh, yeah. To go out in public and cause a lot of mayhem and grief. People who insist on owning these are no better than the two idiots who brought down the federal building in Oklahoma. Those who purchase these weapons shoulod be placed on a trerrorist watch list. Personal protection? How about a can of mace or a tae kwon do class. The excuse that we should be carrying assault weapons for “personal protection” is a load of crap. I’m sure that if Buck were to meet Judy in person, he might consider her hostile, feel threatened and pull his weapon and shoot her.

    1. Why don’t you ask Gabrielle Giffords’ family what they think about President Clinton’s stupid “assault weapons” ban?

      B Cleary I am sure somebody will at some point but according to Wiki she herself supported gun rights in general. Are you even sure that the shooter used a so called assault weapon?

      Please note that I repositioned the word stupid, because obviously it doesn’t belong in front of President Clinton’s name who had the common sense to propose this type of ban.

      I have some questions that I would like you to answer.

      1. What specifically did you like about the ban?
      2. How many bad guys were denied weapons because of the ban?
      3. Are all guns essentially assault weapons?
      4. If every single type of gun were banned tomorrow would gun violence stop?
      5. Has violent crime using “assault weapons” went up since the ban expired?
      6. Did violent crime using “assault weapons” go down when the ban was in place?

      The stupid ones are those who feel they need to own one of these things.

      Owning only ONE would be stupid, which is why I own three. However, for the record, none of them are weapons that would have been labeled assault weapons during the ban.

      It’s kind of like purchasing a Maserati because it’s a fast car with the knowledge that the speed limit on our highways is 70 mph.

      I am sure people buy Maseratis (sp?) for many reasons other than speed. Social status and brand come to mind but who cares why someone buys anything? Why is it your business why anybody buys anything?

      Also just because the speed limits are 70 MPH on most U.S. highways doesn’t mean they are that way everywhere. I just think it is a bad analogy.

      Where would one use one of these weapons?

      On the range.

      Oh, yeah. To go out in public and cause a lot of mayhem and grief.

      You are always going to have nuts that cause violence, mayhem and grief whether guns are banned or not. At least now when the violence is perpetrated against law abiding citizens they can respond in kind. You can go right to the Michigan State Police site and get a record of all the Concealed Pistol Licenses that have been lost due to misuse of a weapon. The number is miniscule and I assure you that many of the people who have a CPL license also have weapons that would be considered “assault weapons” by the definition put forth in the ban. All these people must have found some other use then the few that you suggested.

      People who insist on owning these are no better than the two idiots who brought down the federal building in Oklahoma. Those who purchase these weapons shoulod be placed on a trerrorist watch list.

      What can I say to a comment like that? I assure you there are people in this town that you do business with that own weapons that were on the banned list. Should we send them to Guantanamo just to be safe? Why don’t we just lock up anyone who has ever thought about buying a weapon that someone else deems unnecessary?

      I am curiuos though …. by your defination am I a terrorist?

      Personal protection? How about a can of mace or a tae kwon do class.

      I sleep well at night knowing that my wife doesn’t rely on a can of anything for personal protection. She does know Karate but I think that her kicking abilities are going to be the least of any attackers worries should he be foolish enough to pick her as his next victim.

      The excuse that we should be carrying assault weapons for “personal protection” is a load of crap. I’m sure that if Buck were to meet Judy in person, he might consider her hostile, feel threatened and pull his weapon and shoot her.

      Look if you don’t like the method that I choose to protect my family that is fine. I don’t need nor did I seek you permission to exercise my Constitutional right to arm myself. You get NO say on how I choose to protect my family. Well you can say whatever you want but I am going to tell you that your say gets trumped by the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment so it is something that you are going to have to deal with.

      Also

      I have NEVER pulled my weapon in all the years I have carried one and I don’t expect that I ever will. I live by the philosophy that I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

      I don’t even know what point you were trying to make with the Judy comment. I am continuously in contact with people who I disagree with politically. I cherish the fact that we (as a people in general) can disagree on big issues and still be friends at the end of the day. Why would I or anybody consider a disagreement as a threat?

      Were you just trying to be funny or do you lack the ability to be friends with people that don’t share your views?

  7. Since the shot that wounded Representative Gifford was fired from 2-3 feet away according to video evidence, Loughner’s having a weapon deemed Illegal under the now defunct assault weapons ban probably made no difference in her case. But that 30-shot magazine on his Glock9 was certainly responsible for the woundings and deaths of many of those around her.

    And on the whole issue of gun ownership, two more studies I’ve come across take issue with the whole concept of its supposed safety.

    A University of Pennsylvanis study reports that those carrying weapons are about 4.5 times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns.

    And the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns; e.g.,
    Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.

  8. Buck,

    This is off-topic for this particular forum, but as far as guns go, I think you’ll like this video:

    Lewis And Clark Air Rifle – Are You Serious?

    If you like guns you will love this piece of history. As a history
    guy, this is amazing. How many of you very knowledgeable folks out there even knew that a rifle like this existed? I didn’t.

    Question: I wonder how they pumped this up to the required 800 PSI? Answer: The Girandoni Air Rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly
    1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a
    wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs themselves, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply. In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break could make it inoperable. Finally, it was very different from any other weapon of the time and any soldier using it needed to be highly
    trained.

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/451309/thread/1296928404/This+is+j

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.