Curried Goats
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2021
- 31,242
- 11,287
- 1,283
Zone1 The Problem Is Guns, And Easy Access To Guns
- Thread starter skews13
- Start date
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
Nope...that isn't the number that explains anything......
Why?
Because going into the 1960s the murder and crime rates were going down in the United States.....then, after the democrat party Great Society began to destroy poor families, the crime rate sky rocketed all he way to the 1990s....
I have shown you that criminals in these other countries are getting all the guns they want.....fully automatic military rifles......and they are using them more and more, even in Sweden....
The violent crime rates are not going to switch over night, which is what you are going to distract us with......they are gradually escalating to more and more violence.......
Now....you can explain this....
If guns create crime.....how is the following possible?
Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...
New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
======
The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. both remain below their peak levels. There were 6.2 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2020, below the rate of 7.2 recorded in 1974.
What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
Paper...why crime declined in the 90s
https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
========
======
Over the past few decades, the number of guns in America has increased massively, so much so that there are now more guns than people in the United States. Yet federal crime statistics show that firearm homicides dropped about 40 percent between 1993 and 2018, from 7 per 100,000 people to 4.3 per 100,000 people (for nonfatal crimes involving guns, the decline was 71 percent). Violent crime, including homicides, did spike during the pandemic, and while the most recent data is incomplete, it's clear that gun-related violence remains far below where it was 30 years ago despite more guns than ever being out there.
When it comes to schools, the 2020–21 academic year, the latest for which full data is available, did see the highest number of school shootingswith casualties this century. There are thankfully too few violent deaths to generate statistically significant conclusions, but the long-term trendsshow no increase in homicides or suicides among students, staff, and teachers.
Do 'more guns lead to more deaths'?
========
========
Bureau of Justice statistics...
The rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 persons age 12 or older declined 41% across the 26-year period of 1993 to 2018, from 8.4 to 5.0
homicides per 100,000 (figure 1). During the more recent 5 years from 2014 to 2018, this rate was between 4.0 and 5.2 homicides per 100,000 persons age 12 or older. A total of 150 persons age 11 or younger were victims of firearm homicide in 2018, resulting in a rate of 0.3 homicides per 100,000 persons in this age group (not shown).
-------
In 2018, there were 470,800 nonfatal firearm victimizations against persons age 12 or older, down 69% from 1.5 million in 1993 (table 2). Data on nonfatal firearm violence in this report are from
the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and include rape
or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault victimizations against persons age 12 or older in which the offender had, showed, or used a firearm.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf
This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........
Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?
What changed in 2015?
The democrat party did 3 things...
1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.
2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes
3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
Here........per capita murder rates in the U.S. going back to the 1950s.........
Notice.......by 2014....our gun murder rate.....with more guns, more people legally carrying guns, and more people....was lower than 1950....
How do you explain that?
Find the rate for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter per 100,000 people in the United States.
Year | Homicide rate |
|---|---|
1950 | 4.6 |
1951 | 4.4 |
1952 | 4.6 |
1953 | 4.5 |
1954 | 4.2 |
1955 | 4.1 |
1956 | 4.1 |
1957 | 4.0 |
1958 | 4.8 |
1959 | 4.9 |
1960 | 5.1 |
1961 | 4.8 |
1962 | 4.6 |
1963 | 4.6 |
1964 | 4.9 |
1965 | 5.1 |
1966 | 5.6 |
1967 | 6.2 |
1968 | 6.9 |
1969 | 7.3 |
1970 | 7.9 |
1971 | 8.6 |
1972 | 9.0 |
1973 | 9.4 |
1974 | 9.8 |
1975 | 9.6 |
1976 | 8.8 |
1977 | 8.8 |
1978 | 9.0 |
1979 | 9.7 |
1980 | 10.2 |
1981 | 9.8 |
1982 | 9.1 |
1983 | 8.3 |
1984 | 7.9 |
1985 | 7.9 |
1986 | 8.6 |
1987 | 8.3 |
1988 | 8.4 |
1989 | 8.7 |
1990 | 9.4 |
1991 | 9.8 |
1992 | 9.3 |
1993 | 9.5 |
1994 | 9.0 |
1995 | 8.2 |
1996 | 7.4 |
1997 | 6.8 |
1998 | 6.3 |
1999 | 5.7 |
2000 | 5.5 |
2001 | 5.6 |
2002 | 5.6 |
2003 | 5.7 |
2004 | 5.5 |
2005 | 5.9 |
2006 | 6.1 |
2007 | 5.9 |
2008 | 5.4 |
2009 | 5.0 |
2010 | 4.8 |
2011 | 4.7 |
2012 | 4.7 |
2013 | 4.5 |
2014 | 4.5 |
Homicide Rate, 1950–2014
Find the homicide rate per 100,000 people for the entire U.S. by year, 1950 to the most recent data available. Homicides include murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.
Curried Goats
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2021
- 31,242
- 11,287
- 1,283
Right.... comparing murder rates is unnecessary but news reports of individual incidents are.....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
Right.... comparing murder rates is unnecessary but news reports of individual incidents are.....
Nope.......you want to take gun murder in Europe right now, as the only point of reference....even as I point out the increase in guns flooding Europe........I stated that our gun murder rate was at one point low........in the 1950s.....despite wide access to all guns...that you could buy in a store at the counter and that kids could walk in and buy....
Then, as the democrat party policies began to destroy families...removing fathers from the home....violent crime went up.......as you can see...all the way through the 1990s.....when all of a sudden it starts to go down, even as more and more people own and carry guns....
You can't explain that....but you do want to take a moment's slice of crime from Europe without acknowledging the increasing access to guns their criminals now have......and as their police and government officials state...
Curried Goats
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2021
- 31,242
- 11,287
- 1,283
What is the the murder rate in developed nations these days?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
Going up in Sweden, France,........again.....you want to take a slice right now....while I demonstrate that the criminals in Europe have easy access to not only guns, but grenades....
Tell us....
Are fully automatic military rifles illegal in France?
Are they illegal in Belgium?
Are they illegal in Sweden?
Are they illegal in Britain?
Are grenades?
You want to hide the truth that gun control doesn't stop criminals....and that criminals drive the gun murder rate....they have guns, and the only thing that keeps them from using them for murder is they choose not to commit murder...
Another thing you won't understand...
Criminal culture in Europe, right now, tends not to commit murder with their illegal guns.......they tend to shoot lower into the body to punish, and warn, as opposed to American criminals who shoot to kill......in Ireland, the IRA today will actually schedule appointments for punishment shootings.....the family brings in the target, who has crossed some line, and the IRA shoots them through the elbow or knee.....the family thinking if they bring the target in they can make it easier on them...
So....how about you research the criminal cultures in Europe before you ask about murder states that have no bearing on increasing crime in Europe.....
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,427
- 5,223
- 210
Gun control:
Things that make you go, "Hmm,.. maybe a kid chasing a ball into my yard is less annoying than having to regrow half my beard?"
Last edited:
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
Notice....France.......
Crime is not frozen in time....as you want to pretend.......
Drug gangs are escalating violence across Europe, just like they did here.....you don't want to see that...
Homicides have also risen markedly. Authorities recorded a total of 948 homicides last year, 69 more than were registered in 2021, representing an increase of 7.8% year over year.
France: Nearly All Crimes and Misdemeanors Increased in 2022
Increases in acts of delinquency were observed “in almost all regions or departments,” the report states.
europeanconservative.com
The threat to Belgium’s 3,300 customs officers is so apparent, in fact, they’ve been instructed to avoid being filmed or photographed in order to protect their identities from gangsters who may want to intimidate or bribe them.
----
He sees the drug mafia as a bigger threat to security than terrorism — a view echoed by Justice Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne.
“Today, organized crime is the new terrorism … It’s a very tough fight. Six years ago we had the terrorist attacks in Brussels and it is again the same intensity as after that,” Van Quickenborne said in an interview, referring to the March 2016 suicide bombings in Brussels that killed 32 people.
Both Van Quickenborne and De Wever have police protection due to credible threats made against them.
Meanwhile, across the border in the Netherlands, the mayors of the two largest cities, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, wrote to the Dutch government last year, urging tougher action against organized drug crime, warning the issue has grown to mafia-like proportions, “weakening our democratic legal system.”
Drugs, violence and organized crime in Belgium
Antwerp, Europe’s diamond capital, is now better known as a key way station on the drug superhighway into the EU from Panama, Ecuador and Paraguay.
www.politico.eu
Britain....
Two in three police force areas in England and Wales are experiencing rising gun crime, with one force facing levels six times higher than a decade ago, Guardian analysis of Home Office data has found.
Gun crime rising in two-thirds of police force areas in England and Wales
Exclusive: analysis reveals firearms offences have increased in 29 out of 43 forces over past decade
www.theguardian.com
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
This is a problem created by the left with their policies of coddling criminals.
A Tiny Number of Shoplifters Commit Thousands of New York City Thefts (Published 2023)
Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in the city last year involved just 327 people, the police said. Businesses say they have little defense.
MSN
www.msn.com
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
Slaves weren't considered people, let alone citizens, when the Constitution was written. Slaves were property like cattle or wagons. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of CITIZENS. It ignored Indians who were universally acknowledged to be people, if savage, merciless, primitive ones, and is mute on whatever rights non-citizen residents or immigrants had as well. The northern, non-slave holding states had two options when the Constitution was written, they could tolerate slavery and have one country, or they could ban it and have two much weaker countries that would be at the mercy of European countries. Look at what the French did in Mexico for an example of what would have been done if the US had split into two countries one consisting of six slave holding states and seven non-slave holding states.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
How is that going to stop the people who right now happily smuggle illegal drugs and people into the country against the law from smuggling guns? It certainly doesn't stop them from doing so in Europe despite Europe's draconian gun restrictions. In your country, the law-abiding citizen would be unarmed and the law-breaking criminals would be armed with full auto military weapons and explosives just like in Europe.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
I never said Jim Crow was better, or worse, than slavery. Though in many ways it wasn't that great of an improvement as far as this nation is concerned, or the Black minority.
It appears you have had little education in history, or slept through your classes on such. Slavery has been an institution among humans since the first cultures and civilizations and only in the last 2-3 centuries has there been serious efforts to remove such. Slavery was a social and political issue among the 13 colonies long before the War for Independence and our nation's leaders back then chose to "back burner" the issue for sake of a united front against England. Compromise would remain the modus operandi for decades after.
If you knew your USA history and had studied and understood our Constitution, which was a design of government to embrace principles and concepts presented in the Declaration of Independence, you'd be aware of the first compromise in form of Article I. Section 9. which forbade import of persons(slaves) after the year 1808. Obviously, slavery remained legal in some states (States Rights issue) and not in others until the War Between the States and Federal abolish of such nationwide after conclusion of that conflict.
Recall also that like nearly every other nation and culture on the planet at that time, the new USA was a male dominated political system, so even women were not afforded suffrage or full rights until about a century and a half later. What is shown is the evolution, here in the USA and elsewhere in the world, of the expansion of human rights beyond those of "free males". For example, England went through a couple decades of abolishing the slave trade and then slavery in general during the early 1800s.
The British Empire was built on slavery then grew by antislavery | Aeon Essays
The British Empire was first built on slavery and then on the moral and economic self-confidence of antislavery
aeon.co
FWIW, slavery still exists "legally" in a few nations on this planet, mostly Islamic dominated ones. And slavery exists in illegal form in the human trafficking industry that continues planet wide.
The only way the Constitution could protect "slave minority" Rights would have been though abolition of slavery and such a course would have seen the division of the Thirteen Colonies much sooner than the 1860s as the Southern, 'slave' colonies/states, would not have embraced/joined in the new Union after the War of Independence. Hence the compromises of the 1808 banishment of importation and the 3/5ths Clause for population count for Representation in Congress.
Also, why after Republican Lincoln had lead the Union to defeat the CSA, and "free the slaves(Blacks)", the former CSA states would vote Democrat (a pox upon the Republicans) for the next century and do whatever they could to "work around" full rights and freedoms for the Blacks residing within their boundaries.
You really would benefit from learning and understanding more history and undoing your Leftist programming. Also from realizing that terminology of our times, "particular minority" were not applicable @250 years ago (when white males were the majority).
miketx
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2015
- 121,555
- 70,600
- 2,645
- Banned
- #438
Nothing you say is credible.I never said Jim Crow was better, or worse, than slavery. Though in many ways it wasn't that great of an improvement as far as this nation is concerned, or the Black minority.
It appears you have had little education in history, or slept through your classes on such. Slavery has been an institution among humans since the first cultures and civilizations and only in the last 2-3 centuries has there been serious efforts to remove such. Slavery was a social and political issue among the 13 colonies long before the War for Independence and our nation's leaders back then chose to "back burner" the issue for sake of a united front against England. Compromise would remain the modus operandi for decades after.
If you knew your USA history and had studied and understood our Constitution, which was a design of government to embrace principles and concepts presented in the Declaration of Independence, you'd be aware of the first compromise in form of Article I. Section 9. which forbade import of persons(slaves) after the year 1808. Obviously, slavery remained legal in some states (States Rights issue) and not in others until the War Between the States and Federal abolish of such nationwide after conclusion of that conflict.
Recall also that like nearly every other nation and culture on the planet at that time, the new USA was a male dominated political system, so even women were not afforded suffrage or full rights until about a century and a half later. What is shown is the evolution, here in the USA and elsewhere in the world, of the expansion of human rights beyond those of "free males". For example, England went through a couple decades of abolishing the slave trade and then slavery in general during the early 1800s.
The British Empire was built on slavery then grew by antislavery | Aeon Essays
The British Empire was first built on slavery and then on the moral and economic self-confidence of antislavery
FWIW, slavery still exists "legally" in a few nations on this planet, mostly Islamic dominated ones. And slavery exists in illegal form in the human trafficking industry that continues planet wide.
The only way the Constitution could protect "slave minority" Rights would have been though abolition of slavery and such a course would have seen the division of the Thirteen Colonies much sooner than the 1860s as the Southern, 'slave' colonies/states, would not have embraced/joined in the new Union after the War of Independence. Hence the compromises of the 1808 banishment of importation and the 3/5ths Clause for population count for Representation in Congress.
Also, why after Republican Lincoln had lead the Union to defeat the CSA, and "free the slaves(Blacks)", the former CSA states would vote Democrat (a pox upon the Republicans) for the next century and do whatever they could to "work around" full rights and freedoms for the Blacks residing within their boundaries.
You really would benefit from learning and understanding more history and undoing your Leftist programming. Also from realizing that terminology of our times, "particular minority" were not applicable @250 years ago (when white males were the majority).
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,802
- 2,290
I never said Jim Crow was better, or worse, than slavery. Though in many ways it wasn't that great of an improvement as far as this nation is concerned, or the Black minority.
It appears you have had little education in history, or slept through your classes on such. Slavery has been an institution among humans since the first cultures and civilizations and only in the last 2-3 centuries has there been serious efforts to remove such. Slavery was a social and political issue among the 13 colonies long before the War for Independence and our nation's leaders back then chose to "back burner" the issue for sake of a united front against England. Compromise would remain the modus operandi for decades after.
If you knew your USA history and had studied and understood our Constitution, which was a design of government to embrace principles and concepts presented in the Declaration of Independence, you'd be aware of the first compromise in form of Article I. Section 9. which forbade import of persons(slaves) after the year 1808. Obviously, slavery remained legal in some states (States Rights issue) and not in others until the War Between the States and Federal abolish of such nationwide after conclusion of that conflict.
Recall also that like nearly every other nation and culture on the planet at that time, the new USA was a male dominated political system, so even women were not afforded suffrage or full rights until about a century and a half later. What is shown is the evolution, here in the USA and elsewhere in the world, of the expansion of human rights beyond those of "free males". For example, England went through a couple decades of abolishing the slave trade and then slavery in general during the early 1800s.
The British Empire was built on slavery then grew by antislavery | Aeon Essays
The British Empire was first built on slavery and then on the moral and economic self-confidence of antislavery
FWIW, slavery still exists "legally" in a few nations on this planet, mostly Islamic dominated ones. And slavery exists in illegal form in the human trafficking industry that continues planet wide.
The only way the Constitution could protect "slave minority" Rights would have been though abolition of slavery and such a course would have seen the division of the Thirteen Colonies much sooner than the 1860s as the Southern, 'slave' colonies/states, would not have embraced/joined in the new Union after the War of Independence. Hence the compromises of the 1808 banishment of importation and the 3/5ths Clause for population count for Representation in Congress.
Also, why after Republican Lincoln had lead the Union to defeat the CSA, and "free the slaves(Blacks)", the former CSA states would vote Democrat (a pox upon the Republicans) for the next century and do whatever they could to "work around" full rights and freedoms for the Blacks residing within their boundaries.
You really would benefit from learning and understanding more history and undoing your Leftist programming. Also from realizing that terminology of our times, "particular minority" were not applicable @250 years ago (when white males were the majority).
And Britain didn't have millions of slave on British soil....so while there efforts to stop the slave trade, after practicing it so long, were noble, they didn't have the issues we had..
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
It's not the mark of the beast, but it will have to do democrats- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
Jeffrey Hutchinson leaves Florida tonight over killing 4 humans- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 1
-
Trump Goes Full Dictator With Grim Warning About Courts- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 14
-
-
Breaking : The Conclave Announced that They Will Consider Selecting Donald J Trump AS the New Pope- Started by Contumacious
- Replies: 6
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Zone1 Breaking News: The Earth is Older than 6,000 years old- Latest: The Irish Ram
-
