It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violent Crime Reduced by Guns? Maybe not.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I found this table while doing some research about gun violence. Granted this is from several years ago, but should still be useful for analysis since it compares all the states at that time. If you look over this listing what you will find is that there are gun-crazy states with high violent crime rates, and states not known for gun ownership with high and also with low rates of violence.

The obvious conclusion is that crime rates are not determined by gun ownership, as gun fanatics are constantly claiming. It looks to me that there are probably a few different factors for the differences, the most obvious or prevalent ones are population density, and population homogeneity (diversity). Notice that most of the most violent states are very conservative, though there are some conservative states with lower rates as well, so that is probably influenced again by population or maybe education.

www.census.gov...




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

CB328
The obvious conclusion is that crime rates are not determined by gun ownership, as gun fanatics are constantly claiming.


I think you have it backwards. It's the gun control nuts who claim that crime will be reduced if they confiscate all the guns. You just proved them wrong, thanks!



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
As you said this being dated and up to interpretation leaves little room for discussion.




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 



The obvious conclusion is that crime rates are not determined by gun ownership, as gun fanatics are constantly claiming.

Its not gun "ownership" as you put it that "reduces crime". Its gun carrying that does. A gun doesn't stop anything if it is locked up at home. The laws have been changed from right to bear to right to own. They have been changed by hand wringing fanatics and in fact it is the restrictions to open carry that have produced the crimes at schools, malls, movie theaters, whatever.

The people that attack these places and murder innocent people know their victims will be unarmed. Thats why they go there. You don't see them attacking police stations do you?



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


uh.....your table seems to show the exact opposite of what you are trying to sell us....

look at DC....the most gun restrictions in the country...

but all the best (or lowest crime) is in states with lower gun restrictions....



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
An armed society is a polite society



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The anti-gun crowd sure is a persistent bunch, eh? Things like logic and proof don't even faze them.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   


Its not gun "ownership" as you put it that "reduces crime". Its gun carrying that does


Right, so that's why so many of the worst states for violent crime are all conservative?? And how do you explain states that don't have as many gun people but have less crime? (like my state of Washington). It's obvious from the data that crowding, inner-city populations or having a lot of conservatives are the main causes of violent crime.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Wow.

You should have put this in the pit since you prefer to sling reckless accusations.

If you wish to encourage debate; plan accordingly.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   


reckless accusations


Yeah, because calling the President a muslim, usurper, communist who hates America isn't reckless (and false) accusations, but finding very obvious correlations in factual data is??



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   

CB328



reckless accusations


Yeah, because calling the President a muslim, usurper, communist who hates America isn't reckless (and false) accusations, but finding very obvious correlations in factual data is??


Where did the poster say these things in this thread? Are you making things up again? Yep! LOL, LOL



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
From your source: VIOLENT CRIMES 1 PER 100,000 POPULATION -- 2006

WHAT exactly does it have to do with guns?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


I wonder if the higher crime rates in those states are because of political party affiliation?

Got any stats to show how many high crime areas are Conservative or Liberal?

The cities and higher populated areas may show some different results.

I think many "Red States" have many consolidated areas (cities and counties) that vote "Blue".

Many "Red" states aren't all that "Red" when it comes to high crimes.




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

CB328



Its not gun "ownership" as you put it that "reduces crime". Its gun carrying that does


Right, so that's why so many of the worst states for violent crime are all conservative?? And how do you explain states that don't have as many gun people but have less crime? (like my state of Washington). It's obvious from the data that crowding, inner-city populations or having a lot of conservatives are the main causes of violent crime.


I look really hard at your link and then read the above statement of your's twice to be sure you're for real.
You have to be kidding, right? If not!

Maybe this will help you understand better if the above didn't.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


From your source in the very first sentence: Cautionary note:


The ranks in some tables are based on estimates derived from a sample(s). Because of sampling and nonsampling errors associated with the estimates, the ranking of the estimates does not necessarily reflect the correct ranking of the unknown true values. Thus, caution should be used when making inferences or statements about the states' true values based on a ranking of the estimates. As an example, the estimated total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A may be larger than the estimates for all other states. This does not necessarily mean that the true total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A is larger than those for all other states. Such an inference typically depends on --among other factors-- the size of the difference(s) between the estimates in question, and the size of their associated standard errors.

In other tables, the ranks are based on a complete enumeration of the target population, or on complete administrative reporting from the population. In such cases, sampling is not used, and there is no sampling error component in the estimates. Still, care should still be taken when making inferences or statements based on the rankings. The table values may still exhibit nonsampling error originating from such sources as coverage problems (missing units or duplicates), nonresponse, misreporting, and others.

So by their own admission, this data is incomplete and should not be used for rankings...

Your own chart shows the District of Columbia as having more than twice the amount as anyone else yet ranks it as "(X)"...

In 2006, guns were banned in DC...

Bearing arms is a right. If you choose not to exercise that right, great for you.

Stop trying to infringe on mine.


edit on 12-4-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Hmmm.

I thought something was fishy....

Shocking !!!



Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities

signed sealed and delivered.

no wonder "they" keep pressing the "state" statistics malarkey !!!






posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Here's a reference map from the 2012 elections.

Obama vs Romney.

Click on a State and see the widespread "Blue" votes even in heavy "Red" States !!!!!

I bet the crime concentrations are heavy in Blue !!!

2012 Presidential Election maps




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   

CB328



reckless accusations


Yeah, because calling the President a muslim, usurper, communist who hates America isn't reckless (and false) accusations, but finding very obvious correlations in factual data is??


So this is the real reason crime rates are higher among known Obama/Democrat voters?



Strange indeed.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

CB328
I found this table while doing some research about gun violence. Granted this is from several years ago, but should still be useful for analysis since it compares all the states at that time. If you look over this listing what you will find is that there are gun-crazy states with high violent crime rates, and states not known for gun ownership with high and also with low rates of violence.

The obvious conclusion is that crime rates are not determined by gun ownership, as gun fanatics are constantly claiming. It looks to me that there are probably a few different factors for the differences, the most obvious or prevalent ones are population density, and population homogeneity (diversity). Notice that most of the most violent states are very conservative, though there are some conservative states with lower rates as well, so that is probably influenced again by population or maybe education.

www.census.gov...


MY right to a gun, has nothing to do with me protecting myself from crime.


Its sole purpose as a right, is to protect me from the tyranny of those in power.


edit on 12-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   

benrl

MY right to a gun, has nothing to do with me protecting myself from crime.


Its soul purpose as a right, is to protect me from the tyranny of those in power.


Enough said!!




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join