Violent crime down....gun ownership up!

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

suicide is illegal and with a gun is violent, therefore it IS a violent crime.

If one bothers to read the links one will also see how guns affect the suicide rates with 'impulse' suicides' that would probably NOT occur without a gun, as well as impulse homicides.

I am not saying guns are good or bad, without human interaction they are an inert object, but simply that , as others have stated , the OP's starting premise is a bit broken, followed by assertions that are contradicted by the facts.

Impulse suicide? What a joke. How did they figure out it was an impulse?

And actually my Op only included a link, which I later stated my opinion on the fact that despite an increase in guns, violent crime is not going up.

Edit* iv heard before that suicide is illegal. Can you cite a federal or state law that supports that?

 

[JasonG75]

I'm confused, the same report that doesn't show lower crime rates, actually does show lower crime rates (but only if it supports Obama)?

lol YOU said it NOT ME...hahaha

 

[SumoNinja]

the more guns that are in peoples hands means more crime. its bad bad thing for the world. guns should not even exist. im gonna vote for someone that will ban all guns. we need more peace and not guns.

This is the only logical poster in this thread

Beex for president or some kind overlord position

 

[snot]

Guns and violent crimes, look at countries without guns and they have even lower violent crimes, look at china, japan...

This does not matter in the least bit to me. The facts are the world is a violent place countries are invaded and over run with hostile and deadly results. Once peaceful areas are targeted for ethic cleansing resource acquisition and all the other things bad men deam good reasons to kill other people. The difference is should it happen here me and mine will not be victims

Sent from my HTC Glacier using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[dogofwar]

No - the report that the OP referenced is an FBI report showing that violent crime is down.

There's just no evidence that allegedly higher gun ownership has anything to do with it.

Matt

I'm confused, the same report that doesn't show lower crime rates, actually does show lower crime rates (but only if it supports Obama)?

 

[dogofwar]

Did you even read the FBI report that you linked?

"According to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report released today, the nation experienced a 4.0 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes and a 0.8 percent decline in the number of property crimes in 2011 when compared with data from 2010. The report is based on information the FBI gathered from 14,009 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to 12 comparable months of data for both 2010 and 2011."

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...ce=national-press-releases&utm_content=105061

Crime is down. No mention of higher gun ownership (or lime consumption) having anything to do with it.

Seems like the President should get some credit for the good news, though, right?

Matt

Now thats a joke!! Rofl!! The report does show the opposite of what antis such as yourself preach, which is less gun restrictions=increased violence

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

Are you not reading me? Let me say it again. Despite what antis preach, the increase in guns is not translating into an increase in violent crime, infact its going down. Im not sure how to make that any more clear. Iv said it 3 or 4 times now. How are you still not understanding this?

And no, he deserves no credit as he didnt do anything.

 

[dogofwar]

To follow your logic, there should be a strong, indirect CORRELATION between gun ownership rates in the US (i.e. higher gun ownership rates should be reflected in lower crime rates).

To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated scientifically.

To the contrary, Miller (and others) have found that:

Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide

and that

In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/ *


In other words, nearly the opposite of what you assert.

Not that I expect you to actually read this study. Or present scientifically sound evidence to the contrary.

You seem to believe that people (including me) fall into one of two two positions on this issue: anti-gun and pro-gun. As if there are no in-between positions, perhaps, God forbid, based on evidence / science (and not political ideology, baseless beliefs, anecdote or conjecture).

On this, like on many things, you are wrong.

Matt

* And for you conspiracy theorists, this study was funded by the federal government (NIH) in 2002, when a certain President other than the present one was running up the debt.

Are you not reading me? Let me say it again. Despite what antis preach, the increase in guns is not translating into an increase in violent crime, infact its going down. Im not sure how to make that any more clear. Iv said it 3 or 4 times now. How are you still not understanding this?

And no, he deserves no credit as he didnt do anything.

 

[MadRussian79]

In other words, nearly the opposite of what you assert.

Not that I expect you to actually read this study. Or present scientifically sound evidence to the contrary.

You seem to believe that people (including me) fall into one of two two positions on this issue: anti-gun and pro-gun. As if there are no in-between positions, perhaps, God forbid, based on evidence / science (and not political ideology, baseless beliefs, anecdote or conjecture).

On this, like on many things, you are wrong.

Matt

* And for you conspiracy theorists, this study was funded by the federal government (NIH) in 2002, when a certain President other than the present one was running up the debt.

Word of advice BEFORE you use any study to support your point make sure you glance at the methodology.

"At the state level, published data on reported household gun ownership are available for only a nonrandom sample of 21 states.21 To analyze all 50 states, we used a proxy for household firearm ownership: the fraction of all suicides in a state that involve a firearm, referred to hereafter as FS/S." That level of extrapolation makes the whole study moot. Hemenway is a close associate of the Brady campaign and if you look up his other works on Pub med his personal views are pretty obvious. You get about as much objective science out of him as you get from a fox news pundit, at least on this topic. Also wants a pitt bull ban assuming it was the same D. Hemenway I talked to.

If you are bent on proving guns cause crime how can you be anything but anti gun. You prove that they are bad but want us to believe you plan to stop there? If not then where would you stop: Hand Gun Ban, Semi Auto ban or a Ban on any gun you don't like? You got the machine gun ban 1986 and we were promised that it was it, the gun grabbers would stop there. They didn't did they?

The funding would have been approved by the Clinton administration so the argument about Curious George is completely false. NIH grants can take years of review and submission. NIH funding would have been geared to the anti gun side of the spectrum after the AWB. Which expired without a major uptick in crime.

 

[dogofwar]

The OP made an assertion (i.e. higher gun ownership rates should be reflected in lower crime rates) that he did not support.

I simply posted peer-reviewed research that seems to contradict this assertion. Is the methodology perfect? No. Did I claim it was? No. Is this the only research on the subject? No.

I invite you or anyone on this thread to post rigorous, peer-reviewed research either supporting or contradicting the OP's assertion.

Even imperfect scientific review is far superior to the conjecture, anecdote and ideological drivel that's been the bulk of this thread. And I believe that sound gun policy in our country should be based on empirical science.

I do not know nor do I care exactly when this grant was initially funded. Most federal grants must undergo an annual funding review to continue to be funded. What is undeniable is that this grant continued to receive federal (NIH) funding when a Republic president was in office.

Matt

Word of advice BEFORE you use any study to support your point make sure you glance at the methodology.

"At the state level, published data on reported household gun ownership are available for only a nonrandom sample of 21 states.21 To analyze all 50 states, we used a proxy for household firearm ownership: the fraction of all suicides in a state that involve a firearm, referred to hereafter as FS/S." That level of extrapolation makes the whole study moot. Hemenway is a close associate of the Brady campaign and if you look up his other works on Pub med his personal views are pretty obvious. You get about as much objective science out of him as you get from a fox news pundit, at least on this topic. Also wants a pitt bull ban assuming it was the same D. Hemenway I talked to.

If you are bent on proving guns cause crime how can you be anything but anti gun. You prove that they are bad but want us to believe you plan to stop there? If not then where would you stop: Hand Gun Ban, Semi Auto ban or a Ban on any gun you don't like? You got the machine gun ban 1986 and we were promised that it was it, the gun grabbers would stop there. They didn't did they?

The funding would have been approved by the Clinton administration so the argument about Curious George is completely false. NIH grants can take years of review and submission. NIH funding would have been geared to the anti gun side of the spectrum after the AWB. Which expired without a major uptick in crime.