FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition And "Large" Magazine Sales Soar
Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963 - a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.
According to gun control supporter dogma - "more guns means more crime" - the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and "large" ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned - AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.
Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS' inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008.
More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.
Originally posted by KazetNagorramaybe he does have a point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Association with Urban Areas in the United States
"In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences.[29]
America's level of gun violence cannot be attributed to urbanization alone as international comparisons show. Singapore has the second highest population density in the world (almost 6,814 people per square kilometer, or about 50% more densely populated than Chicago, Illinois) but has the lowest level of gun violence of all the countries in the table above. Its rate of gun violence is 99 times lower than that of the United States which is 200 times less densely populated. The only way for a civilian to own a firearm in Singapore is to acquire an Arm & Explosives license.[1] Wyoming, despite having a population density of a little over 2 people per square kilometer and one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the U.S. nevertheless has a higher rate of gun violence than England and Wales where the population densities are 383 and 142 people per square kilometer respectively."
Originally posted by generalissimoWow, that's extremely surprising. Lower crime rates in rural areas?! And "some" areas with high gun ownership but low crime. Amazing!
maybe he does have a point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Association with Urban Areas in the United States
"In the United States, [b]cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have wid ...[text shortened]... les where the population densities are 383 and 142 people per square kilometer respectively."
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathe point was that "more guns" doesn't necessarily mean "more crime".
Wow, that's extremely surprising. Lower crime rates in rural areas?! And "some" areas with high gun ownership but low crime. Amazing!
for example, gun ownership in brazil is pretty low if compared to the US, and yet the firearm-related death rate is bigger.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoJust incase anyone is wondering where his copy and paste job is from.
FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition And "Large" Magazine Sales Soar
Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one- ...[text shortened]... s Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5268
Unfortunately the guy who actually wrote this crap isn't even here to defend it. Because I'd love to tell him his entire article is based upon blatant strawman (below)
"to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009."
Also, according to the report auto theft decreased 18.7% from last year. For those of you who aren't right-wing hacks, can I get a show of hands for who thinks this is because gun sales rose 1.5 to 2 percent?
for people who are truly interested in owning a weapon for self-defense, it might actually be a LOT better if they owned a taser or something like it. Maybe the anti-gun and pro-gun people could both agree on this.
1. If you shoot someone with a taser, they will be pretty much unable to do much of anything for the next few minutes - giving you time to call 9-1-1 and-or escape. If you shoot them with a gun, unless you have really good aim, your assailant will still be able to shoot you in response.
2. If you shoot someone with a gun and they die, there's a chance that you could still be convicted of murder. Hopefully, your argument of "self-defense" will be convincing to a jury, but you never know. If you merely injure them, you might face a costly lawsuit. If you shoot someone with a taser, they're much more likely to survive with minimal long-term injury and you'll be spared a lot of legal woe.
3. If you're the sort of person who has major qualms about killing someone, you might be sitting there with your gun afraid to shoot. Giving your assailant plenty of time to react. It's very likely that your assailant won't share your qualms about killing.
4. Any weapon you have can be taken from you and used against you. If someone takes your gun, you're in a lot deeper trouble than if you someone takes your taser.
5. If your child accidentally finds your loaded gun and uses it, the results would be a lot more tragic than if your child found your taser. And if you leave your gun unloaded to protect your children, it won't be much good when you're facing an assailant.
Speaking of which
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU0UC20091231
A Kosovan-born gunman shot dead four people in a Finnish shopping mall on Thursday and killed his ex-girlfriend in an apartment before killing himself in Finland's third shooting spree in as many years.
For a country of 5 million people to have 3 shooting sprees like this in 3 years is not a great statistic.
Originally posted by sh76Finland is the EU country with the most lax gun control.
Speaking of which
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU0UC20091231
[b]A Kosovan-born gunman shot dead four people in a Finnish shopping mall on Thursday and killed his ex-girlfriend in an apartment before killing himself in Finland's third shooting spree in as many years.
For a country of 5 million people to have 3 shooting sprees like this in 3 years is not a great statistic.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76Finland has been isolated from the other European countries, historically. They joined the EU in 1995, because of economic reasons. They are not a NATO member, and throughout the centuries have faced occupation from Swedes and Russians. Also, Finns like hunting.
Yes, I noticed after poking around a bit after I read the story, that gun ownership seems to be a bigger part of Finnish culture than elsewhere in Europe. I wonder why that is.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFinland has never been occupied by Sweden, not more than Närke anyway. Finland was Swedish from the beginning, and was won by Russia in a war 1809. They have been independant from 1907. Finland and Sweden is friends in all aspects.
Finland has been isolated from the other European countries, historically. They joined the EU in 1995, because of economic reasons. They are not a NATO member, and throughout the centuries have faced occupation from Swedes and Russians. Also, Finns like hunting.
