From the other Group: Speaking of twisting statistics!
The original thread is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628274
Naturally, it contains all the usual framing from that side... facts and statistics, when they do not conform, become "facts" and "statistics". Suicides by firearm and homicides by firearm are mingled, as if it doesn't matter in a discussion of violent crime! And of course, rights become "rights".
Spoiler alert: it ends with "Guns and current lax gun legislation is a menace to our society, and to our democratic form of government." But, of course, they don't want to take away anybody's guns, they just wish really really hard that gun owners will voluntarily choose melt their guns down.
Some key points need refutation, so let's get started! Whee!
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.
This statistic is offered by the right-wing gun lobby as proof that gun violence is down to almost nothing, concealed carry deters crime, and no further gun control measures are necessary. In fact, they use this "rapidly reducing gun crime" statistic as an argument for further relaxing of gun laws and wider approval of open/concealed carry "rights."
The real reason the crime rate plunged is because of progressive social policy, not progressive or conservative gun policy. Crime rates began to plunge in about 1988 and settled in about 2003. This drop started a generation after the widespread use of birth control to women (the pill, the IUD), nationwide abortion rights (Roe v. Wade), and the removal of lead from our gasoline, and thus our air and water. Airborne lead was, of course, more concentrated in crowded urban areas, so removing this lead had the most dramatic effect in our cities.
Since most violent crime is committed by people (usually males) between the ages of 15 and 15, this meant that the kids born after, say 1973 were a) far less poisoned by brain-damaging lead, and b) less likely to be born in social circumstances conducive to a life of violent crime. So, in 1988 the "freshman" class of likely violent criminals was a lot smaller than the "graduation" class, and this trend continued until the early 2000's. At that point, the "freshman class" and the "graduation" class became about equal.
We could be cutting the crime rate a lot more with other liberal policies, except that the pro-control's obsession with outlawing protruding pistol grips pushes many people into the Republican camp.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]
Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime. There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.
There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.
Other factors contributing the reduced gun homicide rate are believed to be increased and improved ER response time and expertise, and vastly improved emergency room facilities and treatment.
Other reasons for the decline include:
...for all the attention given to America’s culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows. Since 1973, the GSS has been asking Americans whether they keep a gun in their home. In the 1970s, about half of the nation said yes; today only about one-third do. Driving the decline: a dramatic drop in ownership of pistols and shotguns, the very weapons most likely to be used in violent crimes.
Gun violence dropped dramatically nationwide over the past two decades, but nearly three-quarters of all homicides are still committed with a firearm, the Justice Department said in a report released Tuesday.
"Other factors contributing the reduced gun homicide rate are believed to be increased and improved ER response time and expertise, and vastly improved emergency room facilities and treatment."
Really?
Look at the "aggravated assault" lines, please. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if increased medical expertise and reduced 911 response times were a major factor in the reduction of murder, then wouldn't there be a corresponding increase in assault? After all, a failed murder attempt becomes an assault, yes?
But we don't see that. The murder rate drops about 40%, as do assaults, rapes, and robbery. Non-violent crimes drop about the same.
The reason is the same one I gave above: the pool of people (males age 15-25) that are most likely to commit crime, particularly violent and street crime, is much smaller than due to liberal social policies.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]
This means that, proportionally, homicides with gun remains steady. If the homicide rate drops by x%, then both gun homicide and "other" homicides also drop by x%. So, why is this surprising? Because if it was gun ownership that was the issue, then you would think that the the ratio of gun murders to non-gun murders would decline! That if the homicide rate dropped by x%, then gun homicide would drop by y% (where y is greater than x) and non-gun homicide rate would drop by z% (where z is less than x). Instead, it's a consistent ratio. This means that the drop in murder is due to less people deciding to commit murder, rather than gun availability or lack thereof.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE] I particularly like this one... look at it it. The author is commenting on the "rate" of gun violence (all gun-related deaths) but then "proves" this with a graph that shows the total number of gun-related deaths uncorrected for population.
...as described in a new Center for American Progress report released Friday, if current trends continue, gun deaths will surpass car accident deaths among young people sometime in 2015.
For guns, these numbers represent an enormous failure. The United States has experienced a dramatic decline in violent crime over the last two decades, yet the rate of gun violence, particularly among young people, has barely moved. Why? We don’t know.
This graph puts the lie to the right-wing gun lobby's attempt to use smoke and mirrors to hide the increasing gun death rate behind the misleading "but gun crime rates are falling:"
Yes, this gun death rate includes gun suicides which the gun nuts don't want to count because they "would just find another way." There is a reason that most homicides and suicides are committed with guns: they are easily obtained, they are easy to use, and they are effective at what they do, which is to kill.
In 1999, there were 276,059,000 people (Census Bureau) and 28,847 "gun deaths" (the provided graph). That's 10.45 per 100,000 per year.
In 2011, there were 308,746,000 people (Census Bureau) and 32,163 "gun deaths" (the provided graph). That's 10.42 per 100,000 per year.
There's your "increasing gun death rate". Steady. A difference of .03... downwards.
Of course, suicide by gun is not a violent crime, so while it could be legitimately used to discuss "gun deaths", lumping it together with real violent crimes committed with a gun (robbery, carjacking, homicide, home invasion, etc.) is manipulation. Or lying. If you know that the rate of crimes committed with guns has gone down sharply, but state that it is steady because you count non-crimes in the stats... what is that?
There's a reason this was posted Over There, I guess... didn't want it challenged.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You can protest all you want, and your NRA talking points, you!
And that don't have a zero baseline.
I did the same math that you did before reading all of your post (duh) to find the same result, of course.
A minor decline in gun violence rates.
Whenever they show date on a graph, always check the y-axis for the baseline value, in this case the graph starts at 27,000 and goes to 33,000 and doesn't indicate rates; it indicates total numbers, unadjusted for a growing population.
FFS.
Because I wouldn't do that without one of those zigzag "break" symbols on the chart and the scale.
See? Y-axis starts at zero here, too.
And here:
More:
And more:
Wow, look at all those crime trends shooting upwards!
You cannot allow any dissension (or even questions)whatsoever, as it rapidly exposes fatal flaws in the dogma. And it allows the fence sitters, or "soft" supporters to question that since they were wrong on this, and what else could they be wrong about, and once the dogma is exposed for what it really is, it tends to collapse.
The dogma cannot be challenged at all, the dogma cannot be questioned, the dogma must be obeyed,
Following the dogma of gun control is almost like taking Grape Flavor-aid for critical thinking.
'Nugentoid pre-murderer.' Words have meaning, you know... 
By pointing this out, of course, you're also undermining the assertion made in the GCRA original post, probably more effectively than I did.
I confess to not following your first paragraph... looks like autocorrect threw up something there. However, the "guns per capita" is at or about steady... while fewer people own guns, the people that do own guns own a higher average number.
As to your third paragraph, I can't think of the any particular reason for the dip during the 2000's you note. One possible reason might be the better medical technology resulting in fewer people dying from gunshot wounds. It would be interesting to see if there was a corresponding increase in the number of "aggravated assault with a firearm" statistics. A 10% decrease in firearm murders should put a few percentage points in the other column, yes?
Note the dramatic approx 60% drop of nearly one million crimes in firearm violent crime totals from 1993 to 2000 (1.55 million to 0.62 million), the same time period when GSS & Pew & Gallup surveys all contend falling gun ownership rates, falling approx 25% to 30%. The correlation between falling gun ownership rates & falling firearm crime rates cannot be denied using the 3 surveys & the bur justice statistics table, for 1992/3 - 2000.
From 2001 to 2011, GSS & Pew differ from gallup, marginally, as gallup has an increase in gun ownership while GSS & Pew a slight decrease. The rate of firearm crime rate fluctuates up & down about 20% for this time period ~2001-2011:
*(category in table below): Rate of nonfatal firearm victimization
Fatal & Non Fatal FAViol total ... *NFFAV .... rate of violence w firearms
1993 1,548,000 ..................... 7.3 ....................9.2%
1994 1,585,700 ..................... 7.4 ......................9.3
1995 1,208,800 ..................... 5.5 ......................7.9
1996 1,114,800 ..................... 5.1 ......................7.9
1997 1,037,300 ..................... 4.7 .......................7.7
...1998 847,200 ..................... 3.8 .......................7.0
...1999 651,700 ..................... 2.9 .......................6.1
...2000 621,000 .................... 2.7 .......................7.3
...2001 574,500 ..................... 2.5 .......................7.7
...2002 551,800 ..................... 2.3 ........................7.4
...2003 479,300 ..................... 2.0 ........................6.2
...2004 468,100 ......................1.9 ........................6.9
...2005 515,900 ..................... 2.1 .........................7.4
...2006 627,200 ..................... 2.5 .........................7.4
...2007 567,400 ..................... 2.2 .........................8.3
...2008 383,500 .............. .......1.5 .........................6.0
...2009 421,600 ..................... 1.6......................... 7.4
...2010 426,100 ..................... 1.6 .........................8.6
..2011d 478,400 ..................... 1.8 ........................8.2
Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend.
