FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

[MaineCWPtraining]

Friday, May 28, 2010

Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn't waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are—as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year—only waiting to "pick the time," should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal "assault weapon" ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low.

The FBI's report was also bad news for anti-gunners elected to other offices. With the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago no more than a few weeks away, Mayors Bloomberg, of New York City, and Daley, of Chicago—who fear that it will require them to respect the Second Amendment for the first time—have continued to beat their drums for gun control. As we have noted, Bloomberg recently encouraged a Senate committee to support the Lautenberg-King terrorist watchlist bills. And last week Daley told a Chicago Reader reporter, who expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Chicago's handgun ban, "It's been very effective." Holding a bayonet-equipped rifle, Daley added, "If I put this up your butt, you find out how effective it is."

But, murders in big cities declined over 11 percent between 2008 and 2009, translating to over a 12 percent decrease in the big city murder per capita rate. We hope, but don't expect, that the indisputable fact that an increase in gun ownership does not necessarily correspond to an increase in crime, will reduce the frequency of Bloomberg's stunts aimed at gun shows, and Daley's periodic rants against the firearm industry.

SOURCE

 

[Fixxah]

Imagine that.

 

[lupis42]

I am shocked, shocked, to [STRIKE]find gambling going on in this establishment[/STRIKE]hear this.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

FROM AN EMAIL~

The 2d Amendment is not about deterring crime. The argument is hollow and =irrelevant= in the larger civic discourse on gun rights and responsibilities.

I would prefer not to engage in debate with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine. Democracy makes us both right!

Thanks,

Dan Skolnik
City Council, District 3
City of Portland
389 Congress St.
Portland, Maine 04101
207.831.7343

 

[economist]

FROM AN EMAIL~

The 2d Amendment is not about deterring crime. The argument is hollow and =irrelevant= in the larger civic discourse on gun rights and responsibilities.

I would prefer not to engage in debate with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine. Democracy makes us both right!

Thanks,

Dan Skolnik
City Council, District 3
City of Portland
389 Congress St.
Portland, Maine 04101
207.831.7343

Sometimes even an anti-gun politician can be correct. The second amendment is NOT about deterring crime. And, more importantly, my natural right to self defense is not subject to limitations based upon how others might behave when utilizing tools I find useful in a defensive situation.

I just received the NRA email referenced above. Correlation and causation are very different things. Lower crime may result from more legal gun sales. I am skeptical. But the point is irrelevant. And for the NRA to offer a specious argument in defense gun owners is biased and ultimately harmful. None of us seriously can expect the NRA to trumpet a rise in violent crime during a period of increased gun sales and conclude that guns are bad.

I don't care if guns increase or decrease crime. My guns defend me and the people I protect. That is a good thing, and all of the bad things in the world won't change that.

edit to add: A serious examination of this issue would require a lot more than the observation that increased gun sales coincided with a decreased murder rate. Did gun sales increase to first-time buyers? Does a second or other additional gun offer more personal protection? How are murder rates affected? What if murder rates increase with gun sales but with a lag? Perhaps a few years after increased gun sales we find that secondary market transactions ultimately result in more murders. Who knows? Without answers to any of these questions how can anyone draw a conclusion on whether more guns result in fewer murders? And, most importantly of all, how many gun owners would be willing to have their rights curtailed if the answers came out the wrong way? These questions may be interesting, but the answers are not relevant to individual liberty.