Huh. Decreasing gun control caused gun violence to increase. Who could have seen that coming?
Overall crime down, but robbery, gun violence up
Americans were robbed and victimized by gun violence at greater rates last year than the year before, even though overall violent and property crime reached a 32-year low, the Justice Department said today.
Experts said these increases buttress reports from the FBI and many mayors and police chiefs that violent crime is beginning to rise after a long decline. Bush administration officials expressed concern but stressed that it was too soon to tell if a new upward trend in violence had begun.
Last year, there were two violent gun crimes for every 1,000 individuals, compared with 1.4 in 2004, according to the department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. There were 2.6 robberies for every 1,000 persons, compared with 2.1 the year before.
“A major police effort to confiscate guns helped bring down the surge in violent crime that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s,” Blumstein said. “But gun distribution is easier now because we have begun to back off gun control.”
Backed by the National Rifle Association, the Bush administration has been cool toward gun control measures.
Are the guns shooting themselves now?
Hi,
Maybe guns do kill people but except in limited military environments those guns are operated by people.
If’s the person who has the ultimate decision as to weather the gun is fired and in which direction it is aimed. Therefore I would argue that it’s the people who are responcible not the guns.
Perhaps it says more about the type of people in the US and other contries where guns are readly available and no discipline or self-control in those who own them.
Perhaps the US should look as the Swiss experience to see what lessions might be learnt.
Regards
Simon
Huh. Decreasing gun control caused gun violence to increase. Who could have seen that coming?
I’m disappointed in you, Uncle Dave.
It’s NOT AT ALL clear that descreasing control increases violence. The statistics involved are confusing, and you can pretty much “prove” any random point of view using them, but common sense says that criminals, who are the real problem here, ignore the law BY DEFINITION. What exactly makes you think that criminals will obey gun laws any more than they obey any other law?
Sadly, when it comes to personal protection, the role law enforcement plays is generally to fill in the paperwork after the fact. To deny law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves is absurd.
I have a concealed weapon permit, and I use it. If you or anyone else does not feel the need to protect themselves or their family, good for you. I don’t feel that way.
There’s about 6.5 billion people alive today. If just 1% were assholes that brings their numbers to 650 million. I think we can also agree that the 1% estimate is very optimistic.
I’ve always maintained that economic disparity was more a cause of crime than guns. If I’m going to pick a liberal position to take on this, then it won’t be gun control.
Note that robbery is up. If you want to speculate on a cause and effect relationship, you might consider that robbery is about money.
We’ve seen recent posts here for a decline in median income and such.
But, I doubt that the current administration would be willng to shift focus to poverty levels.
There is still a “common good equalized, state controlled, gun controlled” country. Cuba would be heaven for those wishing this environment. I suggest they move there and live happily ever after
Why struggle with all the violence and poverty oppression in the US. Go, go be with your brothers and sisters, true comrades. We will just stay here and be miserable.
There are also several good Muslim countries that may appeal to you. I know, you shouldn’t have to leave your country to have things your way, but how much abuse can you endure. I say pull the pin and just go to that better place.
This article would have been more useful if the statistics had been broken down by jurisdiction.
Washington DC experienced a sharp increase in homicides this year, in spite of the fact that it continues to have the absolute prohibition on all firearm ownership by non-police, non-military that it has had since 1976 – currently, the homicide rate is about the same as that of Colombia.
Meanwhile, the adjacent suburbs of Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia, both of which have minimal restrictions on gun ownership, have homicide rates equal to that of Singapore.
Guns are not banned but their usage is restricted. Now the criteria from restriction may vary but there are restrictions nonetheless…
Gun apologist usually argue that we have the right to self-protect (and to protect our family) to sustain the lowering of restrictions around gun portability. But … would you, apologists, agree that ALL people have this same right for self-protection? Then why restrict the usage to those who have license or whatever?
The same analogy can be used for cars… Only those with license have the right to move faster then other without license.
You see… the argument that one has the right to do something does not support the rules society is trying to come up to solve a given problem.
I read somewhere that Canada has more gun out there (per capita) then the US… but they have much less gun violence problems. Then it is a education/cultural problem you USAmericans have… Of course, correcting this cultural problems takes more time the limiting the usage of arms.
So, everythng gets down to this: either you retain the right to bear guns to TRY to protect yourself against those (potentialy hundreds of millions) who are willing to use a gun to kill you or no-one retain the right to bear arms (and assume that some still do, illegaly, but in much smaller number than if there is a right to bear arms) and expect to be protected by those who does have the right and also try to protect yourself by some other mean.
IMHO, I believe that, in the long run the probability of my family to be seriously endagered will be lowered with the second scenario (basing on gun violoence stats).
“Statistician Shannan Catalano, who wrote the new report, said the increases in gun violence and robbery rates reinforce the FBI data and the anecdotal evidence from local officials. But she cautioned that so few people in the survey reported robberies that the bureau cannot be certain whether those figures represent a true increase or a random sampling variation.”
Huh. Who would have thought partisan hacks would glob on to this?
Huh. I’m disappointed in you too, Uncle Dave. Much as I hate to side with the right-wing nutjobs on this one, I have to. The only “link” (such as it is) between gun control and gun violence in the article is provided by Professor Alfred Blumstein, a well-known anti-gun advocate.
On the other hand, one might ask why the places with the most draconian gun control laws seem to end up being the places with the MOST GUN VIOLENCE, and vice versa. For purposes of safety, I’d certainly rather live in Vermont than Washington DC or NYC. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
Mario –
Sorry to have to correct you, but possession of any kind of gun is banned for all non-police, non-military residents of Washington DC, since 1976.
would you, apologists, agree that ALL people have this same right for self-protection? Then why restrict the usage to those who have license or whatever?
Not sure this really needs answering, since it’s pretty obvious, but just in case: NOBODY claims that EVERYBODY should be able to own a firearm. Even rabid gun psychos like myself don’t think that very young children, mentally impaired individuals, or criminals should be able to posess them. The purpose of a license, then, is to limit ownership to the overwhelming majority of citizens not falling into one of these (and probably a couple of other) categories.
By the way, in my state, as in many states, no permit or license is required for simple ownership or normal carry in your vehicle, place of work, etc. The permit allows me to actually keep it on my person, as long as it’s not visible. I don’t anticipate needing a gun in the grocery store, but it is an option for me. There are places that you still can’t carry, such as a post office or business primarily involved in the sale of liquor, which is also OK with me.
11, I think the equation goes the other way…places with insane levels of gun violence implement draconian laws. Unfortunately, attempts to reduce the number of guns among the wacko set hasn’t worked. If we can ever figure that out, which probably requires some concessions from the manufacturers (who use all the worst arguments and fight every single legistaltive attempt), then IMO reductions in gun-related crimes will decrease.
GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE….bullets do.
It reminds me of a design I have in my online store:
Guns Don’t Kill – bullets do
* granted, guns do get those bullets moving mighty fast
http://www.cafepress.com/chris2xpremium/1348266
I blame it all on rap music.
Everyone who is for gun control should put a sign in their front yard saying:
I SUPPORT GUN CONTROL.
I HAVE NO GUNS IN MY HOME.
Then see how long it takes you to get robbed. There is a town near me that has a law that requires gun ownership by it’s residents. They have almost no crime? Put that into your statistics pipe and smoke it. 🙂
The article varies between nonsense and utter nonsense….
May the fleas of ten thousand camels nest in your underwear drawer for even repeating this bit of dreq….
The Brits, having reached an all time high in various sorts of violent crime, along with gun restrictions that are best described as “nobody has ’em legally”, are now trying to outlaw pointy kitchen knives. Those laws really work….
Tony –
Do you live near Kenesaw, Georgia?
the problem with gun control is that criminals typically dont obtain guns legally.
The article says less gun control leads to more gun violence and less crime. Everyone agree with that?
some of the problem comes form Gun control vs, Gun laws and protection laws.
If I find a crook in my home, I STILL cant shoot him, unless he fires first, I am in deadly peril,
And in many states, you STILL cant shoot anyone, with out being arrested, and charged. (I love the boonies).
Along with being arrested for protecting house and home, you WILL loose work, work time, probably your job, maybe your home for protecting it, and maybe end up in jail for 20+ years. Just to protect yourself and home.
#24, as it should be. Property is not worth more than human life.
I have questions for the concealed weapon permit people. What do you do when you travel by airplane, you can’t have it one you or carryon luggage, can you even carry it in your checkin luggage? What about international flights? And what about tourists, is there a permit office and gun shop at every US international airport so they can get a gun and protect themself too?
#26 – yes, you can check in a gun. it’s not that difficult or time consuming.
Has anyone taken into account that the 90’s saw a rise in “tough on crime” policies that pushed District Attorneys to raise their conviction rates or face a tough re-election? In order to raise conviction rates, many DAs simply offer more plea bargains which allow violent criminals to serve only a few short years. A 5 to 15 year sentence for second degree murder wasn’t all that uncommon.
This could simply be a situation where many of these criminals are now returning to the streets with nothing better to do than engage in more violence.
this article appears to be total bunk…
[Providence R.I. Police Chief]Esserman said all but [a] few cities have fewer police officers now than in 2001, with big reductions in New York, Boston and Detroit “because of the loss of federal money.” A Clinton administration program paid for local departments to hire community-oriented police officers, but the Bush administration stopped the money for such hiring. …
“A major police effort to confiscate guns helped bring down the surge in violent crime that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s,” [Professor] Blumstein said. “But gun distribution is easier now because we have begun to back off gun control.”
While there may be more violent crime, it does not mean more lax gun laws are the cause. Having said that, if someone wanted to harm me, I would rather try to outrun a golf club then a 9 mm bullet.
Another thought, if a jurisdiction enacts strong anti-gun laws, that doesn’t prevent criminals from obtaining them from other, less stringent areas. One place, as an example, is Toronto Canada. Guns are regulated and hand guns are very difficult to license. Over the past decade though, steady underground smuggling has brought many handguns to the gangs and as a result, gun crimes have skyrocketed. Even so, they are a fraction of what US cities lives with.
http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm
“Unlike the FBI report culled from police blotters, the statistic bureau makes estimates based on interviews with 134,000 people, so it counts not only reported crime but also crimes the police never hear about. Also, 53 percent of violent crimes and 60 percent of property crimes are never reported to the police.”
If you can’t see the statistical issues raised by the above quote and don’t have a problem with how this data was treated in the report, then you too, may be paleoclimatologist.
there may be 30-35 million people in canada, 25-30 in u.k. . maybe 25 in australia… THE- police official in charge of the -POLICE in- SCOTLAND -said in response to , i believe an amnesty int. report, that SCOTLAND was -THE- most violent place to live based on the crime stats from SCOTLAND… HE said (of course using from context of multi media report) that – SCOTLAND- has seen a rise in violent crime of all kinds (mostly burglary, mugging ,rape ,beatings and STABBINGS, lots of STABBINGS…) and that you cannot compare stats of other nations to one another because of the difference in the population numbers and other factors… the UNITED STATES has approx. 300. million people… millions of illegals STREAMING across our borders… i would love to see 500 thousand people a year illegally enter canada, the u.k…. how about sweden? what about switzerland? see them get a job and then ABUSE the support systems of those countries illegally… the support systems paid for by the LEGAL citizens of those nations… oh yeah, go fly a KITE… IN PAKISTAN…
Its like Larry the Cable guy put it actually… “If guns kill people then I should be able to blame misspelled words on my pencil.” You can’t blame a thing for your own actions. I can’t tell a police officer writing me a ticket that I wasn’t the one speeding. It was my car’s fault. This is ridicule.