Murder rates dropping as more states allow concealed weapons

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LOL nice one!

Nope...Rahm is not me and vice versa

I just consider Chicago to be a step above Detroit, Memphis etc.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: underduck

Consider that if you remove the cesspool cities of Detroit, Memphis, Jackson and Atlanta from the data then the murder rate by guns would be sooo much lower. I am sure there are a couple more big crap cities that are influencing the data but I do not know which those are off the top of my head.

Not hard to prove. Just look at Detroit as an example. The urban population of Detroit in 2012 was about 707,000 people. That year, they had 386 homicides. Run the numbers on that, and you find that Detroit's homicide rate was 54.6 per 100,000. The national average that year? 4.8 per 100,000. That's right...more than 11 times the national average. Put another way, Detroit's population accounts for less than 0.23% of the total US population. They account for almost 2.6% of all of the homicides. Ouch.

Granted, Detroit is the worst offender, but they're hardly alone. There are about 30 US cities with homicide rates over twice the national average; almost a dozen that are greater than four times the national average. You can find those numbers here. Undoubtedly yes, that's skewing the data significantly. If I get bored in the next day or two, I may run the numbers on the national homicide rate if you were to throw out the top 20 or so cities; I've done it before and if memory serves, it comes in a little under 3 per 100,000.

The great irony of it all is that for all the bashing of the gun totin' hillbilly rednecks in the rural areas, the Bureau of Justice Statistics will tell you that from 1980-2008, only 7.7% of all US firearm-related homicides happened in the rural areas. Go figure.

a reply to: vor78
They blame everyone else around them for their utter failure. They will say "It isn't detroit's fault, it only happens because there are still areas with gun toting rednecks around and that is where all the guns flood in from!"

a reply to: TKDRL

Yep. Its because they're afraid to admit that there's a cultural problem in the inner cities. If they admit that, then they put the blame on people that they've been exploiting for years at election time. Can't have that now, can we? Its much easier to blame an inanimate object and the people who own them out in flyover territory that absolutely no one in DC gives a rat's backside about.

a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

60 in kentucky. Not sure you have to continue paying to renew but i sont know anyone thats had one more than a year or two.

Some statistics on Uk vs USA on both overall murder and gun crime for 2010-2011

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775
Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)
Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners among civilians per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all.

I know this will be attacked by the people posting on this thread, but I really do not understand how anyone can justify giving more people the option to carry guns. I would love to see a breakdown of the us figures for how many of those gun crimes were committed by people with 'legal' firearms compared to 'illegal ' ones.......

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
The murder rate has been dropping in the UK as well and we don't have legalized guns.

The UK and the US are completely different nations. Economics, demographics, education, healthcare. Its an apples to oranges comparison.

a reply to: WeAreSound

How does it show that fewer guns means fewer murders overall?

That doesnt make any sense. Where is that dataset coming from?

a reply to: projectvxn

In fact as another poster pointed out murder rates are down in many first world countries that dont have guns also. So to say its only happening because of the amount of guns in the us is ridiculous.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

That is why I don't believe that guns are the common thread in violent crime. While defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal uses, even by conservative standards, I dont believe that guns necessarily prevent crime.

I think education, healthcare, economic liberty and opportunity, as well as overall culture determines the levels of criminality in society.

originally posted by: underduck
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Now we can debate suicides being relevant but accidents are damn sure relevant.

Well, considering that this debate (according to headline and main topic of the linked study) concerns murder, we must consider that both suicide (not a criminal act...at least, no one is ever convicted of the crime of killing one's self) and accidental killings with firearms (not charged as murder if it is truly an accident, hence it's not a crime) should not be included in the total number of true murders (the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse".

While the CDC does include suicide in their stats of violent crimes, for this discussion, those totals are irrelevent (again, they're not murder).

This is what I mean by being honest in the discussion--"murder" has a legal definition and certain specifications that must be met in order to be that certain crime. We can't just lump all deaths due to firearms under the umbrella of murder in order to increase the total numbers and emotionalize the debate.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: PhoenixOD
That is why I don't believe that guns are the common thread in violent crime. While defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal uses, even by conservative standards, I dont believe that guns necessarily prevent crime.

That's interesting, but "belief" does not bode well in factual discussions. You're telling me that all of the police reports and videos that show, say, a store clerk being held up, but then pulling a gun and the criminal running off does not sway your 'belief' on the topic? Or the stories of a woman being attacked in a late-night parking lot and pulling a concealed weapon and the perp running away isn't evidence of a gun preventing crime? When a police officer pulls their weapon and holds someone at gunpoint, waiting for backup, during an attempted crime is not prevention of that crime?

It's impossible to take a comment like that seriously when there is, every single day, new incidence where a gun/weapon has deterred/prevented a criminal during the commission of a crime.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: PhoenixOD
I think education, healthcare, economic liberty and opportunity, as well as overall culture determines the levels of criminality in society.

It's odd to see healthcare (i.e.: Obamacare) and "economic liberty and opportunity" be included in the same sentence. I agree that a lack of real education, economic liberty and opportunity, and culture are determinants in the reason/propensity that an individual turns to crime, but seriously, healthcare? That has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: projectvxn



In fact as another poster pointed out murder rates are down in many first world countries that dont have guns also. So to say its only happening because of the amount of guns in the us is ridiculous.

Do you have the specific reason(s) as to why the rate is dropping, then? I mean, like I originally said in reply to the OP, correlation does not create causation, but it's unscientific to outright say it's ridiculous to make that correlation when you don't show any evidence to support your comment nor to negate the study's.

Now, I would say that the "rebounding" (sort of) economy has a lot to do with the reduction in murder and crime rates, as well as a rebound in the numbers of LEOs back on the streets, but there is never any single reason--it's usually an amalgomation of many factors, and again, while I don't think criminals are necessarily deterred on a large level by stats showing an increase in concealed-carry permits, it does seem that the increase in citizens carrying weapons does have a large amount of deterrence, possibly stopping some murders from taking place. But, of course, unless we interrogate every perp of a prevented crime, we'll never truly know they 'why' behind them running away before the commission of the crime--but to cite as ridiculous an increased amount of CCDW permits having a part in this reduction is...well...ridiculous.

originally posted by: WeAreSound
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners among civilians per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all.

Again, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. You're comparing two different societies with that have important cultural distinctions and different problems. I would venture a guess that even in the absence of the strict gun laws you have, the UK would not have anything close to the homicide rates that we do.

Furthermore, as I indicated earlier, the statistics within the US itself actually don't bear out your premise. Look at my post just a bit above yours. US rural firearm-related homicides are only 7.7% of the total from 1980-2008. Based upon your figures of 8775 firearm related homicides, one could expect roughly 675 rural firearm-related homicides in the US yearly at that rate of 7.7%. Meanwhile, according to the US Census, over 90% of the geographic landmass of the United States is rural, with a total population in those areas of about 60 million (incidentally, that's roughly the same as the UK). Running the numbers for 675 firearm related homicides and based on that population estimate, this means that rural US areas have a firearm-related homicide rate of 1.125 per 100,000 (about 1.63 per 100,000 for all causes). Of course, most rural areas in the United States tend to have disproportionately high rates of firearm ownership compared to the the urban areas. So do more firearms necessarily result in a higher firearm related homicide rate? Not really. Once you get past the idea that firearm-related violent crime is a uniform occurrence throughout the US and start digging into the numbers on a smaller scale, the premise starts falling apart.

The problem with your argument is further compounded by the fact that the UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but there are many other nations that have much more relaxed gun laws with similar overall homicide rates. Canada, for instance, has one of the highest non-US rates of gun ownership in the world, with hunting rifles and shotguns widely available and even handguns with a little hassle and a few relatively mild restrictions. So why does Canada have a homicide rate much more in line with Western Europe? For the same reason you guys do. The cultural issues that exist in our inner cities, where the majority of this violence occurs, largely don't exist in Canada's or yours.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous



60 in kentucky. Not sure you have to continue paying to renew but i sont know anyone thats had one more than a year or two.

Same cost to renew, but if you do it late, there is a $15 penalty added to the sheriff's fee. I only know because I just got my updated (address change) card yesterday (hand-delivered by a sheriff...kind of caught me off guard), and it listed the fees in the envelope.

Of course, they spelled the name of my street incorrectly...go figure.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Do you have the specific reason(s) as to why the rate is dropping, then? I mean, like I originally said in reply to the OP, correlation does not create causation, but it's unscientific to outright say it's ridiculous to make that correlation when you don't show any evidence to support your comment nor to negate the study's.

The most interesting theory I've seen on it (and admittedly, I have not had a chance to try to pick it apart), is that the declines in violent crime in western society over the last quarter century are largely attributable to the bans on lead-based gasoline, paint and other products during the same time period. At a glance, it seems to make perfect sense, too, given that lead exposure has been tied to declines in IQ, impaired judgement, and behavioral issues. Where is violent crime at its worst? In the high population density inner cities. Where would you expect lead concentrations to be the worst? In the high population density inner cities. Its something I intend to read up on when I get a chance, and it may fall apart under further scrutiny, but at a glance, its an interesting theory, at the very least.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you have the specific reason(s) as to why the rate is dropping, then? I mean, like I originally said in reply to the OP, correlation does not create causation, but it's unscientific to outright say it's ridiculous to make that correlation when you don't show any evidence to support your comment nor to negate the study's.

You missed the word "only" in my statement.

a reply to: WeAreSound

I will look up and post the stats on home invasions in the UK vs US later. That will take the wind out of the UK is better without guns crap.

Home invasions of homes that are occupied at the time is startling. Reason? Chances of a home owner being able to defend themselves is nil. Not so in the US where burglars want to do their work in unoccupied homes.

a reply to: vor78

For all those people who try to compare the U.S.--with a population of half of Europe--to a single small country generally no larger than one of our average states, we should start selectively comparing countries to states in order to get a better comparison. After all, since most times, our cultures and freedoms are so different from those to which we are compared, selective comparisons back seems the only way to keep on par with illogical comparison, right?

Hopefully that made sense...I started the comment, then walked away for an hour, then finished it. Damn A.D.D...

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Ah, so I did. My mistake.

Apologies.