A Familiar Pattern: As Sales of Firearms Go Up … Crime Goes Down

[HiramHawk]

This week the FBI released data showing that violent crime in the United States fell 6.4 percent in the first half of this year compared to the same time period in 2010. The data also indicated a 3.7 percent drop in property crime.

The FBI statistics undermine a favorite argument of anti-gun groups and some mainstream media that “more guns equal more crime,” especially when you consider that the continuing decrease in violent crime parallels record firearm sales.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."
--Thomas Jefferson

Read more: Gun | crime | shooting | keane | The Daily Caller



Read more: Gun | crime | shooting | keane | The Daily Caller
​

 

[actaeon277]

Preachin' to the choir. The people that need to hear it, won't.

 

[Phase2]

Preachin' to the choir. The people that need to hear it, won't.

True. But it is good news and provides good background when talking to antis.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm sorry. I got de-railed onto the Leanne Rymes vacation video...what was the story about? (Looks like Leanne has been to see a plastic surgeon).

 

[StreetStrip01]

Nonsense.

Guns are the devil, almost as bad as those baby killing pit bulls.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Id be curious to see the stats in areas where people arent allowed to carry guns or have harsher laws

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'd be curious to see how the stats looked as the FBI compiles them, but with the crimes occurring in gun-restrictive areas not counted.

My bet would be that both the property and violent crime rates would drop even more. Granted, part of this would be that the above gun-restrictive areas are all larger cities, but I think the difference would be undeniable.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[rugertoter]

Just as Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a pollite society".

 

[mbills2223]

Found this pretty quick doing a search of crime rates in California:

Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk

Notice the number of crimes in places like California, New York, and D.C. It's disheartening because studies like this are used to justify gun control when in reality they are the result of gun control. Pathetic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I honestly don't believe the two are related. Violent criminals are smart enough to look at the statistics and make an informed decision to NOT rob/rape/murder/batter.

Simply buying a firearm IMO has nothing to do with decreasing violent crime... it's proving to those that would do you harm, that you're willing to defend yourself. We've seen more and more instances of people doing just that, and THAT, again IMO, has had a much more profound effect.

 

[MTC]

Notice the number of crimes in places like California, New York, and D.C. It's disheartening because studies like this are used to justify gun control when in reality they are the result of gun control. Pathetic.

Yes. What is more unfortunate is that supporters of the RKBA often get drawn into the arguments by some who use stats and studies to push their agenda of infringements or outright prohibitions.

What would you think of a politician who introduced a bill to infringe on your right to keep and/or bear arms on the grounds that the crime rate was ever so high?

What would you think of one who introduced the same type of bill, arguing that you didn't need a right to keep and bear arms on the grounds that the crime rate was relatively low?

My rights, your rights, our rights, are not contingent upon the actions of convicted criminals - or the latest crime statistics.

 

[ftwphilly]

Disagree, I think it's the gun-free zones that are really helping.

 

[mbills2223]

My rights, your rights, our rights, are not contingent upon the actions of convicted criminals - or the latest crime statistics.

I beg to differ. Many times throughout this country's history, laws have been made in reaction to the acts of criminals. Look at the current legal status of many 'recreational' drugs in the United States. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and hereoin are illegal because of the small percentage of individuals who would otherwise abuse the 'right' to consume them. The argument for the ban of such drugs is 1) to protect individuals who are apparently not smart enough to make their own decisions and 2) to protect innocent individuals who may be the victim of a crime caused by these drugs. I would estimate that over half the individuals who use illegal drugs are guilty of no other crimes. However, they are still considered criminals because their rights were and are contingent upon the actions of criminals.

This isn't to say that I would EVER use drugs, because I wouldn't, and most people on this forum most likely would not regardless of the legal status of drugs. However, the right of Americans to essentially do what they wish with their body is taken from them because of skewed crime statistics.

I realize this isn't the perfect comparison, but I think it illustrates my point laws and the taking of rights often IS contingent upon the actions of criminals. If guns were never used in crime, do you really think that we would see gun laws like those in California?

Just my

 

[MTC]

Mbills,

It may be difficult to tell sometimes through typed out words, but my post was a follow-up on - not a disagreement with - the comment of yours I quoted. It is a position statement of personal views to be read, as it would be spoken, in a conversational tone.
Not directed at you at all, rather for a wider audience.
Hope this helps clarify things.

 

[mbills2223]

I understand, and that's how I took it. I just wanted to comment on the quoted text as it immediately brought what I posted to mind. We're both on the same team here.

 

[MTC]

We're both on the same team here.

Reviewed my post. Should have made clear that the two questions were rhetorical and for general consumption, not a pointed interrogation.

 

[mbills2223]

The questions you posed about politicians using opposing arguments for the same end result are interesting. I think it happens more than people want to believe. The Washington machine has created this Left-Right system, but nearly everyone in that city has the same goal in mind.

 

[jamesg]

while i am all for gun ownership, i feel like this can be filed under "post hoc ergo propter hoc"

meaning one could just as easily say "unemployment went up in 2011 while gun ownership went up, therefore unemployed people must be the ones buying guns"

or any other dozens of stats....you have to be careful with "statistics"

 

[Phase2]

True, there is no hard proof that gun ownership is the cause of the declining crime. However, a more valid point is that it shows how the repeated claims by antis that there will be "wild west shootouts" or "blood in the streets" never actually come to pass when carry laws are relaxed in a state.

 

[jamesg]

True, there is no hard proof that gun ownership is the cause of the declining crime. However, a more valid point is that it shows how the repeated claims by antis that there will be "wild west shootouts" or "blood in the streets" never actually come to pass when carry laws are relaxed in a state.

agreed