FBI reports violent crime continued to decline in 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/23/us.crime.stats/



In spite of economic troubles, unemployment, and foreclosures, crime continues to drop. Just reinforces my contention that poverty doesn't make people criminals, it makes people poor.

Also interesting to see the bump *up* in the northeast.

eta: FBI Report- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2010

Old people are not criminals. Not of the gas station robbery-type, tho.

It ain't more guns. In fact, with falling crime rates, you guys should feel more comfortable leaving them at home -- but, fat chance.

I swear, there must be a whole other conversation inside your head, based on what you think people said, in opposition to what they actually wrote.

They'll be plenty more gun proliferators implying they are responsible for less crime.

If you can't be bothered to read what people actually write, why should anyone give a damn what you say?

Because your spittle is obscuring your screen, you refuse to read what people write, is that it?

Find one single post where I've stated otherwise. Put up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x419875#420026





















Why is it that those that favor gun restriction are the only ones trying to say that gun ownership is causation to violent crime?

And yet, when evidence shows that more guns coexists with less crime, you never acknowledge the fact that your hysteria about gun owners is, in fact, nonsense.

Where he walks to the nearest farm house to see if he can borrow a jack, and on the way he plays out this whole scenario in his head about how the farmer might be pissed to be disturbed so late, and maybe he doesn't even have a jack, or if he did, he wouldn't loan it out to some stranger, even one in such dire straits, and by the time the driver gets to the front door, he's worked himself into such a lather than when the farmer answers the door, the driver yells at him "Why don't you just shove your damn jack up your ass!"

The simple fact is this:

Since at least 2008, this country has seen record sales of firearms and ammunition, driven by a fear of new gun-control legislation by the Democratically controlled congress and/or presidency.

Despite this, over the exact same time period (and in fact longer than that), violent crime of all kinds continues to decline.

You cannot say that more guns causes less crime.

But you damn sure cannot say that more guns cause more crime.

All of your hysteria over gun crime is unfounded in reality.

Because of the firearm, victims of violent crime need not resort to the gifts of their body to resist their attacker.

Or are you a weak person (mentally not physically ).

People who carry come in all shapes and sizes, as well as all stages of physical fitness. Same goes with criminals who might attack them.

Then, let's not try to portray toters as weak/sick/old folks who are at the mercy of everyone.

I'm not. What I'm saying is that without firearms, every single victim of violent crime who resists their attacker has no choice but to engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker(s).

And when that happens, the weak/sick/old are at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are.

I am not saying that all gun owners are physically weak. I'm saying that without firearms, the weak are at the mercy of the strong.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you a weak person? Do you think all toters are weak people (physically, not mentally)?

I'm 40 years old and not in great shape. If I had a choice between hand-to-hand combat and using a firearm to defend myself and my family, I'd choose the firearm.

I have no idea what the general physical condition is of all firearm owners or carriers. The point is you never know who you are going to run up against, nor how many assailants, nor what they will be armed with. There is simply no reason to settle for a physical contest of strength when you don't have to.

And without firearms, there is no other recourse to resisting.

But fat chance

with falling crime rates, you guys should be more comfortable around CCWs because you know they are not the problem--but, fat chance.

and I agree that better and more proactive policing and harsher sentences are important as is aging. People at my age of 65 are unlikely to rob convenience stores.

It is interesting that the crime rate started to fall in the early 90s just as "shall issue" concealed carry began to sweep across the country. However, I am in no way claiming that more guns = less crime. It is probably just one of the factors and not necessarily the most important one.



Watch this map and see the progress of "shall issue" concealed carry in the United states. It should be easy to see a correlation. Is this absolute evidence? No! However it is a VERY INTERESTING coincidence.



Of course it could be argued that the Assault Weapons Ban which was enacted in 1994 might be the cause of this decrease. Unfortunately for that argument the ban expired in 2004 and the violent crime rate continued to decrease.

go against your anti-gun zealotry.

that would put the homicide rate last year at around 4.8 per 100,000?

So more like 5.0 per 100k, if the 4.4% is a straight drop.

So it had to have been 4.8 or 4.9 last year.

So yes, 4.78.

I think I was remembering last year's 5.3% drop..

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

Though I do think poverty and crime ARE linked (though maybe not as directly as previously thought). Either way, though, glad to hear the crime rate continues to drop!

Which I suppose is a 'bonus' for the 'Remember Ruby Ridge' types.

:hi:

Article title: NE Honors Fallen Officers As Law Enforcement Deaths Rise

'Line of duty deaths are up eight percent so far this year over last year. Gunfire deaths alone are up 41 percent across the country.'

http://www.1011now.com/news/headlines/NE_Honors_Fallen_Officers_As_Law_Enforcement_Deaths_Rise_121538814.html

I also heard this on NPR today. I know NPR doesn't have the 'gravitas' of 'ammoland.com,' or 'nraila.org,' or 'washingtontimes.com'... Any the 'reputable sources' quoted around here, but...

...ugh. I just got bored. bye...

The Guns forum has more of a national focus.



http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/data/table_27.html

What are you trying to say?

"Nebraska Law Enforcement Memorial committee member Russell Zeeb says heart attacks were recently added as a line of duty death cause."

Some news article that mentions how LE deaths this year are up compared to the same time last year indicates an increase; it does not indicate a continuing increase. Two data points do not make a trend, and certainly not in a story that trumpets relative risk (e.g. "Rapes in Okanagan County up 100% over last year") without examining absolute risk (last year, there was one rape; this year, there were two).

Sure, it makes for sensational copy to point out that LEO deaths have been increasing since 2008, but only if you neglect to mention that 2008 saw an extraordinarily low number of LEO deaths, and that despite the steady increase in the intervening two years, felonious killings with firearms of LEOs in 2010 were still lower than in 2007. It's intellectually dishonest to present only the data that supports your assertion, and obscure that which contradicts it.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/support/faqs/2045919670777125598

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/data/table_27.html



That's the rate, derived from the number of active LEOs, feloniously killed by firearms.

Derp.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

....but are still WAY down over all from 10 years ago. And even down further from 30 years ago.


And none of it has anything to do with the increase in firearm ownership.

But hey, nice try.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What is the rate, hrmm?

You haven't supported anything close to that statement.