Murder rate drops as Gun sales soar.

[MaggieMae]

I'd like to offer, for your consideration, this excerpt from Wiki re: Kennesaw, GA

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][9]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

And this story of Kennesaw celebrating 25 YEARS without a murder:

WorldNewsDaily

Sorry if WND doesn't suit, but the truth is the truth.

Translation: This law only applies to able-bodied redneck yahoos who can read at the minimum third grade level.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'd like to offer, for your consideration, this excerpt from Wiki re: Kennesaw, GA

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][9]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

And this story of Kennesaw celebrating 25 YEARS without a murder:

WorldNewsDaily

Sorry if WND doesn't suit, but the truth is the truth.

Translation: This law only applies to able-bodied redneck yahoos who can read at the minimum third grade level.

Facts are facts. The gun grabbers have INSISTED for YEARS now that more guns equals more crime. That simply is not true. In fact the proof is that more Guns has not resulted in more crime and that while the gun grabbers wailed and gun sales rose CRIME went down. Dramatically.

 

[The Rabbi]

At best you can say there is no correlation between gun sales and crime. And the most is that there is a correlation, with some evidence that more gun sales lowers the crime rate.
But the main argument for gun control is dead. Now we know it's about control, not guns.

 

[antagon]

gun control opponents have seized the opportunity to point out the irony in the british shotgun rampage.

in rural america, i would think that racking up 30 crime scenes on a shooting spree would get you shot by a concealed carrier or a store or homeowner... at least by a cop.

 

[CMike]

What is so difficult to understand?

If you are a criminal in Washington, D.C., you know that virtually nobody can legally carry a firearm, therefore, there is little risk robbing someone in the street. Thus, violent crime is greater.

If you are a criminal in Michigan, you know that it's legal for those that get a Concealed Pistol's License to carry a handgun, therefore, you know that if you try and rob someone in Michigan there is a greater likelihood that you make get shot and killed. Therefore, crime is less.

An armed society is a polite society.

 

[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.

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.

One reason gun sales have increased since 2008 is the fear the NRA has instilled that Obama plans to take all your guns away. While it isn't true, of course, the revolutionary wannabes are hoarding weapons in their private arsenals.

The fear is justified.

In fact, when I went to the county clerk's office to turn in my papers for my Concealed Pistol's License, they told me they are doing about 100/day in that office.

 

[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.

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

I'd like an answer to my question first.

 

[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.

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?

Do you have any statistics to support that and to show that these other countries with lower rates do not have gang related issues?

 

[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.

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

I'd like an answer to my question first.

It's been answered. You just need to read.

 

[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.

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

You got me curious, I decided to look this up.

First - you have to be careful of a major fallacy that both pro and anti-gun folks adhere to: correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

Concealed gun permits may or may not have an effect on violent crime - or it may be other factors.

Second, cities with the highest rate of violent crime:

If you look at murder and non-negligent homicides, the top 5 contenders are (percent per 100,000 pop):
New Orleans 63.6%
St. Louis 46.9
Baltimore 36.9
Detroit 33.8
Washington DC 31.4

Chicago, which you list is pretty low with 18% and 15th on the list.

If you look at rates of all violent crime - it's still fairly similar with the top five being St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis, Detroit and Baltimore.

Now...as far as I can tell from here: United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Louisiana allows concealed carry permits on a "shall issue" basis
Missouri allows open carry, concealed carry with permit, all subject to municipality laws
Maryland is very restrictive
Tennessee has a "shall issue" permit process
etc etc


I'm not sure about individual cities but it isn't looking like you can make the case that "cities that don't allow concealed gun have the most crime ".....

 

[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.

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.

Are those datapoints "outliers"? What is the overrall trend,, rather than the extremes?

Actually it's really hard to support a "cause and effect" relationship with gun ownership and rates of crime both pro and anti, because many factors go into crime rates and international laws and definitions of crimes (such as homicide) can vary.

South Africa has a great many factors at play that do not exist here including far more poverty and high high unemployment in many districts.

Switzerland is a very different society than ours - it's a tiny country, homogenous in culture, and has a culture that is very law abiding and socially responsible. Hard to make comparisons.

More realistic comparisons would be with countries that have more diverse populations and a similar culture to ours, such as Canada.

It is interesting though, to notice where the U.S. lies in the rankings. The countries with worse rates are predominately Third World and/or politically unstable. Much of the "developed" world has much better crime rates, including countries with legal systems and definitions similar to ours and more restrictive gun laws.

Among the countries with the best rates are some of the Arab countries but then - they have the harshest punishments and don't necessarily recognize violence on women as a "crime"....

Strip out urban black males ages 16 to 30 from crime stats and our crime rate looks about like anywhere in Western Europe.

UK and other European countries have significant immigrant populations that contribute to crime rates yet still have a far lower incidence of violent crime.

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.

I don't necessarily support that contention - I think too many factors influence crime rates to say with any certainty that more guns or fewer guns make it or break it.

If crime rates have declined in this country - is it solely due to increased gun ownership or is it other factors such as stricter penalties?

 

[Coyote]

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

I'd like an answer to my question first.

It's been answered. You just need to read.

Is your name Mike? Nope. Didn't think so.

At the time he posted, it wasn't answered. Try to keep up.

 

[Coyote]

What is so difficult to understand?

If you are a criminal in Washington, D.C., you know that virtually nobody can legally carry a firearm, therefore, there is little risk robbing someone in the street. Thus, violent crime is greater.

If you are a criminal in Michigan, you know that it's legal for those that get a Concealed Pistol's License to carry a handgun, therefore, you know that if you try and rob someone in Michigan there is a greater likelihood that you make get shot and killed. Therefore, crime is less.

An armed society is a polite society.

Yet Detroit Michigan has one of the highest rates of murder....

There's also another factor to consider - if you (the criminal) know almost anyone can carry a weapon then.....why not shoot first and take what you want?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It does.. as a matter of fact...

Murder is murder, and murder rate is murder rate... whether guns or cars or knives or wood chippers or poison or toothpicks are used is of no consequence

It is not the purchase of guns by law abiding people in a legal manner that has our murder rate high.... it is the criminal, who will obtain the weaponry anyway... An armed citizenry obeying the law with their weaponry is not going to make crime or murder increase

It also says something that states which pass concealed/carry laws, while experienced a striking drop in "hot" crimes - those where the victim is physically present, like murder, assault, rape, and home invasion - they also tend to experience a small jump in property crimes like burglary. It isn't that the criminals have been "scared straight" by law enforcement's tactics. It's that they're afraid of confrontation with their intended victims because of the possibility of being shot.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

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.?

I'd like an answer to my question first.

I think after all the lies, half-truths, distortions, egregiously ignorant and inane comments, and bullshit, Michael Moore in Bowling For Colombine did manage to have one valid point. As a society, Americans are more obsessed with guns and violence than any other developed/industrialized/wealthy nation.

 

[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.

Are those datapoints "outliers"? What is the overrall trend,, rather than the extremes?

Actually it's really hard to support a "cause and effect" relationship with gun ownership and rates of crime both pro and anti, because many factors go into crime rates and international laws and definitions of crimes (such as homicide) can vary.

South Africa has a great many factors at play that do not exist here including far more poverty and high high unemployment in many districts.

Switzerland is a very different society than ours - it's a tiny country, homogenous in culture, and has a culture that is very law abiding and socially responsible. Hard to make comparisons.

More realistic comparisons would be with countries that have more diverse populations and a similar culture to ours, such as Canada.

It is interesting though, to notice where the U.S. lies in the rankings. The countries with worse rates are predominately Third World and/or politically unstable. Much of the "developed" world has much better crime rates, including countries with legal systems and definitions similar to ours and more restrictive gun laws.

Among the countries with the best rates are some of the Arab countries but then - they have the harshest punishments and don't necessarily recognize violence on women as a "crime"....

Strip out urban black males ages 16 to 30 from crime stats and our crime rate looks about like anywhere in Western Europe.

UK and other European countries have significant immigrant populations that contribute to crime rates yet still have a far lower incidence of violent crime.

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.

I don't necessarily support that contention - I think too many factors influence crime rates to say with any certainty that more guns or fewer guns make it or break it.

If crime rates have declined in this country - is it solely due to increased gun ownership or is it other factors such as stricter penalties?

If your point is that culture influences crime much more than availability of guns then we do not disagree at all.
So restricting guns from law abiding people will have no effect on the crime rate. Ergo, all the arguments for gun control are moot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

gun control opponents have seized the opportunity to point out the irony in the british shotgun rampage.

in rural america, i would think that racking up 30 crime scenes on a shooting spree would get you shot by a concealed carrier or a store or homeowner... at least by a cop.

Not even just rural America. The media goes to great lengths to conceal the facts when a spree killer is stopped by armed citizens, but it happens quite a bit.

 

[rightwinger]

gun control opponents have seized the opportunity to point out the irony in the british shotgun rampage.

in rural america, i would think that racking up 30 crime scenes on a shooting spree would get you shot by a concealed carrier or a store or homeowner... at least by a cop.

Not even just rural America. The media goes to great lengths to conceal the facts when a spree killer is stopped by armed citizens, but it happens quite a bit.

Interesting...can you provide us some examples of a spree killer being stopped by armed citizens?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Are those datapoints "outliers"? What is the overrall trend,, rather than the extremes?

Actually it's really hard to support a "cause and effect" relationship with gun ownership and rates of crime both pro and anti, because many factors go into crime rates and international laws and definitions of crimes (such as homicide) can vary.

South Africa has a great many factors at play that do not exist here including far more poverty and high high unemployment in many districts.

Switzerland is a very different society than ours - it's a tiny country, homogenous in culture, and has a culture that is very law abiding and socially responsible. Hard to make comparisons.

More realistic comparisons would be with countries that have more diverse populations and a similar culture to ours, such as Canada.

It is interesting though, to notice where the U.S. lies in the rankings. The countries with worse rates are predominately Third World and/or politically unstable. Much of the "developed" world has much better crime rates, including countries with legal systems and definitions similar to ours and more restrictive gun laws.

Among the countries with the best rates are some of the Arab countries but then - they have the harshest punishments and don't necessarily recognize violence on women as a "crime"....




UK and other European countries have significant immigrant populations that contribute to crime rates yet still have a far lower incidence of violent crime.

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.

I don't necessarily support that contention - I think too many factors influence crime rates to say with any certainty that more guns or fewer guns make it or break it.

If crime rates have declined in this country - is it solely due to increased gun ownership or is it other factors such as stricter penalties?

If your point is that culture influences crime much more than availability of guns then we do not disagree at all.
So restricting guns from law abiding people will have no effect on the crime rate. Ergo, all the arguments for gun control are moot.

I wouldn't go so far aas to say "no" effect nor have I said that culture influences crime "more than" the availability of guns. I think it's more complicated than a simple "either/or" scenario. If you look at violent crime rates in terms of thresholds that are influenced by gun availability, a country's culture, the justice system, how the public views their justice system, corruption, poverty, degree of political and social stability etc - than the addition of each stressor lowers the bar for an increase in violent crime until it comes you have a "perfect storm" such as South Africa, or worse - Sudan and the Congo.

 

[CMike]

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.