FBI's Crime Report Bad News for Anti-Gunners

[Maximus84]

The FBI recently released its crime report for 2007 and, once again, gun control supporters are taking it on the chin.

It's not just that the nation's violent crime rate decreased slightly between 2006 and 2007. It's that every year since 2002 it has been lower than anytime since 1974, leading the Justice Department to say that violent crime is "near a 30-year low." Since 1991, violent crime has dropped 38 percent. Murder is now at a 40-year low, lower than anytime since 1966 every year from 1999 to the present, and down 43 percent since 1991.

"More guns means more crime?" Only in anti-gunner "La-La Land." Violent crime has fallen as the number of guns has increased 4.5 million a year. There are more gun owners, owning more guns than ever before, and violent crime is lower than anytime since Gerald Ford became president!

We can hardly wait to see the Brady Campaign try to spin this one with its asinine "state grades" stunt. In 2007, the major U.S. cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. The top three? Detroit (where Michigan law requires a permit to purchase a handgun), Baltimore (where Maryland law restricts private handgun sales and requires a seven-day waiting period on handgun sales by dealers), and the District of Columbia (with its handgun ban and its firearm registration law). Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and D.C. had the highest robbery rates.

In 2007, as in years past, Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent, murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11 percent. Further, in 2007, 32 percent of murders were committed without firearms of any sort--knives accounted for 12 percent, hands and feet six percent, and blunt objects four percent. Rifles and shotguns (semi-automatic and otherwise) accounted for three percent each, and typically "assault weapons" have accounted for about one percent.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

The FBI recently released its crime report for 2007 and, once again, gun control supporters are taking it on the chin.

It's not just that the nation's violent crime rate decreased slightly between 2006 and 2007. It's that every year since 2002 it has been lower than anytime since 1974, leading the Justice Department to say that violent crime is "near a 30-year low." Since 1991, violent crime has dropped 38 percent. Murder is now at a 40-year low, lower than anytime since 1966 every year from 1999 to the present, and down 43 percent since 1991.

"More guns means more crime?" Only in anti-gunner "La-La Land." Violent crime has fallen as the number of guns has increased 4.5 million a year.

Canada and some other Western nations have seen some very similar statistics. As you point out, it seems to be unrelated to gun ownership. Frankly, there is some speculation as to why this is happening.

Some have suggested the decline is inversly related to the abortion rate but delayed by 15-20 years......... that means that unwanted babies are more often aborted, instead of being born and raised so poorly they end up as little criminals when they get older.

Others have suggested its due to the reduction in lead levels in the environment; in the air, water etc. As leaded gasolines and paints were phased out, lead levels in people dropped dramatically in the 1970's. Lead is related to inhibited mental development in children and subsequent undesierable behaviour.

Personally I think a big part of this is that the incarceration rate is up..... lock up the bad guys and they will not commit crimes.

Finally, the US still has a dramatically higher murder rate that other industrialized Western nations (where guns are allowed) and it is not due exclusively to gun ownership.

[Gohan Ryu]

I wondered if the decrease in gun-related crime has anything to do with the "buyback" programs that crime-ridden cities have been hosting - where people turn in their guns to be destroyed for a free lunch or whatever. It seems that would take the guns out of the hands of the irresponsible owners and increase the percentage of registered, legal owners.

We'll probably see an increase in violent crimes as our economy worsens - that factor has always been linked directly to crime waves.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

I wondered if the decrease in gun-related crime has anything to do with the "buyback" programs that crime-ridden cities have been hosting - where people turn in their guns to be destroyed for a free lunch or whatever.

Gun buy back programs are a failure and do not work. Plus there is no positive statistical data supporting any position that the GBP programs work.

Also note that there are over 200 million firearms in the U.S. Basically 90 per every 100 of population.

As anecdotal evidence for example St Louis recently got rid of theirs claiming it was "a waste of money".

Great analogy below in the article:

Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch
November 20, 2008

But board President Chris Goodson said he was against the idea because last
year's buyback didn't prevent this year's rising murder rate.

"Imagine that instead of guns, police, for whatever strange reason, wanted to get shoes off the streets. Would a shoe buyback reduce the number of people with shoes? Of course not, people would sell their old, tired shoes to the police and new shoes would quickly replace sold shoes. Same thing with gun buybacks."

Link to Article

[blazee]

At first I was ready to dismiss the belief that gun buy backs work, until I thought about it a little more, now I'm not sure. On the surface, it appears that the gun buy backs only take guns out of the hands of people that had no desire to use them and didn't want them anyway. I guess a secondary effect would be that it does keep those guns from ending up in pawn shops, and newspaper ads, where they would be purchased by people that may want to use them for bad stuff.

Another explanation for the reduction maybe that men just aren't what they used to be, lower testosterone levels and increased estrogen levels, may account for some of it. Every generation is becoming less "manly" than those before, even as much as a 50% drop in levels from father to son. Behavioral training as well... boys are taught to act like little girls... be quiet, don't play rough, be carefull you'll get hurt...

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by blazee

boys are taught to act like little girls... be quiet, don't play rough, be carefull you'll get hurt...

The heck with that; blowing stuff up is fun. Shooting at it and making it blow up is even better.

[wafrederick]

This is good news to the NRA and hopefully they hear this.Guns do not kill,people kill in the wrong hands.Guns do not have arms and legs which do not get up by themselves.Most states that have right to carry laws like Michigan and Texas,the crime rate is down and this has been shown.

[Gohan Ryu]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch
November 20, 2008

But board President Chris Goodson said he was against the idea because last
year's buyback didn't prevent this year's rising murder rate.

"Imagine that instead of guns, police, for whatever strange reason, wanted to get shoes off the streets. Would a shoe buyback reduce the number of people with shoes? Of course not, people would sell their old, tired shoes to the police and new shoes would quickly replace sold shoes. Same thing with gun buybacks."

This guy expected results in one year. As Blazee stated it's the trickle down effect that may ultimately lead to the success of buyback programs. I don't know what Goodson was told to expect, but when the buyback programs started over 10 years ago the people who planned them told the media that it may take many years before they saw results - they knew the results would not be immediate. That's why I wondered if the buyback programs started over 10 years ago are now affecting today's crime rate.

And comparing shoes, an article of clothing found in every household, owned by every man/woman/child, replaced every few months, to guns, a government regulated weapon with a lifespan of several decades? It's not like you can go to the Payless at the mall and come home with several pairs of guns for the family, most of us have to register and survive a background check and endure a waiting period. I didn't click the link because the quote doesn't really compel me...

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

The heck with that; blowing stuff up is fun. Shooting at it and making it blow up is even better.

I once put a CO2 cartridge inside a grapefruit and shot it with a .223 round. It was beautiful.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by blazee

At first I was ready to dismiss the belief that gun buy backs work, until I thought about it a little more, now I'm not sure. On the surface, it appears that the gun buy backs only take guns out of the hands of people that had no desire to use them and didn't want them anyway. I guess a secondary effect would be that it does keep those guns from ending up in pawn shops, and newspaper ads, where they would be purchased by people that may want to use them for bad stuff.

Another explanation for the reduction maybe that men just aren't what they used to be, lower testosterone levels and increased estrogen levels, may account for some of it. Every generation is becoming less "manly" than those before, even as much as a 50% drop in levels from father to son. Behavioral training as well... boys are taught to act like little girls... be quiet, don't play rough, be carefull you'll get hurt...

So thats whats wrong with ya!

[blazee]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

So thats whats wrong with ya!

Explain your reply.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

This guy expected results in one year. As Blazee stated it's the trickle down effect that may ultimately lead to the success of buyback programs. I don't know what Goodson was told to expect, but when the buyback programs started over 10 years ago the people who planned them told the media that it may take many years before they saw results - they knew the results would not be immediate. That's why I wondered if the buyback programs started over 10 years ago are now affecting today's crime rate.

You can wonder all you want but neither you nor Blazee have posted any data to support the position that the gun buy back programs are working other than your personal opinion or rank speculation which really doesn't count in a gun control issue debate. Does anyone really believe that violent criminals to include drug dealers are going to turn in their firearms in a GBP program for a token $100-$200.

However, there is plenty of anecdotal data over the past several years that for one: either a valid assumption that gun buy back programs don't work or there is no positive correlation between gun buy back effectiveness relative to the violent crime rate dropping. Going back 10 years and if we were to speculate just for the sake of argument (arguendo) a more valid assumption would be the right to carry or concealed handgun laws that 48 states now have in one form or the other being effective or having a bigger impact in reducing crime. Also, logical solutions such as better law enforcement which includes community outreach programs, increased manpower, better training/equipment and going after gangs which plague the high crime ridden cities of the U.S. Plus keep in mind gun related crimes are only a percentage of the aggravated assaults, violent crimes and murders. Many violent criminals are not even using handguns. Knives and other weapons are common so what good does a gun buy back program do in that respect.

Even the Federal government pulled the plug on GBP funding similar programs back in 2001. Removing 1% to 2% of the guns is obviously a failure or pointless barely denting the amount of guns available in the U.S. Plus there are over 2 million more new guns sold in the U.S. every year. In most major U.S. cities like for example Boston the violent crime rate went up even with the gun buy back programs.

Source: LA Times

The Senate voted Thursday to back President Bush’s plan to kill the government’s gun buyback program, handing a victory to gun rights forces.

Senators voted, 65 to 33, against a proposal by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to provide $15 million for the program, created less than two years ago by President Clinton. The Bush administration announced last month that it was ending the program, saying there was no proof that it was taking guns from criminals.


The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administered the program, credited it with removing 20,000 guns in 80 cities in its first year. But the agency also said the buybacks were removing just 1% to 2% of guns from those communities.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/03/news/mn-30180

Source: Boston Phoenix
July 6, 2006

Three months ago, Boston was averaging a shooting a day. It is an even deadlier place to live this summer. Since the start of May there have been, on average, three victims of gunfire — fatal and non-fatal — every two days. Since June 7, that figure has inched upward to almost two a day. More people were murdered in Boston over the past two months than in any May-to-June stretch since 1990, a year that saw the highest number of homicides in the city’s history. All told, more than 200 people have been shot in Boston this year — almost 20 percent more than in all of 2003 (the last year of quiet before the current upsurge began).

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/16763-guns-of-Boston/

[HotZ28]

Let’s say, rather than ban or buy back guns, why not make them mandatory? Here is a real life story on how this may be a more logical alternative. This is about a town in north metro Atlanta. I wonder what would happen in Detroit, LA, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, or DC if a law like this were implemented.
Just some food-for-thought! opcorn:

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000. This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts.

The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

worldnetdaily.com

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by blazee

Explain your reply.

Blazee aint what MEN used to be, lower testosterone levels and increased estrogen levels, may account for some of it. Every generation is becoming less "manly" than those before, even as much as a 50% drop in levels from father to son.

[Gohan Ryu]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

You can wonder all you want but neither you nor Blazee have posted any data to support the position that the gun buy back programs are working other than your personal opinion or rank speculation which really doesn't count in a gun control issue debate.

I never speculated any opinion. I just wondered if the buyback programs were contibuting to the decrease in crime. Should I have not mentioned the buyback programs...I mean why talk about a gun buyback program in a "gun control issue debate"?

Maybe the buyback programs are costing the cities more than they're worth, but it would make sense if they do contribute a little. They sure don't make crime worse. No, the drug dealers aren't going to turn in their weapons, but the citizen who no longer wants his firearm can turn it in to be destroyed instead of doing god knows what with it -and there will be zero chance that it will be used in a crime either tomorrow or 10 years from now. That's the whole idea behind the buyback program...you missed that point. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't, I really don't care. The point is it was never supposed to take guns directly out of criminals hands - it is supposed to take the guns away from future criminals.

I'm not saying the buyback programs work. I'm not saying they don't work. I'm just explaining that the buyback programs are supposed to have long term not immediate results.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

However, there is plenty of anecdotal data...

I can find plenty of "anecdotal data" that would suggest the buyback programs do work...this is the internet after all, what would be the point? Hell, I can find plenty of "anecdotal data" that says the earth is flat - but I won't go arguing with people like it's a fact.

[ericn1300]

This whole thread follows Maximus84 unattributed posting that was a cut and paste from the NRA http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181 and as such has an obvious pro gun slant.

The original FBI report had nothing to say about gun control. It's all about the spin, like the quote in Maximus84's plagiarism: “More guns means more crime?" Only in anti-gunner "La-La Land." Show me anything close to that in the FBI report if you can even find it Maximus.