70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

Friday, September 22, 2006

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high. Rates of the individual categories of violent crime were also much lower in 2005 than in 1991. Murder was 43% lower, rape 25% lower, robbery 48% lower, and aggravated assault 33% lower. The FBI’s report came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey that found that violent crime was lower in 2005 than anytime in the survey’s 32-year history.

Defying the anti-gunners’ claim that more guns means more crime, from 1991-2005 the number of privately owned guns increased by more than 70 million.

The news media often characterize violent crime as a primarily gun-oriented problem, but the FBI’s report showed that only one in every four violent crimes in 2005 was committed with a gun. In 2005, as in previous years, most violent crimes were robberies and aggravated assaults, most of which were committed with knives or bare hands.

Recently, anti-gun politicians and activists have intensified their rhetoric over the “lack” of bans on handguns, so-called “assault weapons”, and .50-caliber rifles; gun registration, gun owner licensing, and mandatory background checks on sales of guns between friends and family members; and limits on the frequency of gun purchases, all of which they say are necessary to reduce the nation’s murder rate. But for the last seven years, the murder rate has been steady¾in the 5.5-5.7 per 100,000 population range¾at all times lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. In 2005, for example, the murder rate was 5.6.

Naturally, anti-gunners will downplay the downward trend in violent crime since 1991, and focus on the fact that the FBI’s report showed a 1% increase in total violent crime, and a 2% increase in murder in 2005, compared to 2004. But those changes are miniscule, compared to the huge decrease in crime over the last 14 years.

The FBI’s report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.

As usual, Washington, D.C., which leads the nation in anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder, with a rate six times higher than the rest of the country. Neighboring Maryland, where gun control advocates have been particularly active recently, once again had the highest robbery rate among the states, but also tied for the unenviable distinction of “first place” in murder among the states. However, despite Maryland’s high crime counts, CeaseFire Maryland, the local Brady Campaign affiliate that recently released a paper demanding an “assault weapon” ban, was unable to point to any crimes in the state involving such a gun.

The FBI’s report must have displeased New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg ®. Despite the mayor’s recent posturing on the gun issue, and his self-laudatory comments about fighting crime, the Big Apple’s murder rate was more than double that of the rest of the state. Similarly, in Philadelphia, where anti-gun politicians are calling for a statewide one-gun-a-month law, the murder rate was more than seven times higher than the rest of Pennsylvania.

Adding to the reasons why voters should “Dump Doyle” in Wisconsin’s upcoming gubernatorial election, their state had the greatest total violent crime rate increase (15.1%) between 2004-2005. Murder was up 25.2%; robbery up 11.2%; and aggravated assault up 20.2%. Wisconsin is one of only two states that prohibits Right-to-Carry entirely, but in 2005, 11 of the 12 states that had the greatest decreases in total violent crime, and 12 of the 14 states with the greatest decreases in murder were Right-to-Carry states. The seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates in 2005, and 11 of the 12 states that had the lowest murder rates, were Right-to-Carry states.

Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and “Castle Doctrine” movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida’s 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state’s landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.

Just for you Harper.:smiley:

It’s rather irresponsible to post articles without saying where they are from.

If anyone is curious the article can be found here on an NRA think tank/lobby group website.

But… but… but… guns are DANGEROUS! :astonished:

:slight_smile:

And? I find the only time people care about WHERE it’s from is when they can’t argue the information presented in the article, they attack the source. An example of that was a recent post condemming information that was from an article written in a blog. The crime statistic and ownership numbers came from an FBI report that is referenced in the article itself.

A 50-caliber. mini bazooka?

Ultimately the reduction in gun related violence has more to do with fostering responsible ownership: Screening, education, and registration programs are necessary to maintain the state’s monopoly on violence, keeping the domestic market for weapons within a reasonable range of obediance.

The real issue is stability (We had this conversation briefly in a seperate post), if regulations on the distribution of weapons are lifted, it’s possible that any underlying conflicts will be amplified through the new medium in force. But for stable class striations, areas of the middle, upper, and working class, guns only act as an insular layer of protection and most of America represents this stability. In other areas of class conflict, poverty becomes insurrection when the barriers to access are lowered; property related violence is a natural manifestation that becomes accelerated by available weapons technology.

The rational connection here is that guns aren’t at the root of the issue, they’re only modes of action to deeper problems.

Regardless it’s irresponsible to post articles without citing them, if for no other reason than the legalities of plagerism.

If I was writing an article using this as a reference I would cite it. I am not putting this out there as my own writing therefore I see no reason to inform the source other than to prejudice the reader.

I disagree. It’s important to take into account where the article is coming from, because then you can tell which side it’s biased towards. Coming from the NRA, we are pretty much assured that they are stating only facts that support their side of the arguement. Likewise, if it were an anti-gun article from anti-gun people, you would know that they were bending the truth to make them sound right. Always consider the source when you read articles so you know which way they are bending the facts.

There is probably something they are not telling us, I find it hard to believe that there are more guns in the world but there has been an extreme decrease in crime. Why are they only mentioning the decrease in violent crime? What about just gun related crimes? Articles are more believable when the cause and the effect are directly related with no other factors involved.

In my humble opinion.

Facts are facts, doesn’t matter who reports them. Opinions are different. If the statistics are correct, and that is verifiable, then does it really matter who made the statement? Other than you can immediatly dismiss the findings rather than challange them with verifiable statistics. “Oh it’s the NRA, that has to be wrong.” If this had come from the Brady campaign, would you be more or less inclined to believe it without verification from other sources?

If it’s actually the report you’re trying to show, why not just actually link to the report?

While admittedly the question of providing citations is somewhat off topic, I do agree that not providing a source is always intended as self serving notwithstanding the fact that among a group like this it always backfires.

I think I am safe in saying that among participants here there are few who are as diligent as I am in providing source information.

Crime in the United States 2005: Violent Crime

Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005

There is a lot of data in there. I am not in position to dispute the NRA’s claims, but I can point out that the serious decline in the crime rate began and proceeded apace all through the Clinton years. :slight_smile:

I’m not saying it’s wrong because it’s the NRA. I would be just as sceptical if it was a “guns kill people” article from the Brady campaign.

What I’m getting at is that these groups always write things with a bit of bias, and because of this they only present certain facts, the ones that support their side of the story. (I’m sure there is an opposing article somewhere that is loaded with statistics as well) The article you posted may be true, but I would have to get more information from other sources before I could make an informed decision on the subject.

From my experience it is best to question anything that is written before you just believe it. (especially when they involve politics)

That’s like a yoga instructor saying they do more yoga than anyone here, or a fishing guide saying they do more fishing, or a preacher saying he spend more time praying, or a physical trainer saying they work out more, or a bugman saying he kills more bugs…

i wish the US was more like Canada. we are all affraid of each other here and that is why everybody has guns.

Don’t you use guns every night to hunt your dinner of wild Montana elk?

We use them for squirrel.:wink: Got’s to eat.

That’s creative.

We use ours for homeless people

That would be nice if it were true. Facts are like apples on a tree. The “source” (in this case NRA) chooses all the apples that bolster their position, and ignore all the others. Knowing who the source is gives one an idea of what types of apples are being presented.

The article seems to hint at an unfounded conclusion that the increase in guns is somehow connected to the decrease in the types of crimes cited. This is irresponsible journalism. Gun ownership went up while these violent crimes went down. Connection? Totally unknown but suggested by the article.

More guns in the hands of people who don’t know how to store, maintain, learn about or even properly aim them cannot be a good thing. Even the NRA must agree with that much, as I understand they are very big on gun education.

I wonder how gun sales are tracked? Registrations and “legal” ownership is one part, but lots of the “problem” firearms probably avoid much recordkeeping. But I guess if anything, that means there are even more guns out there than the article suggests.

I look forward to the day the NRA or anyone else can cite actual examples of “more guns = less crime.”

John, is having guns really about less crime? I don’t think so. I think it is about parity of force. Crime is not related to guns is more of the point I think the NRA is trying to make. A gun is an inanimate object that has no will of it’s own, but at the end of the right arm can be a useful tool.

How does a women with a young child protect herself? Call 911? What if she is facing a determined criminal with ill intentions? Not a lot of options. What about the elderly in a home by themselves? Parity is achieved by providing these individuals with the option of protecting themselves with something other than a telephone. How about the person who owns a retail store? Two or three thugs come in and overpower the shop keeper, leaving him left to die. Parity.

As for “problem” guns, I have to disagree with your premise. Guns as I said before are inanimate. They can neither be good, bad or a problem. Now the person holding them can be good, bad and a problem. Deal with the problem, not the inanimate object.

Only at one end.