Preliminary FBI Crime Data for 2009.

[USAFNoDak]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fbi-cri...-safer-public/

This link is to an article that discusses the numbers from the recently released FBI 2009 Crime Data. There are some graphs and charts. The main points discussed are the increasing sales of firearms with a decreasing rate of violent crime. It also points out that the AWB expired in 2004, yet crime rates continued to go down and did not increase as the anti gun politicians and gun control advocacy groups warned us would happen.

I'm not saying that this data gives us a definite causality between increasing gun ownership and decreasing gun related crime. However, it's nice to see the argument taken away that "more guns will equal more crime". I don't see how they can honestly use that argument in light of this new FBI data.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

I don't see how they can honestly use that argument in light of this new FBI data.

They've never let honesty or facts get in the way of their opinions.

This is good news, but it's news that will remain unknown by most Americans.

As such, the antis will continue to use the same propaganda.

[Webleymkv]

I don't see how they can honestly use that argument in light of this new FBI data.

Easy, "creative" interpretation of the data. The anti's are famous for labeling a 19-year-old gang member shot in a bad drug deal as a "child killed by a gun" just as they are to label the convicted sex-offender who was shot and killed by his would-be rape victim as "another death caused by concealed carry". Statistics can say anything you want them to.

[BGutzman]

I agree with the above anti gunners will pervert the truth anyway they can to further there agenda.... Facts dont matter to the anti gunners, never have never will.

[Sefner]

Just because crime goes down as gun ownership goes up does not mean that more guns = less crime. Crime can be so many other factor, too. In fact we could say, as we economists are prone to do, that "all other things being equal" gun ownership may increase crime even though this data set shows gun ownership increasing and crime decreasing. The problem is that not everything is being held equal. The crime could have decreased due to a number of factors not related to guns. Things such as other policies (jail time, punishment, law enforcement funding, etc etc), demographics (people moving out of inner cities into less dense suburbs, etc), and the economy (granted we normally see a negative relationship between the economy and crime, but that's just an example).

Do not fall into the "this because of that" fallacy. That is too easily defeated. What we should take from this is that crime didn't go UP like many said it would. Or if we can isolate some of the data we can draw conclusions from that. Things like gun crimes didn't go up. Or states with more free gun ownership saw a larger fall in the crime rates (if that happened). The FBI crime data is beautifully in-depth and there will be a lot to be drawn from it.

[Tom Servo]

Actually, I think one of the of the major contributors is the decline in crystal methamphetamine use. We saw a similar trend downward beginning in the early 1990's, at which point most users of crack cocaine were either incarcerated, rehabilitated or deceased.

As others have noted, more guns does not equal more crime, and that's good news in and of itself.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Technically, we should be talking about correlation rather than causality.

There is no correlation between increased firearms and increased crime. There IS a correlation between increased firearms and decreasing crime. As others have said, there are far too many variables to even guess as causality but, like I said before, that won't stop the antis from making all the causal arguments that you can shake a stick at.

[USAFNoDak]

This gives us one more weapon in our arsenal to fight anti gunners or gun control advocates. They used to use the argument that the second amendment does not protect individual rights, but only "collective" rights for those people in the national guard, which is the "militia". The Supreme Court took that away, although we're still waiting for the decision on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That domino will likely fall in the case against Chicago, but the decision has not yet been made.

The other big argument has always been that "more guns equals more crime". There have been some attempts to show that "more guns equals less crime" which is a tough sell because of other factors as some previous posters have pointed out, and to which I agree for the most part. However, we now have some nice graphs, from the FBI itself, that we can use to counter the "more guns equals more crime" argument. Gun ownership has been steadily on the rise and has accelerated rapidly over the past 4-5 years, as this data from the FBI shows. If the argument that "more guns equals more crime" were true on its face, then it would stand to reason that violent crimes would have increased at least somewhat proportionally. It has done the opposite according to the data. That is relatively good news for us folks who understand that our freedom to keep and bear arms has no correlation to higher crime rates. Besides, higher crime rates should not be a consideration for limiting our natural or "God given" rights. Since when do criminals actions determine that law abiding citizens rights should be left unprotected by government? That is a false hope. Any ammo we can use to demonstrate the false hope of gun control, inflicted upon the law abiding, is a good thing for our side. I hope the Bradys and their ilk are lamenting this data. I'm sure they're going to be looking for ways to spin it. When someone has to "spin" something, they aren't necessarily telling the truth, and that can often be discovered at the most inopportune times. Let's hope that is the case with this data set.

[USAFNoDak]

This is good news, but it's news that will remain unknown by most Americans.

The media will certainly not be anxious to report this. Just as they weren't too eager to make a big splash with the recent mass killing in the UK. Anything that bucks their agenda gets buried in the fine print, if covered at all.

This is where it becomes incumbant on all of us freedom loving gun owners to spread the word as far as we can. We can mention this to family members, friends, coworkers, etc., who don't keep themselves as informed as we do. We send emails to columnists who are more likely to print this information. This includes newspapers, internet magazines (Townhall, National Review Online, etc.), radio personalities, bloggers, and anyone else we can think of. Remember, many different types of people are conservative or libertarian in areas outside of gun rights, but don't stay that informed on the topic of gun rights. This is a great way to spread the word and continue to turn the tide. It won't be easy and it won't be done overnight. Persistence in spreading the word is the key.

[blume357]

when it comes out via the AP wire or such in section two on page 8 or such... never makes it anywhere near the front....

that violent crime has decreased again... is not really 'news'.

[USAFNoDak]

When states were coming up with the idea of implementing "Three Strikes" laws, we heard the left claiming that this was not going to be effective in reducing crime because everytime we locked up a career criminal, there'd be another one to replace him on the streets.

Now we hear that increases in firearm ownership by law abiding citizens has nothing to do with decreases in violent crime, but rather it is because of othe variables such as tougher sentencing laws and "three strikes" laws implemented by the states. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They are predictable in their illogical approach to the use of common sense.