Murder rate drops as Gun sales soar.

[Rustbelt]

I just handed in my papers today to get my concealed pistols license. It should take about a month.

I went to a different county than the one I live in and it took three days and that was only because it was over a weekend. Had it for 6 years now and have never carried yet but happy to know I can if I wanted to.

 

[Rustbelt]

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found that "there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime

Who paid for the research? That always influences the data and eventual outcome. Remember figures don't lie but liars do figure and can easily influence the data and present it as fact.

 

[MaggieMae]

Probably what's most telling about the OP's citation is that since 2008, gun sales have soared.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Rustbelt]

Sorry I wasn't allowed to post your link in my previous post since I seem to need 15 or more posts to post a link even though it isn't mine. It was not by any means meant to change your original post that I quoted.

 

[boedicca]

John Lott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found that "there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime

That is not a credible source. Anyone can post whatever they want on Wiki. Lott is a target of the anti-gun movement, which makes wiki posts unreliable.

But if you are going to cite it, include the complete info:

Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[21] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."


Given the liberal bias in academia, even a grudging admission is high praise.

 

[CMike]

I just handed in my papers today to get my concealed pistols license. It should take about a month.

I went to a different county than the one I live in and it took three days and that was only because it was over a weekend. Had it for 6 years now and have never carried yet but happy to know I can if I wanted to.

I had to get it get it from the county that I live in.

 

[rightwinger]

Probably what's most telling about the OP's citation is that since 2008, gun sales have soared.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because they know that Obama is going to take their guns away and they have to prepare for the Tea Party Revolution

 

[rightwinger]

John Lott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found that "there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime

That is not a credible source. Anyone can post whatever they want on Wiki. Lott is a target of the anti-gun movement, which makes wiki posts unreliable. So try again.

Lott is a right winger funded by the gun lobby. Prove that Wiki is incorrect on this matter regarding the 2004 article from the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences is obviously liberal because it has "Sciences" in its title

 

[MaggieMae]

John Lott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found that "there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime

That is not a credible source. Anyone can post whatever they want on Wiki. Lott is a target of the anti-gun movement, which makes wiki posts unreliable.

But if you are going to cite it, include the complete info:

Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[21] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."


Given the liberal bias in academia, even a grudging admission is high praise.

If you don't like Wikipedia, refer to one of its sources (always, ALWAYS sourced at the bottom of their pages and an [edit] notation when it is not). It still remains the most accurate and up to date encyclopedia on the Internet, and widely used by [gasp] conservatives and libertarians too.

 

[Coyote]

Nice attempt at a correlation

Can you prove any connection between the two?

Can you show statistics of guns being used to prevent murders?
Can you show that improved police strategies, crackdowns on gangs and socioeconomic factors have not had more impact?
Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

Can you prove that guns cause any of that?

He's not making that claim. Nice attempt at a red herring though.

 

[Coyote]

I am still curious about Rightwinger's question: Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

No one in the "pro-gun" lobby seems to answer it.

 

[Rustbelt]

Easy we have 5 times the criminals. The bad part of it all is not criminals get shot.

 

[CMike]

I am still curious about Rightwinger's question: Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

No one in the "pro-gun" lobby seems to answer it.

Can you explain why those cities that don't allow concealed gun have the most crime ie, chicagom,washington d.c.?

 

[boedicca]

I am still curious about Rightwinger's question: Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

No one in the "pro-gun" lobby seems to answer it.

Gangs. Adjust the murder rates for gang related, and they drop quite a bit.

A better question to ask is what is fueling oft racist gang activity?

 

[The Rabbi]

I am still curious about Rightwinger's question: Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

No one in the "pro-gun" lobby seems to answer it.

Actually we don't.
South Africa has many more guns in circulation than we do and their murder rate is many times ours.
Switzerland has gun laws similar to ours and their murder rate is miniscule.
Strip out urban black males ages 16 to 30 from crime stats and our crime rate looks about like anywhere in Western Europe.

But one point missed is this: if it is true that more guns lead to more crimes, why have rates declined over the last 2-3 years (plus) while gun sales have gone up? If the proposition is true then increased gun sales would end up with increased crimes as a result. And they haven't.

 

[CMike]

FBI: Michigan's crime rate down 10.5% with CCW law

FBI: Michigan's crime rate down 10.5% with CCW law

In 1999, Michigan's violent crime rate was 4,324.8 per 100,000 people, compared to Ohio's 3,996.4. Legislators and citizens were fed up. Amidst howls from gun control extremists, failed court challenges, and veto-threats, Michigan's state legislature passed a "shall-issue" concealed carry reform bill into law. The state began issuing licenses in the year 2000.

In the first year of widespread licensing, Michigan's rate dropped to 4,109.9, vs. Ohio's increase to 4,041.8 per 100,000 people.

In 2001, Michigan's crime rate dropped below Ohio's for the first time since modern crime trends have been recorded - down to 4,081.5 per 100,000 people, compared to yet another increase in Ohio - up to 4,177.6.
With the success of Michigan's concealed carry law apparent even to some former opponents, the state legislature passed a number of liberalizations to that state's CCW law - making it easier to obtain a license, and to carry a firearm for self-defense in more places. The changes went into effect last July.

The FBI has just released it's 2002 Uniform Crime Report, which reveals stunning facts about the success of Michigan's concealed carry law: amidst a slight upward trend in crime nationwide, Michigan's crime rate has dropped yet again: down to 3874.1, a 10.5% reduction in just three years. In that same time, Ohio's crime rate has increased

 

[CMike]

It's ultimately our responsibility to protect ourselves, and our loved ones.

Many home invasions or other violent crimes occur quickly and without warning.

I would rather have the technology and training to defend myself, than wait for the police to right the report, after I am dead.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun, and as I said I just got yesterday a Glock 19 9 mm, and today I handed in my papers to the county, to get my Concealed Pistol's License.

 

[sangha]

I am still curious about Rightwinger's question: Can you explain why we still have five times the murder rate of countries that don't have open gun ownership?

No one in the "pro-gun" lobby seems to answer it.

Can you explain why those cities that don't allow concealed gun have the most crime ie, chicagom,washington d.c.?

NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and is also one of the safest of the larger cities in the nation.

And dont think we havent noticed your EPIC FAIL in answering the question you were asked. Unlike the gun nuts, liberals can defend themselves with facts. You obviously need a gun. Without one, you are defenseless.

 

[sangha]

It's ultimately our responsibility to protect ourselves, and our loved ones.

Many home invasions or other violente crimes occur quickly and without warning.

I would rather have the technology and training to defend myself, than wait for the police to right the report, after I am dead.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun, and as I said I just got yesterday a Glock 19 9 mm, and today I handed in my papers to the country, to get my Concealed Pistol's License.

The stupidity of rightwingers never surprises me.

Shotguns are terrible for defending against home invasions. You want a handgun for that.

And you don't need CCW in your own home.

 

[CMike]

This should be interesting,

Why are shotguns terrible to fight off home invasions and what firearms do you own?