Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? What if you miss the shot? That’s the thing - pulling out weapons that can kill innocent bystanders seems a bit heavy handed to me. What if he lunged at you - fine you shoot at him but don’t kill him - you fall - gun drops and he gets it and shoots - how is that helpful?
Sure. Fair points and questions. But what if I don't miss? Or what if I don't have and get involved and the perp has a gun and takes his anger out on me? What if I don't have and subsequently don't get involved and the victim has the life beaten out of him/her (literally)? What if the perp, in his anger, when firing on me misses his shot and hits an innocent?
Personally i feel a viking sword would be good,the reason the metal in a samurai sword was folded over so many times was because the metal used was garbage,look it up.
Sure. Fair points and questions. But what if I don't miss? Or what if I don't have and get involved and the perp has a gun and takes his anger out on me? What if I don't have and subsequently don't get involved and the victim has the life beaten out of him/her (literally)? What if the perp, in his anger, when firing on me misses his shot and hits an innocent?
Yes, its from a pro-gun website, but the information seems pretty well-sourced.
I'm not saying that guns are the answer to everything (I definitely don't believe they are), but the numbers also speak for themselves.
These "numbers" are hideously outdated. One goes back to 1973 and none of them were gleaned within the last decade. Because I have too much time on my hands today, here are the dates of the other citations. The dash with the number means there is no date was listed, so I looked it up.
1. 1995
2. Could not find. It's an annual report from a neutral source, but the gun website doesn't list a year.
3. - (1973)
4. - (Id)
5. 1997
6. 1991
7. 1993
8. (Id)
9. 1993
10. 1996, 1998 - 2000
11. - 1996
12. 2005
13. 2002, 1988, 2003
14. 2003
15. 2003
16. 1988
17. 1991
18. - 1988
19 - 1988
20. 1979
21, 22, 23. - 1985
Always question why people can't/don't/won't use updated information to support their claims. If they are using numbers from up to 40 years ago to validate your beliefs, there's usually a shady reason for it.
Last edited by Enyo; 12-25-2017 at 04:14 PM..
Reason: Found some of the dates
These "numbers" are hideously outdated. One goes back to 1979 and none of them were gleaned within the last decade. Because I have too much time on my hands today, here are the dates of the other citations (the dash means there is no date listed):
Always question why people can't/don't/won't use updated information to support their claims. If you're using numbers from 20 - 30 years ago, there's usually a shady reason for it.
Latest numbers I've seen, though it was a basic search through Google. On the other side, however, I've seen nothing but conjecture, with no "numbers" to back them up. One thing I do know via updated numbers is that crime has continued to decline in this country as states have liberalized their gun laws, making it easier for citizens to carrying. While there's the point about correlation/causation, the numbers still represent an opposite trend from what the anti gun lobby claimed would happen.
One thing I do know via updated numbers is that crime has continued to decline in this country as states have liberalized their gun laws, making it easier for citizens to carrying. While there's the point about correlation/causation, the numbers still represent an opposite trend from what the anti gun lobby claimed would happen.
Citations, please. The burden of proof is on you.
ETA: Also, please see my updated post. I was fixing it when you quoted me. I found that some of the numbers and updated the list accordingly.
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2016 estimated violent crime total was 2.6 percent above the 2012 level and 12.3 percent below the 2007 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2015 estimated violent crime total was 0.7 percent below the 2011 level and 16.5 percent below the 2006 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2014 estimated violent crime total was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and 16.2 percent below the 2005 level. (See Table 1/1A)
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2012 estimated violent crime total was 12.9 percent below the 2008 level and 12.2 below the 2003 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
With the exception of the 2016 report where there was a small increase in the violent crime, we've seen a pretty uniform (and very significant) reduction in the violent crime rate over the last several decades in the USA. Indeed, the downward trend in the violent crime rate is pretty clear and has been documented by media (and shown via raw numbers by FBI).
For examples of media coverage and examination on this issue, see:
In the early 1990s, U.S. crime rates had been on a steep upward climb since the Lyndon B. Johnson presidency. The crack-cocaine epidemic in the mid-1980s added fuel to the fire, and handgun-related homicides more than doubled between 1985 and 1990. That year, murders peaked in New York City with 2,245 killings. Politicians embraced tough-on-crime platforms and enacted harshly punitive policies. Experts warned the worst could be yet to come.
Then crime rates went down. And then they kept going down.
By decade’s end, the homicide rate plunged 42 percent nationwide. Violent crime decreased by one-third. What turned into a precipitous decline started later in some areas and took longer in others. But it happened everywhere: in each region of the country, in cities large and small, in rural and urban areas alike. In the Northeast, which reaped the largest benefits, the homicide rate was halved. Murders plummeted by 75 percent in New York City alone as the city entered the new millennium.
This decrease in violent crime occurred as Florida becoming a "shall issue" state for concealed carry purposes in 1987 opened the floodgates for other states doing the same.
Here's the list of states (and year) requiring "shall carry" licensing laws post-Florida in 1987:
1989: Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, *Georgia
1990: Idaho
1991: Mississippi, Montana
1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee, Wyoming
1995: Arkansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia
1996: Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina
2001: Michigan
2003: Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio
2004: New Mexico
2006: Kansas, Nebraska
2010: Iowa
2011: Wisconsin
2013: Alabama, Illinois
Today, 41 states are "shall issue" states, which includes numerous states like Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming that don't even require a license/permit to conceal carry.
Note, I don't doubt that there are numerous reasons for the decline in violent crime as gun laws have been loosened in this country. And I'm not here to get into the debate over correlation/causation. But the numbers and trend is pretty clear.
Based on the verbiage used in the article, it appears that that rate includes gun deaths via suicide, too, which account for the bulk of gun-related fatalities in this country. After a quick search, for instance, I found that suicides were the cause of nearly 64% of gun-related fatalities in the US in 2012: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10....-031914-122535
While relatively lax gun laws undoubtedly make it easier for one to take one's life, at the end of the day death by suicide is very different than death by homicide. I do find it interesting when my friends who support physician assisted suicide cry foul at suicide via gun as they are anti-gun.
So, for numbers that people actually care about when talking about violent gun-related crime as it relates to their safety, etc., the violent gun death rate in the USA is much, much lower than 3.85 per 100,000 people.
Also, Australia, the UK, and other states long had a lower homicide rate (and homicides are caused predominately by guns in these countries) than the USA did, even when it was easier to own a firearm. For instance, in the UK in 1974 the gun death rate was .08 per 100,000 people. In 1987, it was just over 1 per 100,000 people. Both data points were before the UK passed its Firearms Act in 1997. Of course, the homicide rate in the UK increased for half a decade after the passage of the Firearms Act. "This, however, doesn't say much in the UK regime's favor since homicide rates in Canada and the US — both of which are far less restrictive on firearms than the UK — have fallen back to 1960's levels or better."
Then we have the problem of data collection. For instance, England and Wales ""exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise."
Of course, its often misleading to look at homicide rate in these supposed "model" countries when assessing the influence of gun control on violent crime. Indeed, just last year alone, gun crime offenses in London increased by a whopping 42% compared to the year prior. Specifically, "The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016." For a country with such strict gun control, those numbers are insane. That more people aren't being killed through these gun crimes shows more about differences in culture IMO than anything else.
Sure, I don't mind providing citations. I didn't think I had to for this as what I wrote is pretty well established.
It's well-established if you follow gun laws and the stuff that surrounds it, and I don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
