Exhaustive Study: Murder Rates Rise Every Place that Bans Guns (weapon, crime rate)
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.
Right - they become criminals (or found out) after people die. Until then they are good guys with guns.
The OP says murder rates rise when guns are regulated heavily. I gave the example of MA - could give many more. But the OP changes his mind and says he didn't really mean gun crimes or murder, he meant other crimes.
Funny stuff. Bottom line - every study has shown the opposite. I've read them, I've heard them and it's not even close. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (anecdotes, mormons, etc). But the stats are clear. Really clear.
Go try to fool other people - you know, people who don't read or can't do basic math. Crazy people who don't base their lives on reason and logic.
The OP (who is not I in case you were implying such) stated violence increased and there were appreciable increases in homicides in many countries and cities that increased gun regulations.
You said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
EXHAUSTIVE study - must not see the lowest gun crime (or closer) is in MA, a place with the strictest gun control.
The thread is not about specifically gun crime (because Mr. Mathematics you should know gun crime is a subset of crime, and that reducing gun crime need not reduce that set of crime).
Who is fooling who when the UK home office clearly states from the link provided (and reproduced below) that homicides are higher in the UK than 1996/1997 when handguns were banned from private ownership in the UK. https://assets.publishing.service.go...3/hosb0212.pdf
I mean you've clearly got the comprehension skills of a small tree frog, since you cant understand the actual main argument of the thread, but that first bullet point is crystal clear even to those with a reading age below double digits, and completely invalidates your claim that "every study has shown the opposite.". Except the one posted here from UK government analysis of their own crime stats.
The OP (who is not I in case you were implying such) stated violence increased and there were appreciable increases in homicides in many countries and cities that increased gun regulations.
You said...
The thread is not about specifically gun crime (because Mr. Mathematics you should know gun crime is a subset of crime, and that reducing gun crime need not reduce that set of crime).
Who is fooling who when the UK home office clearly states from the link provided (and reproduced below) that homicides are higher in the UK than 1996/1997 when handguns were banned from private ownership in the UK. https://assets.publishing.service.go...3/hosb0212.pdf
I mean you've clearly got the comprehension skills of a small tree frog, since you cant understand the actual main argument of the thread, but that first bullet point is crystal clear even to those with a reading age below double digits, and completely invalidates your claim that "every study has shown the opposite.". Except the one posted here from UK government analysis of their own crime stats.
There's a lot of data in that report.
Here's a piece:
Quote:
Extent and trends
Firearm offences continue to make up a small proportion of overall recorded crime. In 2010/11, firearms were used in 0.3 per cent of all police recorded offences, or around three in every thousand offences. This figure falls to under two in every thousand offences when air weapons are excluded.
In 2010/11, firearms were used in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, a decrease of 13 per cent compared with the previous year, when 12,976 offences were recorded. This compares with an overall decrease of four per cent of all offences recorded by the police over the same period. There was a 15 per cent fall in air weapon offences and a 13 per cent fall in non-air weapon offences over the last year (Table 2.01).
The number of firearm offences has fallen steadily since peaking at 24,094 in 2003/04, and has decreased by over half (53%) since then. This represents a greater fall than in police recorded crime overall, which has fallen by around a third (31%) over the same period (Table 2.04 in Chaplin et al., 2011).This decrease in firearm offences has largely been due to a reduction in the number of air weapon offences recorded by the police, which has fallen by over two-thirds (69%) since 2003/04. In comparison, non-air weapon offences are almost a third (32%) lower than 2003/04, having peaked later, in 2005/06 (Table 2.01; Figure 2.1).
Data may show overall increase in homicide is due to population and/or other factors. After all 1997 was 20 years ago. But firearm offences are down more than half, crime overall down a third.
Box 2.1 Impact of changes in police recording practice
The introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) by police forces on 1 April 2002 brought in a more victim-focused reporting system, where victim accounts had to be accepted unless there was credible evidence to the contrary. While no estimates were calculated to assess the effect of this new standard on the number of firearm offences recorded, it is known that this change inflated the overall number of violence against the person and criminal damage offences but had less effect on the number of robberies (see Simmons et al., 2003). Offences involving the use of firearms are generally thought to be less affected by the introduction of the NCRS than offences not involving the use of a firearm, given the nature of such offences. However, it is still not possible to directly compare figures prior to 2002/03 with those for later years.
Even if gun rights supporters could accept that more guns = more gun deaths - they'd just say "But but but... Second Amendment!" And ignore the whole militia part of it.
It is a pointless argument. As long as the Second Amendment is interpreted as it is today, it doesn't matter if more guns = more gun deaths had its "aha moment" like when cigarette makers had to admit that smoking caused cancer. Without a new interpretation of the Second Amendment, this argument is a waste of time.
But were any new laws or regulations put on tobacco companies after they had to admit their product was deadly and dangerous?
Anyone 18 yrs old and older can walk into nearly any convenience store and buy as many tobacco products as they like every day of the week, no limits at all!!!
Is this how we deal with products once they are found to be deadly or dangerous? LOL
You have understand that almost none of these killings are committed by law abiding gun owners. Most are done by criminals who have no regard for gun laws.
But they were easily able to attain guns! YOU have to understand that criminals in other countries do not so easily attain the firearms that are instilling such fear that you feel the NEED to have a firearm to protect yourself.
Enough with the "criminals this and that"...Other countries have criminals but far fewer crimes committed per-capita using a firearm. Why do you suppose that is?
Over 400,000 firearms are stolen each and every year in the U.S. Where do you suppose they're being stolen from..........LAW ABIDING owners. If they're so effective at preventing crime how the heck can you rationalized that statistic?
You own an average of 3 firearms and yet you are more likely to be the victim of a firearm crime committed by a criminal who stole one from another owner who averaged 3 firearms.... Your's and the other owner's three firearms did squat to prevent that crime from happening.
Right - they become criminals (or found out) after people die. Until then they are good guys with guns.
The OP says murder rates rise when guns are regulated heavily. I gave the example of MA - could give many more. But the OP changes his mind and says he didn't really mean gun crimes or murder, he meant other crimes.
Funny stuff. Bottom line - every study has shown the opposite. I've read them, I've heard them and it's not even close. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (anecdotes, mormons, etc). But the stats are clear. Really clear.
Go try to fool other people - you know, people who don't read or can't do basic math. Crazy people who don't base their lives on reason and logic.
Yep, all of those law abiding citizens are out there killing people. The only reason a law abiding citizen would kill some one is in self defense. Of course there are exceptions to every rule.
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.