Violent crime decreases in the USA (again...)

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by A National Rifle Association report

FBI REPORTS VIOLENT CRIME DOWN AGAIN IN 2003

On May 24, the FBI released preliminary crime statistics indicating that in 2003 the number of violent crimes in the U.S. decreased 3.2% from the previous year. Because the nation's population rose between 2002-2003, the FBI's report implies an even greater decrease in the violent crime rate (the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people). The nation's violent crime rate has dropped every year since 1991.

There were decreases in three of the four categories of violent crime. The number of rapes and robberies both decreased by 1.9%, while the number of aggravated assaults decreased by 4.1%. The number of murders increased 1.3%, but until the final figures are published this Fall, and factored against the 2003 population count, it will be unclear what change, if any, there was in the murder rate, which, in recent years has decreased to a level not seen since the mid-1960s.

The increase in the number of murders, FBI said, was driven by a 15.7% increase in cities with populations under 10,000, and a 10.8% increase in cities with populations between 10,000 and 24,999. Murders increased 0.2% in big cities, decreased 6.5% in suburban counties, and decreased 4.7% in rural counties.

NRA members can be particularly pleased about the downward trend in violent crime. Criminologists and other experts routinely attribute the trend, in part, to stronger law enforcement and sentencing policies adopted in the states during the 1990s, in many cases with the active support of NRA. The anti-gun groups, however, must have read the FBI's report with mixed emotions. Because they profess an interest in reducing violent crime, they doubtless were pleased. On the other hand, the fact that violent crime keeps going down while the numbers of guns, gun owners, and Right-to-Carry states are increasing undercuts their anti-gun mantra that crime is caused by guns, in and of themselves, and not the criminals.

(red emphasis mine)

I wonder... Do any of you Canadians or Brits have recent stats on violent crime rates in your countries? All the stats I've found are from the late 90's...

[Wintermute]

After taking into account changes in the recording of crimes, there were rises in certain types of crime recorded by the police in England and Wales, most notably robbery,
which increased by 27 per cent between 2000/01 and 2001/02. Non-vehicle thefts increased by 6 per cent over the same period. Household burglary rose, after the adjustments, by 3 per cent and other burglary rose by 5 per cent. Violent crimes against the person fell by 5 per cent, after adjusting for the recording changes, while sexual offences fell by 8 per cent. Theft and handling stolen
goods accounted for around two fifths of all crimes recorded in 2001/02, around the same proportion as in the previous year.

Source:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...nk=6324&More=Y

I am sure you will be able to find more data on this site, and you can also download it as an excel spreadsheet or csv.

On the other hand, the fact that violent crime keeps going down while the numbers of guns, gun owners, and Right-to-Carry states are increasing undercuts their anti-gun mantra that crime is caused by guns

The gun lobby puts words in the mouths of the anti-gun lobby and also shifts the debating ground by constantly debating rises and falls in overall crime. It is very difficult to correlate gun ownership and overall crime.

I would like to move away from overall crime figures and look at gun related offenses. I think that is why guns should be restricted, irrespective of any possible postivie side effects from gun ownership. To my knowledge there has been no large scale massacre of innocents in the UK since Dunblane in 1996 after which the hand gun laws were changed. I think that is proof that they work.

"The incidence of violent crime is still comparatively rare."

Crimes involving firearms1:
England & Wales Numbers
1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02
All crimes 4,903 5,209 6,843 7,362 9,974
1 Firearms other than air weapons.
Source: Home Office

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS....asp?vlnk=7347

Year United
Kingdom i

Population (thousands)

1997 58,283 8
1998 58,440 8
1999 58,635 8
2000 58,817 8
2001 59,051 9
2002 59,232 10

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D8255.xls

Do you have similar figures for the US? It would also be useful to compare a few other countries.

[Geisha]

Originally Posted by Wintermute

The gun lobby puts words in the mouths of the anti-gun lobby and also shifts the debating ground by constantly debating rises and falls in overall crime. It is very difficult to correlate gun ownership and overall crime.

That's a valid point, but you can't cut it back to only gun-related crime, because personal gun ownership may have prevented a non-gun-related crime like robbery or rape.

Originally Posted by Wintermute

I would like to move away from overall crime figures and look at gun related offenses. I think that is why guns should be restricted, irrespective of any possible postivie side effects from gun ownership. To my knowledge there has been no large scale massacre of innocents in the UK since Dunblane in 1996 after which the hand gun laws were changed. I think that is proof that they work.

For the US, I would say that strict gun control might prevent some children from shooting other children, but wouldn't cut back much on adults shooting anyone. A situation like Columbine only required a household with careless parents and a gun, whereas an adult planning mass murder would be able to find a gun despite legal restrictions. Some gun supporters (like me) aren't about unlimited access to guns, but about responsible ownership with restrictions based on personal histories.

But then I'm feeling a little hypocritical, because isn't one of the reasons we went to Iraq the same as gun control - restricting other countries' use of WMDs to prevent crimes/deaths, instead of waiting for crimes to be committed so we can legally put them on trial?

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Geisha

But then I'm feeling a little hypocritical, because isn't one of the reasons we went to Iraq the same as gun control - restricting other countries' use of WMDs to prevent crimes/deaths, instead of waiting for crimes to be committed so we can legally put them on trial?

Is there some sort of international Constitution that specifically protects the rights of nations to develop and possess WMDs? Even here, our Supreme Court has ruled that restricting the right to bear arms from convicted felons is a reasonable restriction that doesn't violate our Constitution. Isn't a rogue nation similar?

I don't feel hypocritical.

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Is there some sort of international Constitution that specifically protects the rights of nations to develop and possess WMDs?

We are not debating is but should be.

Even here, our Supreme Court has ruled that restricting the right to bear arms from convicted felons is a reasonable restriction that doesn't violate our Constitution. Isn't a rogue nation similar?

I don't feel hypocritical.

Good point as far as gun analogies go.

As for justifying the war, who decides whom is a rogue nation? The US constitution has a mandate in the US because there is a democratic process. Otherwise it would just be an arbitrary piece of paper. The only semblance of a democratic process internationally is the UN and our governments disregarded it.Thats a whole nother thread though...

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Wintermute

I am sure you will be able to find more data on this site, and you can also download it as an excel spreadsheet or csv.

I don't have excel (and can't use excel viewer). I'm going to look into downloading a non-MS spreadsheet app...

I can't figure what you're trying to show with the stats that you posted.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Is there some sort of international Constitution that specifically protects the rights of nations to develop and possess WMDs? Even here, our Supreme Court has ruled that restricting the right to bear arms from convicted felons is a reasonable restriction that doesn't violate our Constitution. Isn't a rogue nation similar?

I don't feel hypocritical.

whoa whoa whoa...


hold on but one of your arguments for having legal ownership of guns was so that if a tyrrant government like the British in the civil war, were in Power you could rise up....

whether or not there is an international constitution, why does america and the United Kingdom feel they can restrict the use of weapons that they have an abundance of. its exactly the same...

i agree with both gun restrictions and disarming the world of nuclea weapons. but you cant deny there isnt a similarity of issues.

i personally believe that crime should be left to the police, heck only last week on nieghbours at war i saw two nieghbours gun fight in america over a driveway... and one was killed, the worst you will get in the UK is a brick through the window.

i will agree that ok if someone is going to plan mass murder you will not stop them getting a gun, but too many people owning guns and having them handy means more and more small insidences could turn fatal.

according to the mayor of london, since operation trident gun crime in London has decreased and the number of arrests is high... i coulcnt find the stats on bbc though if anyone else can find them...

as for a rogue nation, hmm now who decides, the United Nations didnt want to get involved with this, does this mean you are the police judge and jury of who is rogue, and who let america become this entity...

and talking of rogue, is it because of torture and human rights atrocities... hmmm, abu graihb means yu have to disarm then... will you no... and who again has tried and convicted iraq, they are not felons as a nation and so far sadam is not a felon, he has no convictions from the USA yet he hasnt even stood trial... so a pre emptive strike then was it, .... you cant talk about a constitution when you talk about rogue countries, nor can you justify it in those terms.

[jex]

11,000 people die a year in the US due to guns don't they? Divide that by the amount of people (260 million?) and you get the results don't you. Surely they are the figures to be concerned about aren't they?

Also

The increase in the number of murders, FBI said, was driven by a 15.7% increase in cities with populations under 10,000, and a 10.8% increase in cities with populations between 10,000 and 24,999. Murders increased 0.2% in big cities, decreased 6.5% in suburban counties, and decreased 4.7% in rural counties.

Isn't this misleading? 0.2% with a population of several million against 6.7% against a population of considerably less? So while there's a decrease in less populated areas there is an increase in the more populated ones. 0.2% of 1 million is 2,000. 6.7% of 100,000 is 6,700. Even this figure is misleading. For an accurate picture you need 0.2% of all city populations vs 6.7% of all suburban don't you?

Either way, statistics can be shaped to look anyway they wish.

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by DudeMan

hold on but one of your arguments for having legal ownership of guns was so that if a tyrrant government like the British in the civil war, were in Power you could rise up....

whether or not there is an international constitution, why does america and the United Kingdom feel they can restrict the use of weapons that they have an abundance of.

Because we can.

You've done a pretty good job of illustrating the similarities in the power relationships between a well-armed nation and a poorly-armed nation, and between a government and a disarmed populace. The people with the most and biggest guns get to make the decisions. Maybe they'll give some consideration to what's fair and just, or maybe they won't. Personally, I'd prefer to equal things up a bit with the government power-wise, so that I don't just have to rely on their tender mercies.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Zebra

Because we can.

You've done a pretty good job of illustrating the similarities in the power relationships between a well-armed nation and a poorly-armed nation, and between a government and a disarmed populace. The people with the most and biggest guns get to make the decisions. Maybe they'll give some consideration to what's fair and just, or maybe they won't. Personally, I'd prefer to equal things up a bit with the government power-wise, so that I don't just have to rely on their tender mercies.

right ok and this is not hypocracy???

its bullying... not saying i dont agree with dsiarming sadam but it is bullying.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by DudeMan

whoa whoa whoa...


hold on but one of your arguments for having legal ownership of guns was so that if a tyrrant government like the British in the civil war, were in Power you could rise up....

whether or not there is an international constitution, why does america and the United Kingdom feel they can restrict the use of weapons that they have an abundance of. its exactly the same...

i agree with both gun restrictions and disarming the world of nuclea weapons. but you cant deny there isnt a similarity of issues.

i personally believe that crime should be left to the police, heck only last week on nieghbours at war i saw two nieghbours gun fight in america over a driveway... and one was killed, the worst you will get in the UK is a brick through the window.

i will agree that ok if someone is going to plan mass murder you will not stop them getting a gun, but too many people owning guns and having them handy means more and more small insidences could turn fatal.

according to the mayor of london, since operation trident gun crime in London has decreased and the number of arrests is high... i coulcnt find the stats on bbc though if anyone else can find them...

as for a rogue nation, hmm now who decides, the United Nations didnt want to get involved with this, does this mean you are the police judge and jury of who is rogue, and who let america become this entity...

and talking of rogue, is it because of torture and human rights atrocities... hmmm, abu graihb means yu have to disarm then... will you no... and who again has tried and convicted iraq, they are not felons as a nation and so far sadam is not a felon, he has no convictions from the USA yet he hasnt even stood trial... so a pre emptive strike then was it, .... you cant talk about a constitution when you talk about rogue countries, nor can you justify it in those terms.

ok i quoted this from a PM sent to me by Cingularduality....

I think that I get the gist of it, and if so, then it's not the US or Britain that has declared Iraq as a "rogue nation" but rather the United Nations that has done it. How many UN resolutions had Iraq broken before we attacked? How many "last chances" did the UN give them before we finally invaded?

you are correct at least from the latter part of my comment that yes i was asking how you come to the conclusion that iraq is a rogue nation, who said so ect ect...

but you answer it yourself here, the UN you say, well if the United Nations has said that iraq is rogue, and iraq is breaking the sanctions what right does it give the United States and the United KIngdom to invade without a UN sanction. isnt this just going against your constitution, would you like it if in 10 minutes the police are going to break in and take your biggest gun off you because you might do bad with it, even though the police are holding a nuclear warhead.

i know that goes a little off topic, but the similarities are there, you want the private ownership of guns to protect yourself and to suppress tyranni, well iraq wasnot allowed to have weapons that the Us hass beaten in technology many times over, and even though the people that declared iraq rogue did not agree with at all.

back to crime statistics well i distinctly remember the news saying violent crime in London at least was down over last year i might be wrong thouh, and i still cant find the bloody mayors stats..... but isnt your point slightly moot because of the recent school ground killings that took place like 2 weeks ago in the USA...

thats why im opposed to guns, big criminals will get them ok... but small time and petty criminals will probably not, so why make it so easy that they can own one, you are not a felon till you have committted and act, well if you have a gun your first felon will probably be a bad one.

not to mention that being a store clerk in the USA is one of the mst dangerous jobs you have... not over here it isnt...

[DudeMan]

i hope that has cleared it up a bit cingular, if not just say, and ill try again....lol i was a bit drunk yesterday after a killer barbecue so.....

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by DudeMan

thats why im opposed to guns, big criminals will get them ok... but small time and petty criminals will probably not, so why make it so easy that they can own one, you are not a felon till you have committted and act, well if you have a gun your first felon will probably be a bad one.

Originally Posted by DudeMan

....lol i was a bit drunk yesterday after a killer barbecue so.....

It shows
.

[Wolfie]

Originally Posted by DudeMan

i personally believe that crime should be left to the police, heck only last week on nieghbours at war i saw two nieghbours gun fight in america over a driveway... and one was killed, the worst you will get in the UK is a brick through the window.

Police are nice for arresting people after they commit the crime but that doesn't do John Doe any good after he was murdered by a criminal.

Does anyone know the percentage of felons that commit crimes using a weapon vs the number of the people that own guns? That would be an interesting percentage to see.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Wintermute

It shows
.

i disagrree tyhe quote you illustrated was perfectly fine to me