Violent crime declines as American gun ownership rises

[BigNickShooting]

<broken link removed>

Interesting reading ... should be sent to all of your Reps and Senators ..

Read More

 

[JumpWing]

Well, campaign promises always include lowering the crime rate. I suppose they'll put that in the "win" column.

 

[fuhr52]

All gun friendly areas have a lower violent crime rate. Our reps and senators don't care about the facts. They only care about special interest. Follow the money. They care about their good intentions even when they don't work. Just haven't thrown enough money at the problem.

 

[drew]

Our reps and senators don't care about the facts. They only care about special interest. Follow the money. They care about their good intentions even when they don't work. Just haven't thrown enough money at the problem.

All gun friendly areas have a lower violent crime rate.

They care about things when convenient. When inconvenient, they can ignore facts, laws of nature, etc. I would have included common sense but you need to have some to be able to ignore it.

 

[CEF1959]

Correlations don't necessarily mean causation. That is, just because there are lower crime rates in gun-friendly areas doesn't necessarily mean that there are lower crime rates because the areas are gun friendly.

But it certainly makes sense to me. Bad guys are walking around looking for easy opportunities. And if they walk into a Denny's thinking about robbing the joint, they have no idea how many armed citizens they are dealing with. Same thing with house burglaries, street robberies, etc. An armed society is a polite society. And concealed carry (as opposed to open carry) keeps the bad guys guessing about who might be a risk. If lawful gun owners continue to act responsibly, this trend is very encouraging.

 

[ZachS]

All gun friendly areas have a lower violent crime rate. Our reps and senators don't care about the facts. They only care about special interest. Follow the money. They care about their good intentions even when they don't work. Just haven't thrown enough money at the problem.

That's simply not true. If you look at the ten most violent cities in the country, there are actually more gun-friendly than anti-gun jurisdictions. Guns are important, but there are much bigger economic and sociological factors at work here.

Data is from the 2008 FBI crime statistics. (You'll need to click on the "Total Violent Crime" column heading to sort them in this order.)

Here's the list with cities that have restrictive laws in black and cities that have permissive laws in red. I'm basing this distinction on what I can remember or look up quickly, so if I'm wrong about any of these cities, let me know and I'll update the list:

1. St. Louis
2. Oakland
3. Memphis
4. Detroit (In-betweener)
5. Baltimore
6. Stockton, CA
7. Philadelphia
8. Cleveland
9. Nashville
10. Atlanta

 

[Cougfan2]

That's simply not true. If you look at the ten most violent cities in the country, there are actually more gun-friendly than anti-gun jurisdictions. Guns are important, but there are much bigger economic and sociological factors at work here.

Data is from the 2008 FBI crime statistics. (You'll need to click on the "Total Violent Crime" column heading to sort them in this order.)

Here's the list with cities that have restrictive laws in black and cities that have permissive laws in red. I'm basing this distinction on what I can remember or look up quickly, so if I'm wrong about any of these cities, let me know and I'll update the list:

1. St. Louis
2. Oakland
3. Memphis
4. Detroit (In-betweener)
5. Baltimore
6. Stockton, CA
7. Philadelphia
8. Cleveland
9. Nashville
10. Atlanta

It's not even as simple as looking at the crime rate for the whole city. St. Louis, which I am most familiar with of the cities listed, has some areas that are relatively crime free, but if you cross the river into East St.Louis the crime rate skyrockets. Violent crime rates are more linked to socio-economic issues and the prevalance of gang/drug related activity than anything else.

 

[jimwsea]

Bad guys are walking around looking for easy opportunities. And if they walk into a Denny's thinking about robbing the joint, they have no idea how many armed citizens they are dealing with.

Especially if its a Denny's that is hosting an Open Carry group meeting!

 

[Minisocks]

Correlations don't necessarily mean causation.

Indeed.

Crime (and violence specifically) has been declining for over 30 years now as Pinker has pointed out. My opinion about why gun ownership has gone up is that it's probably tied to the perception of crime increasing. That is, I think people are motivated by fear. We're always told to be afraid of everything. Also, let's not forget the gun buying hysteria when Obama was elected.

As CEF1959 said, there's no indication of causation between the two factors. That's not to say there's no relationship, but that the relationship is much more complex and has more factors involved than: GUNS++ = CRIME--

edit: found an article that basically mirrors what I said: link

All over America demand for firearms and ammunition is rising amid concerns that rising unemployment, which passed 10 per cent this month, will lead inexorably to higher rates of crime. Fears of terrorism have also helped to lift demand, as have concerns among gun owners that the Obama Administration may introduce restrictions on gun ownership and impose additional taxes.

 

[ThemGunsThough]

Very interesting.

 

[bugeye]

Since number of owned guns is always increasing, and since the violent crime rate has, at times, increased, the opposite case has also been true.

 

[fuhr52]

I guess I should have said most gun friendly areas have lower violent crime rates. Didn't mean to start a fire storm. I don't really care much for statistics. Those numbers can be scewed to show what ever result fits your agenda. Like was said before an armed society is a polite society. Criminals don't care about gun laws and they will do what ever they need to survive. The probability for violent crime will be much higher if there is no fear armed oposition.

 

[Trlsmn]

That's simply not true. If you look at the ten most violent cities in the country, there are actually more gun-friendly than anti-gun jurisdictions. Guns are important, but there are much bigger economic and sociological factors at work here.

Data is from the 2008 FBI crime statistics. (You'll need to click on the "Total Violent Crime" column heading to sort them in this order.)

Here's the list with cities that have restrictive laws in black and cities that have permissive laws in red. I'm basing this distinction on what I can remember or look up quickly, so if I'm wrong about any of these cities, let me know and I'll update the list:

1. St. Louis
2. Oakland
3. Memphis
4. Detroit (In-betweener)
5. Baltimore
6. Stockton, CA
7. Philadelphia
8. Cleveland
9. Nashville
10. Atlanta

That list really needs Chicago, LA and DC in there to be realistic.

 

[ZachS]

That list really needs Chicago, LA and DC in there to be realistic.

Blame the FBI, not me. Those are their statistics.

 

[Trlsmn]

I just checked, they're in there.

 

[ZachS]

I just checked, they're in there.

In where? I'm referring to this list, sorted by clicking on the "Total violent crime" column. Those cities aren't in the top ten. DC is 13th and Chicago is 19th. It may well be an inaccurate list, but the pedantic people who spend all of their time editing Wikipedia tend to be pretty good with these things. If you know of more accurate statistics, I'd love to see them. But I'm not going to bother looking them up myself, because I'm lazy and this is an internet forum.


Regardless, I posted that list in response to refute another user's patently false claim that "All gun friendly areas have a lower violent crime rate." Adding or subtracting a few cities from it won't make that statement true.

 

[Trlsmn]

I didn't really know you were speaking top ten, sometimes print doesn't always convey what is the author is trying to say . The list still isn't a good example, you need statistics that specify gun crime specifically not just violent crime. I had found some data a while back and DC was number 2, Chicago was number 6, and LA was somewhere around 11 from what I remember.

 

[CEF1959]

No, I think Zach's right. The FBI stats pretty clearly show that Chicago, DC, and LA are not in the top 10 in violent crime rates. If the point of this thread is to correlate gun ownership and violent crime (which was the OP's original point), that's the important statistic.

 

[ZachS]

Right, what I was trying to convey was that the deterrence factor of having a well-armed population is not the only factor, or even the main factor, that determines the level of violent crime in an area. It's certainly one factor, but it's not the end of the story.

 

[Minisocks]

I don't really care much for statistics. Those numbers can be scewed to show what ever result fits your agenda.

You just have to always look at the interpretations and sources with a critical eye. If I see a partizan group publish statistics I am always looking for bias (regardless of political orientation or ideology).

Like was said before an armed society is a polite society.

I've always thought this was an odd quote since, in context, it referred to the fact that any perceived insult&#8212;in the rough and tumble libertopia of Beyond this Horizon&#8212;would be met with deadly retribution (full quote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. ") thus one should always maintain impeccable manners.

It's kind of a questionable quote when paired with gun ownership because of the quote's implication.