America Is Awash In Guns, And Crime Is At Record Lows

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 1:11 PM GMT
    This is not common knowledge because the Democrats, and the lapdog media knows it would burst their narrative...

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/america-is-awash-in-guns-and-crime-is-at-record-lows/

    .Most Americans believe America is submerged beneath a tidal wave of gun violence. A Pew Research poll in 2013 found that 56 percent of Americans thought gun violence had risen in the last 20 years, 26 percent thought it had remained the same, and only 12 percent thought it had fallen. You might be surprised to learn the 12 percent were right.

    The gulf between the facts about guns and the public’s perception is immense, and was created deliberately. Anti-gun advocates invent new terms (“assault weapon”) and politicians lie to win over a skeptical public. Too often these myths are swallowed by journalists and celebrities who don’t bother to check the data and don’t know how modern firearms actually work.

    The myth that rising sales of semi-automatic rifles have led to rising levels of gun homicides is pervasive. “The United States has been pummeled by gun violence since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004,” read The Boston Globe’s June 16 editorial in a typically misleading statement of alarm. Although a Globe reader would reasonably conclude that the country is suffering a spike in homicides, the opposite is true. All violence, including gun violence, in America has declined dramatically for more than two decades.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 3:54 PM GMT
    It is not what i hear when i listen to the local news ! icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 4:05 PM GMT
    Orrrrr, perhaps "This is not common knowledge because,,," what you've said is not true?

    I've just googled, having "no idea what I'd find," the rates of violent crime and the rates of gun ownership over time. Here's some of that....

    crime.jpg

    ldah6rdp6ukvngoyqi1fcg.gif

    18fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png

    guns.png

    So is it as you've wrongly said that guns had anything to do with the decrease of crime, or did violent crime--which coincidentally occurred during a time period of decreasing gun ownership--also decrease during that time because of less lead poisoning leading to less mental instability, or because of greater supply of food, better housing, better access to jobs even if wages have been increasingly lessened such that social welfare (aka corporate welfare) filled in that gap to decrease desperation?

    It wasn't the increasing "wash of guns". Right? Because we can see that gun ownership per capita decreased while violent crime per capita also decreased. So reality is quite the opposite of the bullshit you're trying to pass off as real. Right?

    49 of us are dead.

    Stop disrespecting them please.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 4:14 PM GMT
    neffa saidIt is not what i hear when i listen to the local news ! icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif


    When you listen to the local news, a snowstorm becomes a life-threatening blizzard. A heavy rainstorm becomes a torrential downpour that threatens lives and property.

    The media always exaggerates. And it's mostly wrong in significant details of every story. If you have expertise in any area -- IT, management, the arts -- whatever -- consider how accurate the media is in reporting on your area, then apply that to everything else they report on. They really are incompetent and they really do have an agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 4:20 PM GMT
    Well, I think that US news is biased, and will always go along with the "we need gun control" tune that is always preached by the general public. I feel that we don't need to look at legal purchases of guns, or persons like me, whom have gone through the rigorous background checks to obtain a Licence To Carry Handgun. What we need to look at is straw purchases, and person to person purchases. There are a lot of illegal guns that come across our borders daily... This is something that need to be addressed. By continuing to march to the tune of "People shouldn't own guns" is burying your head in the sand, since criminals have no value on life. I love being able to carry, and defend as needed. icon_smile.gif

    Cheers,

    Sean
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 4:46 PM GMT
    As an independent who is a strong supporter of gun rights, I have always found that the two sides in the gun debate talk past each other. It's very frustrating. With two sides, we should have twice the solutions. Instead each side just tries to mute each other. It would be great to see an honest bipartisan coalition work together to figure out...

    1. We need to address and treat mental illness in a way that decreases their ability to harm others according to the severity of their illness. BTW, this certainly includes completely overhauling how we view and treat depression. Suicide by guns accounts for nearly 2/3rd of firearm murders yet we never talk about it. Instead, there is more attention paid to preventing them from getting hooked on pain killers than actually treating their pain. I could go on and on.
    2. We need to get the government AND gun sellers to work TOGETHER to communicate when questionable people attempt to purchase guns. In several of the mass shootings we've heard where a killer was either denied a gun/gear at one store or the gun seller alerted the authorities about a suspicious person yet nothing was done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 5:32 PM GMT
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jun 23, 2016 5:58 PM GMT
    Democrats, and the lapdog media knows it would burst their narrative...

    You lost me right there. While there are biases on both sides, I simply cannot take too seriously posts that begin with blaming "it" all on some dark conspiracy. woodFodr is right: we need to stop talking past each other, and that includes attributing over-simplistic motives to each other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 6:39 PM GMT
    tazzari saidDemocrats, and the lapdog media knows it would burst their narrative...

    You lost me right there. While there are biases on both sides, I simply cannot take too seriously posts that begin with blaming "it" all on some dark conspiracy. woodFodr is right: we need to stop talking past each other, and that includes attributing over-simplistic motives to each other.


    So, then why isn't the declining crime rate a common knowledge thing???

    And I believe the article is saying that despite the increase in gun sales, crime has gone down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 6:42 PM GMT
    The Gun Industry believes everyone should own a gun or 30.
    No Questions. No Restrictions. EVER!

    Until a majority of our government representatives stand against this insanity NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.
  • jeep334

    Posts: 408

    Jun 23, 2016 7:48 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    neffa saidIt is not what i hear when i listen to the local news ! icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif


    When you listen to the local news, a snowstorm becomes a life-threatening blizzard. A heavy rainstorm becomes a torrential downpour that threatens lives and property.

    The media always exaggerates. And it's mostly wrong in significant details of every story. If you have expertise in any area -- IT, management, the arts -- whatever -- consider how accurate the media is in reporting on your area, then apply that to everything else they report on. They really are incompetent and they really do have an agenda.


    This suggestion is excellent. Take your area of expertise and apply it to the new media. Although the RJ'er suggested it to local news, you can apply it to national news as well. My area would be the rail industry. I have found that the reporting is not only misleading but inaccurate more often than it's accurate. Although the weathermen tend to be the worse (check out The Weather Channel either on television or on your mobile app) the degree of reporting raises to a very low bar. It's a sales game to the news media and the more watchers they have, the greater support there will be from big name advertisement. It's sadly a money game and the guy paying the for it all (you & me) are left with a substandard product. You be the judge and sift through all the garbage to maybe find the real truth.
  • maggass

    Posts: 44

    Jun 23, 2016 10:43 PM GMT
    And just imagine how much lower it would still be if you didn't have access to guns....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 11:30 PM GMT
    theantijock saidOrrrrr, perhaps "This is not common knowledge because,,," what you've said is not true?

    I've just googled, having "no idea what I'd find," the rates of violent crime and the rates of gun ownership over time. Here's some of that....

    crime.jpg

    ldah6rdp6ukvngoyqi1fcg.gif

    18fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png

    guns.png

    So is it as you've wrongly said that guns had anything to do with the decrease of crime, or did violent crime--which coincidentally occurred during a time period of decreasing gun ownership--also decrease during that time because of less lead poisoning leading to less mental instability, or because of greater supply of food, better housing, better access to jobs even if wages have been increasingly lessened such that social welfare (aka corporate welfare) filled in that gap to decrease desperation?

    It wasn't the increasing "wash of guns". Right? Because we can see that gun ownership per capita decreased while violent crime per capita also decreased. So reality is quite the opposite of the bullshit you're trying to pass off as real. Right?

    49 of us are dead.

    Stop disrespecting them please.




    Thank you for the overview. I knew crime rates were at historic low levels (geez even me a DEMOCRAT!) but I didn't know gun ownership was actually down.

    TIME MAGAZINE:
    "The rate of violent crime is 367.9 crimes for every 100,000 people, which marked a 5.1 percent decline since 2012. The rate has fallen each year since at least 1994.

    Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents."

    http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

    Personally I'd guess DNA evidence has reduced the likelihood of "getting away with it" and potential criminals know better now.
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    Jun 24, 2016 2:29 AM GMT

    Crime rates are declining everywhere in the western world, mostly because people don't beat their children anymore and don't beat their wives as often infront of their children. We all know domestic abuse usually leads to more violent people, watch a movie from the 50s even 60s, slapping women was considered a hobby.

    Hey, are mass shootings up? No way to tie those to guns though.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Jun 24, 2016 3:05 AM GMT
    badbug said
    Crime rates are declining everywhere in the western world, mostly because people don't beat their children anymore and don't beat their wives as often infront of their children. We all know domestic abuse usually leads to more violent people, watch a movie from the 50s even 60s, slapping women was considered a hobby.

    Hey, are mass shootings up? No way to tie those to guns though.


    gun ownership is down because everyone is now OLD, with the boomers past their reckless prime now, they dont need to be packin heat. icon_rolleyes.gif
    These crime statistics are almost completely based on demographics. Old people commit less violent crime because they are more stable, and less likely able to run, etc...further they just don't care anymore about shit that doesn't matter. They can also get their drugs at the Rx instead of on the street so are not in the line of fire.

    Guns serve no purpose in society. A negligible amount of people have defended themselves with guns, because the moment you need it, it is either locked up, or you are too late to draw and or you just provided the other gun owner with yet another gun...thankyouvery much...

    If any of you gun nuts ever actually shot anyone, you would be traumatized for life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 1:41 PM GMT
    Apparition said
    badbug said
    Crime rates are declining everywhere in the western world, mostly because people don't beat their children anymore and don't beat their wives as often infront of their children. We all know domestic abuse usually leads to more violent people, watch a movie from the 50s even 60s, slapping women was considered a hobby.

    Hey, are mass shootings up? No way to tie those to guns though.


    gun ownership is down because everyone is now OLD, with the boomers past their reckless prime now, they dont need to be packin heat. icon_rolleyes.gif
    These crime statistics are almost completely based on demographics. Old people commit less violent crime because they are more stable, and less likely able to run, etc...further they just don't care anymore about shit that doesn't matter. They can also get their drugs at the Rx instead of on the street so are not in the line of fire.

    Guns serve no purpose in society. A negligible amount of people have defended themselves with guns, because the moment you need it, it is either locked up, or you are too late to draw and or you just provided the other gun owner with yet another gun...thankyouvery much...

    If any of you gun nuts ever actually shot anyone, you would be traumatized for life.


    Patently false statement...

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/23/goa-shuts-inquisition-cnns-carol-costello-forgot-mention-defensive-gun-usesWell, what you failed to point out Carol is that the CDC also–pursuant to President Obama issuing a decree to have them study this issue–they found that anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million times a year guns are being used for self-defense.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 1:54 PM GMT
    TIMinPS said
    theantijock saidOrrrrr, perhaps "This is not common knowledge because,,," what you've said is not true?

    I've just googled, having "no idea what I'd find," the rates of violent crime and the rates of gun ownership over time. Here's some of that....

    crime.jpg

    ldah6rdp6ukvngoyqi1fcg.gif

    18fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png

    guns.png

    So is it as you've wrongly said that guns had anything to do with the decrease of crime, or did violent crime--which coincidentally occurred during a time period of decreasing gun ownership--also decrease during that time because of less lead poisoning leading to less mental instability, or because of greater supply of food, better housing, better access to jobs even if wages have been increasingly lessened such that social welfare (aka corporate welfare) filled in that gap to decrease desperation?

    It wasn't the increasing "wash of guns". Right? Because we can see that gun ownership per capita decreased while violent crime per capita also decreased. So reality is quite the opposite of the bullshit you're trying to pass off as real. Right?

    49 of us are dead.

    Stop disrespecting them please.




    Thank you for the overview. I knew crime rates were at historic low levels (geez even me a DEMOCRAT!) but I didn't know gun ownership was actually down.

    TIME MAGAZINE:
    "The rate of violent crime is 367.9 crimes for every 100,000 people, which marked a 5.1 percent decline since 2012. The rate has fallen each year since at least 1994.

    Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents."

    http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

    Personally I'd guess DNA evidence has reduced the likelihood of "getting away with it" and potential criminals know better now.


    Considering that millions of guns are sold in the US each year and that range owners and shop owners are reporting many "newbie" buyers, I'd question the polls that report a declining degree of gun ownership.

    If I as a gun owner got a call from a pollster asking about gun ownership, the conversation would go something like this:

    RING, RING, RING
    Me: Hello?
    Pollster: Good morning, Mr. RJ. I'm Fred with "XYZ" polling, and I'd like to ask you a few questions. Are you willing to participate?
    Me: umm.. yes..
    Pollster: How would you categorize your race - Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, Asian-American?
    Me: Caucasian
    Pollster: What is your age range? (21-30, 31-40, 40-65, 65+)?
    Me: 40-65
    Pollster: Do you own or rent your residence?
    Me: own
    Pollster: Do you consider yourself very conservative, conservative, middle-of-the road, liberal, or very liberal?
    Me: conservative
    Pollster: Do you own any pets?
    Me: no
    Pollster: Do you own a car, suv, or truck
    Me: both car and truck
    Pollster: Do you or anyone in your household own any firearms.
    Me (glancing at gun safe): Nope, no firearms here.
    Pollster: more blather that I respond to.

    I think a lot of people do own guns, but aren't willing to talk about it, either because of social ostracism or because they consider them high-value items that are would make them a target for theft.

    I know I would lie to a random person asking questions about guns, and I suspect many other people would as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 3:25 PM GMT
    TIMinPS saidThank you for the overview. I knew crime rates were at historic low levels (geez even me a DEMOCRAT!) but I didn't know gun ownership was actually down.

    TIME MAGAZINE:
    "The rate of violent crime is 367.9 crimes for every 100,000 people, which marked a 5.1 percent decline since 2012. The rate has fallen each year since at least 1994.

    Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents."

    http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

    Personally I'd guess DNA evidence has reduced the likelihood of "getting away with it" and potential criminals know better now.


    You're welcome. I had an idea of some of that by past readings but wasn't sure of all the details. Always open to check myself, that random googling came up with pretty much what I suspected.

    I'm sure there's lots of parts of it including your idea of getting away with it which one might think also includes the increasing (& I think outrageous) incarceration rates, ;though about which I've a study here denying that), increased policing (which I think this study below looks at) and cameras as you mention I'd also think a deterrent. I've not studied criminology formally since a class back in the 70s/80s though I found it interesting and have semi-followed it since, but I'd imagine it's just as complex a study as economics with all those many variables of humanity.

    Here's that study, recently completed and looks pretty thorough to me
    https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline and I'll note here that it shows of guns:
    4. Enactment of Right-to-Carry Gun Laws
    Right-to-Carry Gun Laws & Crime
    Consistent with the most accepted past studies, this report did not find evidence that right-to-carry gun laws affected crime in the 1990s or 2000s.


    With what I remembered reading about lead (and this study explores past studies) this study says:

    13. Decreased Lead in Gasoline
    Unleading of Gasoline & Crime:
    The authors do not draw a conclusion on this theory because they could not secure complete data on this variable on a state-level for all the years needed for their empirical analysis. Based on past body of research and expert reactions, it is possible that lead played some role in the 1990s violent crime decline.


    Here's their finding on incarceration :
    1. Increased Incarceration
    Incarceration & Crime:
    Based on original empirical analysis, this report finds that increased incarceration at today’s levels has a negligible crime control benefit.
    Incarceration has been declining in effectiveness as a crime control tactic since before 1980. Since 2000, the effect of increasing incarceration on the crime rate has been essentially zero.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 3:46 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn saidConsidering that millions of guns are sold in the US each year and that range owners and shop owners are reporting many "newbie" buyers, I'd question the polls that report a declining degree of gun ownership.

    If I as a gun owner got a call from a pollster asking about gun ownership, the conversation would go something like this:

    RING, RING, RING
    Me: Hello?
    Pollster: Good morning, Mr. RJ. I'm Fred with "XYZ" polling, and I'd like to ask you a few questions. Are you willing to participate?
    Me: umm.. yes..
    Pollster: How would you categorize your race - Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, Asian-American?
    Me: Caucasian
    Pollster: What is your age range? (21-30, 31-40, 40-65, 65+)?
    Me: 40-65
    Pollster: Do you own or rent your residence?
    Me: own
    Pollster: Do you consider yourself very conservative, conservative, middle-of-the road, liberal, or very liberal?
    Me: conservative
    Pollster: Do you own any pets?
    Me: no
    Pollster: Do you own a car, suv, or truck
    Me: both car and truck
    Pollster: Do you or anyone in your household own any firearms.
    Me (glancing at gun safe): Nope, no firearms here.
    Pollster: more blather that I respond to.

    I think a lot of people do own guns, but aren't willing to talk about it, either because of social ostracism or because they consider them high-value items that are would make them a target for theft.

    I know I would lie to a random person asking questions about guns, and I suspect many other people would as well.


    You need to think that out a little further because 1st, I think you're painting the gun owner even worse, that they'd not only lie that guns stop crime which formal studies deny but that now you say they'd even lie in an anonymous study about owning a gun (or has Gallup started naming names), so, um, inadvertently not a real pretty picture of the character of gun owners.

    But more to a serious point, by that argument you'd be saying that when, for instance, 50% of independents said they had guns they weren't lying but when years later that number drops to 30%, now they are lying? How does that make sense? It doesn't. And I'd add that the greatest increasing of the populating of a political affiliation over time has been into the independents. So even given those percentages of a 20% drop, that percentage is among an increasing number of people overall within that category, so it seems significant.

    I could understand you not telling someone face to face whether you've a gun, but in a telephone poll? Also remember that the pollsters have margins of error which they are skilled in analyzing. So I think we can accept their numbers with a reasonable degree of confidence. If not by specifics, at least by trend.

    And to your point of shooting ranges reporting increased usage, that could be by population growth alone. There can be more usage while percentages go down as long as population keeps increasing. Also there might be more usage by those who might not have trained before, women for instance, or people who owned already but now feel they might like to know how to aim or people bored of their Atari. So that there might be more people using gun ranges--and I'd have to see those numbers--doesn't necessarily mean that there are greater percentages of the population owning guns. That could be by increased population alone, not on a per capita basis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 4:02 PM GMT
    As a follow-up to the antijock (who I have on ignore and whose postings I see if only if I'm not logged on):

    If the pollster has your phone number, how you claim that it's an anonymous survey? How do you validate that it's anonymous, or do you just take it on trust?

    Suppose a pollster called up out of the blue and started asking questions about your income level, about the valuables that you owned, or about your hiv status. Would you feel compelled to answer truthfully?

    In an environment where some politicians are calling for gun confiscation (e.g. Hillary invoking the Australian solution where guns were confiscated), do you really expect people to answer honestly? Can any rational person hold it against gunowners if they don't? But then again, this is the anitjock that we're dealing with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 4:20 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn saidAs a follow-up to the antijock (who I have on ignore and whose postings I see if only if I'm not logged on):

    If the pollster has your phone number, how you claim that it's an anonymous survey? How do you validate that it's anonymous, or do you just take it on trust?

    Suppose a pollster called up out of the blue and started asking questions about your income level, about the valuables that you owned, or about your hiv status. Would you feel compelled to answer truthfully?

    In an environment where some politicians are calling for gun confiscation (e.g. Hillary invoking the Australian solution where guns were confiscated), do you really expect people to answer honestly? Can any rational person hold it against gunowners if they don't? But then again, this is the anitjock that we're dealing with.


    Thanks for the notification that you've got me on ignore. I've been real gentle with you because I thought you were just stupid by design. But now that you've shown it's your goal...

    You don't even take into account a growing population in growing numbers? What a fucking idiot. You can't conceive that growing numbers are not necessarily growing percentages given growing populations? That just because population is going up stats might not show percentages going down? Is your capacity for abstract thinking that dysfunctional that you can't even think that far into it? Did you just blame Hillary? lol

    To your lame as fuck thinking and your opinion of me? You think I give a flying fuck what your shit for brains thinks of me? Fuck you. Again, if someone is lying, then why are they lying now but not lying then. Why did the numbers go down on asking the same question? Gun owners are afraid of confiscation now but weren't just as paranoid then, and you blame that on Hillary you fucking moron. Stop sniffing the glue, okay?

    "If the pollster has your phone number, how you claim that it's an anonymous survey?" you ask. lolololol have you not yet heard of computers? Robocalling, anyone? Idiot!

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Info/polling-faq.html#whocall
    How does the pollster decide who to call?
    All polls are based on the idea of a random sample. Two methods are used to get the sample. The first is called RDD (Random Digit Dialing) in which the pollster carefully chooses an area code and prefix (together, the first six digits of a telephone number) and then picks the next four digits at random. Due to the way the telephone system is organized, people with the same area code and next three digits generally live close together, although this property is changing. This method generates a good random sample since it hits all in the selected area with equal probability, including unlisted numbers.

    duh!
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Jun 24, 2016 7:29 PM GMT
    [Satire warning]

    We all know that when two things are correlated, one causes the other. Therefore, the fact that a declining crime rate is occurring as the number of guns increases proves that increasing the number of guns is causing the decrease in the number of crimes and that therefore encouraging more people to buy guns will accelerate the decrease in the crime rate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2016 8:08 PM GMT
    FRE0 said[Satire warning]

    We all know that when two things are correlated, one causes the other. Therefore, the fact that a declining crime rate is occurring as the number of guns increases proves that increasing the number of guns is causing the decrease in the number of crimes and that therefore encouraging more people to buy guns will accelerate the decrease in the crime rate.


    And if the prediction is that more guns, cause more crimes, but the evidence doesn't show it...