The FBI recently released its Crime in The United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders — which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 — have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.OK, I did the math and 14% of 15,087 is 2112, which taken from 15,087, is 12,975. That is pretty close to 12,996.
At the same time that firearms murders were dropping, gun sales were surging. In 2009, FBI background checks for guns increased by 30 percent over the previous year, while firearms sales in large retail outlets increased by almost 40 percent. The number of applications for concealed carry permits jumped across the country as well.
So, the conclusion is that notwithstanding an increase in the number of guns in the US, gun crime is going down. Thus, there seems to be no current correlation between the number of gun owners and crime, unless one wishes to argue that there is causation—that the more folks who own guns the less folks are willing to use guns in the commission of crimes. I would not so argue. I am closer to Herman Cain's position.
Then there is this:
The top three states for gun murders in 2010 were, in order, California, Texas and New York. While Texas has lax gun control laws, California and New York are among the strictest gun-control states in the country.What do we make of that?
With regard to social statistics there is still a whole lot we don't understand.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
The answer to one of your questions is relatively easy. NY and CA are respectively Nutball East and Nutball West. One has NYC and the other has SF and LA. All three have more crooks and whackoos per square block than anyplace else...including the District of Criminals...and NO....I don't have RESEARCH data to bolster or support my argument...only common sense. In Texas...there are just a lot of people who need killing.
On he more serious side, VT has the most liberal gun laws in the land.....and the lowest crime rate for crimes such as murder, burglary, armed robbery, etc. Many will dismiss that as coincidence....no causation.....accidental.
There is growing sense that the government can't and won't protect you against others who wish to do you harm. In fact, in some places, the government will sell those people guns to use against you. There is fairly ample reason to harbor some fear. In NH..bucolic little backwoods NH....home invasion has become a weekly occurrence and we have had a number of crimes in which people lost their lives to animals who broke into their homes during the night and slaughtered them. Would it have made a difference had those victims had a weapon with which to defend themselves....the sheep will say an emphatic "NO." And yet, where is THAT proof?
I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or does with respect to their opinion or use of guns. I am armed, will remain armed, and will employ deadly force against anyone who intends to do grievous harm to me or my family.
BTW....NH just passed (over a Governor's veto) a deadly force law that replaces one that essentially required one to attempt to flee before employing deadly force against someone else. In other words...you have to give the bad guy a fair chance of killing you before you can kill him (or her). Now....if you reasonably conclude that the person intends to do you harm, you can negate his or her efforts in a very final manner.
My guess is all sorts of border bandits will elect to stay in their own locality rather than risk the pine box solution.
Post a Comment