Study shows NO correlation between # of guns & crime!

[shield20]

From an Anti-gun site:

The following chart shows the general climb of both the murder rate and firearm sales in the U.S.:
Murder rate (per 100,000) and firearm sales (millions of constant dollars),

Year Mdr Rate Firearm Sales (millions)
-----------------------------------------
1985 7.9 $1,548
1986 8.6 $1,647
1987 8.3 $1,667
1988 8.4 1,810
1989 8.7 1,777
1990 9.4 1,602
1991 9.8 1,859
1992 9.3 1,829
1993 9.5 2,095

"Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. "
********************************

Now, they lazily, or more likely purposely, have NOT updated the figures since 1993. I wonder why? Probably because as gun sales continued to increase, crime rates steadly DECREASED:

YEAR-----TAX----VC RATE----Mrd Rte---Murders---- Firearms
***---($,000)----(100K)-----(100K)------#----------%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1992----139,652----757.7----9.3
1993----124,215----747.1----9.5
1994----139,990----713.6----9.0
1995----184,302----684.5----8.2
1996----157,816----636.6----7.4
1997----150,803----611.0----6.8----15,837----67.7%
1998----158,383----567.6----6.3----14,276----64.8%
1999----167,448----523.0----5.7----13,011----65.2%
2000----197,840----506.5----5.5----13,230----65.5%
2001----175,959----504.5----5.6----14,061----63..22%
2002----205,025----494.4----5.6----14,263----66.8%
2003----193,420----475.0----5.7----14,465----66.9%
2004----214,987----465.5----5.5----14,121----66%
*2005-----------------469.2----5.6----
*The crime rates have gone up slightly again the last year or so, (VC=+3.7, Mrdr=+1.4).

The TAX column represents total excise tax on firearms and ammo sales, when broken out, the best indicator of total gun sales. The crime figures are from the FBI, the TAX figures from BATF.



Please notice that as firearms sales continue to rise, violent crime (VC) rates, and murder rates DROPPED steadily for 1994-2004. Also notice that the percentage of firearms used by criminals to commit murder is basically unchanged, despite the estimated "3 million new guns every year".
[which is good reason why it is not always wise to depend on stats, sometimes they don't agree with your theory!]


Those anti-constitution yahoos in Albany and Washington must get over themselves and accept the truth: GUNS AIN'T THE PROBLEM!

 

[Jeff White]

Guns and gun laws, both the kind the antis support, like bans and restrictions on law abiding citizens and those that we support, like CCW and stand your ground laws have no effect on the crime rate.

The crime rate is a combination of many social factors and the one that has the biggest effect on the crime rate is the number of males in the population between 14 and 28 or so. Put the crime rate side by side with the census numbers for that age group and you'll see.

Crime went down begining around 1993, not because of any laws, but because the number of males in that age group dropped. It's going up now, because the number in that age group is going up. This was predicted a few years ago.

Gun laws both pro and con, get tough sentencing laws, all that other BS that the politicians come up with to address the problem is just eyewash.

Jeff

 

[shield20]

Thanks Jeff, I did NOT know that correlation you described!

 

[CDignition]

That is interesting Info Jeff

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Jeff's right about the correlation. Demographics. The rise in the "criminal age group" was predicted in (IIRC) 2003--or at least, that's when I first ran across it.

I also recall one of the pages at the BATF website showing the firearms added each year into the US inventory. It's been running more like five million annually than 3.5 million.

In the book "Under The Gun" (Wright, Rossi & Daly, Univ. of Fla. Press, 1985), the authors primary conclusion was that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes where firearms were involved. I've noted that these have written further; I'd have to take it for granted that nothing has changed, not even with additional federal laws.

The only law of which I know which could reduce the acquisition of firearms by criminals is the NICS check. But, note I said "reduce", not "stop". And I'd bet that even the reduction isn't enough to justify the hassle.

And no law can stop the misuse of a firearm...

Art

 

[Soybomb]

The crime rate is a combination of many social factors and the one that has the biggest effect on the crime rate is the number of males in the population between 14 and 28 or so. Put the crime rate side by side with the census numbers for that age group and you'll see.

Crime went down begining around 1993, not because of any laws, but because the number of males in that age group dropped. It's going up now, because the number in that age group is going up. This was predicted a few years ago.

Quoted for emphasis. I'm not sure that we should be throwing around john lott's data as much as alot of people would like. It doesn't seem to be any more valid than much of the stuff the brady group and vpc puts out. Perhaps guns don't matter at all.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Soybomb

Perhaps guns don't matter at all.

Unless, of course, we want to include the 2.5 million crimes PREVENTED each year by . . . guns.

(Of course, my 2.5 million figure COULD be a little low.)

 

[Art Eatman]

Prof. Kleck's work of some ten years back concluded that at least 800,000 events per year occurred where some usage of a firearm had prevented a crime. He stated at that time that it could be as many as three times that number, but he preferred the more conservative 800,000.

At that time, per federal data, some 600,000 events per year occurred where a firearm was involved in a crime. This would include "paperwork" crimes involving record-keeping.

Art

 

[Soybomb]

Unless, of course, we want to include the 2.5 million crimes PREVENTED each year by . . . guns.

I guess I should have elaborated. They of course matter to the potential victim, but perhaps they have no effect at all on the overall crime rate.

 

[shield20]

Whenever the typical anti-funded "studies" appear, I try to take it upon myself to see what the heck they are spouting off about. The recent Harvard "more guns = more homicides" [or was it 'more homicides = more guns'?] is a recent example, and then of course the blatantly mis-leading one I sited here in the original post. What I have found is that there usually isn't any direct correlation one way or the other, especially not one that can be fully supported. Presenting only hand-selected data, and words like "may" and "could" are the tools of the liar. Basically, sometimes the numbers help, sometimes they hurt your cause.

What is important is to take an honest look at the data, know the FACTS for situations when the antis would distort them (as above), but not to rely on them as your only argument - sooner or later they may be a negative.

I understand why KBA IS a right, and I know it is one that extends from a natural right. I know MY guns (and all the other millions of legally owned guns) have never been used to commit a crime, and I know NO gun has EVER committed, or will EVER commit, a crime. Looking at they way things are in this country, and seeing the way they will be; looking at history, and truly believing how bad things will get once all guns in the people's hands are outlawed [prohibition and war on drugs and their effects on crime? , Nazi Germany & the USSR and their effects on rights?]; all these are my best indicators to KNOW we are right. (or MAYBE its just common sense? )

 

[Jeff White]

Quote:
Unless, of course, we want to include the 2.5 million crimes PREVENTED each year by . . . guns.
I guess I should have elaborated. They of course matter to the potential victim, but perhaps they have no effect at all on the overall crime rate.

Those figures can't be included in the crime rate. They don't exist. They are someones best guess as to how often that happened. The only way those figures would ever be included in the crime rate is if every one of them was reported. That is never going to happen.

You can't put all that much faith in the crime rate statistics anyway. Submitting data to the DOJ for the Uniform Crime Report is not mandatory and there are no real standards as to what is reported. It would not be unknown for a bureaucrat to manipulate the statistics up or down to reflect what he wanted. This kind of thing is done all the time to either demonstrate how effective someone is at their job or to show a need for more resources. That kind of manipulation is not limited to government agencies or public policy organizations. It is just as widespread in the private sector.

Lies, damned lies and statistics..........

Jeff