Prevent Rapes Support Concealed Carry

[Drew]

The world seems to hate the fact that in the USA WE have the RIGHT to bear arms.
The world is just going to have to get over it.

The more likely story here is that the USA is hanging on to a mentality that perhaps, repeat perhaps served it well in the past, but is now long past due for changing.

It should be noted that the USA stands alone among free prosperous nations in its embrace of guns. All these other nations are just as free, and generally at least as safe as the USA.

 

[Drew]

I don't get it. The criminals will always find a way to have a gun. They'll kill cops to get them...or they'll make them in their garage...or they'll smuggle them in across the border. Banning guns will only take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and we'll be at the mercy of the evil people who will run rampant over the innocents. It's a matter of common sense.

Not necessarily true.

Here is an interesting statistic that I acquired from the "British Home Office" - an arm of the British government, I believe.

In 2005/2006, there were 746 homicides in the UK and Wales. Only 50 of these were by gun. Now the UK has a lot of crime and a lot of violence - what they obviously do not have, though, is a lot of gun violence.

Why? I think it is clear: because they control guns.

If those who argue that criminals will get guns somehow, regardless of gun control, how come these British murderers are not getting their hands on "banned guns"? Are they not motivated? Hardly.

The most plausible explanation is, of course, that gun control works in Britain - it closes the option of gun murder to the criminal.

If "gun freedom" is such common sense, why does the United States stand alone its relative lack of gun control?

 

[John]

I don't get it. The criminals will always find a way to have a gun. They'll kill cops to get them...or they'll make them in their garage...or they'll smuggle them in across the border. Banning guns will only take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and we'll be at the mercy of the evil people who will run rampant over the innocents. It's a matter of common sense.

Not necessarily true.

Here is an interesting statistic that I acquired from the "British Home Office" - an arm of the British government, I believe.

In 2005/2006, there were 746 homicides in the UK and Wales. Only 50 of these were by gun. Now the UK has a lot of crime and a lot of violence - what they obviously do not have, though, is a lot of gun violence.

Why? I think it is clear: because they control guns.

If those who argue that criminals will get guns somehow, regardless of gun control, how come these British murderers are not getting their hands on "banned guns"? Are they not motivated? Hardly.

The most plausible explanation is, of course, that gun control works in Britain - it closes the option of gun murder to the criminal.

If "gun freedom" is such common sense, why does the United States stand alone its relative lack of gun control?

Ummm...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Smuggling

The campaign's director, David Bredin, said: "It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

the rest here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm

 

[John]

In addition:

Crime Up Down Under. Since Australia's Gun Ban, Armed Robberies Increase 45%
I hope all Americans will learn from Australia's mistake.

An unarmed nation only benefits criminals.

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Assaults are up 8.6 percent

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

source: http://current.com/items/89945552_crime ... ase-45.htm

 

[Free]

Next personal attack, including insinuating that someone isn't using common sense, will result in a formal warning.

 

[researcher]

I think we should talk about Mexico's gun control laws, and, their murder rate.

A model all nations should definitely follow, 0_0 lol

 

[Drew]

From the web page of Pastor Greg Boyd, and in specific relation to an incident where an armed church guard used a firearm against an armed intruder:

So, while I can grant that this security guard was brave and even “heroic†by ordinary standards, I cannot grant that she was a hero in a Kingdom sense of the term. The criteria for heroism in the Kingdom is not how brave one is in using violence, but how brave one is in imitating Jesus’ refusal to use violence.

Along the same lines, I can understand why churches — especially mega-churches — have security guards. From my own experience I can testify that public figures sometimes get death threats. But as practically expedient as this is, I think it is antithetical to the Kingdom. Because by doing this, we’re saying we have no intention of following Jesus’ teaching and example if and when we’re threatened.

I know this may strike some — maybe most — as insane, and I actually respect people who, out of integrity, reject Jesus’ teaching as insane. But for people who have pledged their life to following Jesus, we have no choice but to follow his example, even if it strikes us as insane. For if Jesus’ teaching strikes us as insane, it is only because our criteria of sanity is set by a fallen world that instinctively relies on violence to solve problems.

 

[Drew]

I think we should talk about Mexico's gun control laws, and, their murder rate.

A model all nations should definitely follow, 0_0 lol

You may have a point there, although it is easy to imagine that they might be getting some of their guns from the United States.

 

[follower of Christ]

Hilarious.
In one post WE are told WE shouldnt be using ONE case to prove our views, then the very person who condemned US for doing it does it himself.
:crazy

 

[follower of Christ]

BACK TO THE TOPIC....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape
This is the first column in a two-part series discussing how guns can protect women during rape attempts.

On Oct. 3, 2000, a woman was raped near the East River Flats Park. The police report triggered headlines as well as consternation among many students and staff members.

In reality, it wasn't news, and shouldn't have shocked anybody. Yes, it differed in several particulars from the typical campus rape. (Both victim and perpetrator were older than most students and he was a stranger to her; it occurred outside rather than indoors; the felon was one of only 5 percent of rapists to use a firearm; the woman reported it to police.) But the sad fact is that rape is, quite literally, an everyday event on our campus. Although the media — including the Daily — must not have recognized it, they were writing "Dog Bites Man" stories, not "Man Bites Dog."

The Department of Justice has recently released an important new study: "The Sexual Victimization of College Women." Its chief finding is about 2.8 percent of women in college experienced a completed or attempted forcible rape in the previous approximately seven months, only about 5 percent of which are reported to police.

Extrapolating from these figures, the authors suggest 4.9 percent of college women suffer such an assault in any given calendar year, and perhaps 20 to 25 percent over the course of a typical undergraduate career. (Graduate students appear to be at considerably lower risk.) This survey appears to be free of the ambiguous questions that provoked heavy criticism of earlier studies reaching similar conclusions.

The Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota has 45,361 students. We would therefore expect about 2,200 completed or attempted forcible rapes per year, or about 6 a day on average, assuming the current findings are approximately correct. Contrast that with the average of 57 annual "forcible sex offenses" (including events that would not be classified as rape or attempted rape) the University has reported to the Department of Education over the last three years — the official number a prospective student will see before deciding whether to attend.

In 1999, an independent crime research firm, CAP Index, Inc., reported the University's neighborhood ranks eighth on their scale of one to 10 (with higher numbers being worse), meaning the crime rate here is three to five times the national rate.

So what can women on campus do to reduce their risk? The new Justice Department study provides several pieces of useful information — some new, some confirming conclusions of previous research.

1) Intoxication is probably the greatest risk factor, apart from simply being female. This is almost certainly due to a combination of the effects of high blood levels of alcohol: One's physical strength and coordination are impaired, one's inhibitions (e.g., to flirtatious or overtly sexual behavior) are lowered, and one's mental alertness is compromised.

Raising this point always brings the charge that one is blaming the victim. Not at all. In an ideal world, a young woman could drink herself into a stupor at any place and time and still not be raped. But in that same ideal world, I could walk through Central Park at midnight with a wad of $100 bills hanging out of my pocket and still not be mugged. We do not live in that world; it is foolhardy and naive to act as if we do.

It is an inescapable fact that choosing to imbibe to the point of being drunk is choosing to be at an increased risk of being raped, as surely as getting in a car with a drunk driver is choosing to be at an increased risk of being injured in a crash. Certainly some people make such choices without deliberation as to the risk that accompanies it, but the risk accompanies the choice nevertheless.

2) Two-thirds of the rapes occurred off-campus, though they might have been locations immediately adjacent to campus, such as bars or apartments. The majority occurred in housing, especially the victim's own home. Predictably, more than half occurred after midnight, with most of the others happening between 6 p.m. and midnight.

3) Ninety-three percent of the completed forcible rapes and 82 percent of the attempted rapes were committed by classmates, friends and boyfriends/ex-boyfriends; acquaintances and "other" (presumably including strangers) made up the small remaining fraction. However, despite the frequent use of the term "date rape," only 13 percent of completed rapes and 35 percent of attempted ones occurred on what the victim categorized as a "date."

But the Justice Department gives interesting data on an additional step women can take to help prevent the escalation of an attempted rape to a completed one: physical resistance.

"For both completed rape and sexual coercion, victims of completed acts were less likely to take protective action than those who experienced attempted victimization. This finding suggests that the intended victim's willingness or ability to use protection might be one reason attempts to rape and coerce sex failed. Note that the most common protective action was using physical force against the assailant. Nearly 70 percent of victims of attempted rape used this response — again, a plausible reason many of these acts were not completed." Unfortunately, the survey did not further elucidate the sub-types of physical resistance used.

The available scientific literature on this question is divided, with some studies concluding physical resistance — with all types considered together — increases a woman's chance of the rape being completed and/or that she will be seriously injured. (This wording is unavoidable but is not meant to imply that the rape itself is not a grave injury.) Others find the opposite, again with all forms of physical resistance analyzed as one.

However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes, "Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

 

[follower of Christ]

The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

http://www.bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm

 

[Drew]

Hilarious.
In one post WE are told WE shouldnt be using ONE case to prove our views, then the very person who condemned US for doing it does it himself.
:crazy

Assuming that you are referring to me, please tell me where I have used any one anecdotal case to draw a general conclusion.

 

[follower of Christ]

[youtube:3rqt2ejr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E[/youtube:3rqt2ejr]

 

[follower of Christ]

.
Ms., Armed
“Freedom of choice†I can get behind.

Being a National Review employee has its perks — intelligent daily discourse, relaxed work environment, good people, WFB parties, etc. But I never imagined NR would put a firearm in my hand. Through connections here, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a free rifle lesson in New York City sponsored by Women on Target.

Women on Target is a branch of the National Rifle Association that seeks to educate and train women on the use of guns, specifically for recreational purposes. They arrange events such as target shooting and women-only hunting trips. Its main goal is to get more women involved in the shooting sports, but its motto "Refuse to Be a Victim" indicates that self-defense is another inevitable goal.

I was not raised around guns and had never even held one. I admit, too, I had reservations about the NRA. But I was determined to conquer my fear, and make my own decisions about the organization and its issues. I was among about 17 other women, most of us novices, and all of whom were average women, of various ages, attracted to idea of learning how to use a firearm.

Amy Heath, the event coordinator and an energetic spirit behind Women on Target in New York City was surprised at the turnout for the free lesson. "It was mainly word of mouth," she said. "I sent an e-mail to friends, and they sent it out to other friends." Everyone thinks that there is no interest in New York City in the shooting sports, but the success of these free clinics, Heath points out, belies that belief. "There is a waiting list for the next event."

We sat through an hour-long seminar with a NRA trainer who introduced us to the meaning of calibers and the origin of the phrase "lock, stock, and barrel." He explained in detail the safety precautions gun users should take and cleared up several myths about gun accidents, such as a gun going off by itself. As the lecture continued, fear was transforming to eagerness. We put on our goggles and ear protection and went off to shoot.

I was paired with a woman who looked a little too well primped for 8 A.M. on a Saturday, but her bull's eyes were incredible. My instructor — a trained marksman — was a woman. When I finally held the .22 rifle myself (you don't need a permit to fire a rifle at a shooting range; to fire a pistol, however, you need a permit, $300, and ample patience waiting for your application to get processed), I was shaky, but that first shot was something I won't forget. I started to get the hang of it, and, like a child, was anxious for my turn to come around again.

There was a part of me that felt like I had done something naughty. Maybe it was the basement where the shooting range is located. Maybe it was the indoctrination that guns are bad; they kill. And yet there I was, a straight-laced nerd wielding a weapon. It seemed like I was suddenly admitted to a dubious, underground secret society.

I got over it though. The "evil" mystique quickly faded. When I took hold of the gun, I did not suddenly harbor murderous thoughts. My demeanor did not change. I did not become enraged. If anything, I felt more responsible — more respectful of the power of a gun — than I had before, when I was afraid to go near one. I am trying to avoid the word "empowering," but it really felt that way.

For many women, knowing how to use a gun is consoling in an unsafe world. Between 15 and 20 million American women own a firearm. The growth of groups such as Women on Target and Second Amendment Sisters are further indicators that women and guns is an increasingly popular combination. Gun opponents insist the Second Amendment is outdated, that we don't live in the same society that we once did. They're right about the latter. More women live alone, and there are more single mothers than ever before. The police can't be everywhere at once as evidenced by the unsolved serial murders of women in Baton Rouge, La., where Governor Mike Foster has reminded women about their Second Amendment rights. And I should be able to walk to my car in the mall parking lot or a train station after sunset (or before) without being terrified.

I don't think that every man, woman, and child should carry a firearm. I think there should be background checks, and different communities have different standards. I do believe that trained, licensed women have a right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they choose. Like driving a car, she should take lessons in handling and firing a gun, as well as self-defense instruction and the use of common sense. According to award-winning criminologist and ACLU member Gary Kleck, firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year, and in 48 percent of those incidents, the defenders are women.
Women use firearms to prevent rape 204,000 times every single year and most of the time a shot is never even fired.
Most attackers are not going to bother pursuing prey who pose a fatal challenge.

As we reconvened for closing remarks at the end of our lessons, all the women were smiling, joking, and just more comfortable and relaxed. We hardly became expert marksmen, knowing we still had much more training ahead of us. Many of us walked away somewhat transformed; we had tried something new, and came away a little stronger, a little smarter, and a little more independent. Not bad for a Saturday morning.

Annie Oakley, America's legendary female sharpshooter, exemplified with class that girdles and guns are not mutually exclusive. She, however, always insisted that women, even gunslingers, comport themselves like ladies. Unfortunately, that's not always realistic. In an unsafe world, women should have the power to defend themselves; groups like Women on Target, who seek to teach women to wield that power responsibly, should be encouraged rather than demonized.

 

[Drew]

BACK TO THE TOPIC....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape
This is the first column in a two-part series discussing how guns can protect women during rape attempts.

I heartily agree - guns can indeed protect people.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

This may be so, but, as per earlier posts, it would not be valid to use this as evidence that carrying a gun is a good idea. It would be a valid argument that you should have a gun with you if you know that you are going to be raped that same day.

The reality, of course, is more complicated and we need to account for other ways the gun might be used, other than to prevent a rape.

 

[follower of Christ]

More Guns, Less Crime in '09
American Thinker ^ | December 30, 2009 | Joe Gimenez

Posted on Wednesday, December 30, 2009 1:39:06 AM by neverdem

Americans went on binges buying guns and ammunition in early 2009, worried that a radical leftist president and Democrat-dominated Congress would violate their Second-Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The effects? Less murder, robbery, rape, and property crime, according to an FBI report released Monday. This gives the young president and Democrat Congress at least one proud but unintended accomplishment for which they'll never claim credit.
Indeed, gun buyers were out in droves in late 2008 and early 2009. While it's easy to infer that increased gun ownership figures align precisely with the drop in crime in the same calendar period, you won't see that headline in the New York Times, despite their penchant for such inferences about increases in crime coinciding with increasing "guns on the street."

The gun-buying started shortly before, and then took off after, Obama's election. The Toronto Star reported a 15% increase of 108,000 more FBI background checks in October 2008 than during the same month in 2007. People were already anticipating the dire consequences of an Obama victory. Then, in November 2008, the number of FBI background checks on applicants buying guns spiked 42% from the previous year. The FBI performed 12.7 million background checks in 2008, compared to 11.2 million in 2007, a 13% increase.

More evidence of rampant gun-buying loads up in the states. Through June 2009, the Texas Department of Public Safety received a monthly average of 12,700 applications for concealed handgun licenses, up 46% from the average in 2007. Even the New York Times noted how gun sales were up in 2009; in a June story, it focused on its less sophisticated neighbors in New Jersey. Even in liberal Massachusetts, gun permits surged 15% over the last two years (after falling several years before that).

While background checks and applications for concealed handgun licenses don't directly equate to the number of new guns on the street -- some applicants are refused, and applications can include multiple guns at the same time of purchase -- the numbers do indicate that more law-abiding Americans had new or enhanced arms in the first six months of 2009. Most criminals don't subject themselves to background checks.

(This is a good place to note that "new guns on the street" is just a liberal scare cliché we should not carelessly adopt. These statistics indicate the real dynamic: gun purchases and concealed licenses acquisitions are made predominantly by law-abiding citizens taking their guns home with them from the store, for self-defense, hunting, and target-shooting purposes.)

But shouldn't more guns equate to more murders and other violent crime? Only if you live in liberal never-never land.

That certainly has not been the case in early 2009. Guns are purchased so that good people can protect themselves against bad people. And moreover, self-protection is a basic human right, despite the fact that our new wise Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn't bring herself to acknowledge that this summer.

The newspapers west of the Hudson River are chock full of stories in which law-abiding citizens protected themselves by using guns. And these are just the incidents that are reported. The Armed Citizen blog does a great job of capturing these stories in their raw form, and every thinking American needs to make his own inferences about the value of guns in these situations: They prevent people from becoming statistics. Go through the news reports compiled on the Armed Citizen blog and make your own count of people who refused to become statistics.

For instance, in May, eleven students in Atlanta avoided becoming murder statistics thanks to the bravery of one among them who had a gun in his backpack. He used it to kill one robber and injure another. Chillingly, the news reports describe how the robbers were counting their bullets to make sure they had enough to kill their victims. One of the robbers was about to rape a woman as well. That's at least thirteen fewer violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery) that did not need to be included in the FBI's crime report for the first half of 2009.

As 2009 winds down, the Democratic Party deserves an off-handed "thank you" for inspiring more law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons and protect themselves from bad people, at least in the first half of the year.

But even while giving them that tribute, it's important to reflect that the only direct result of their gun control efforts in the past -- the Clinton administration's regulation forbidding U.S. military personnel from carrying personal firearms -- resulted in the deaths of thirteen people and an unborn infant in Fort Hood.

Sadly, those deaths will add to an increase in the second half of 2009's statistics -- and renewed calls for gun control legislation, to be sure.

 

[Drew]

But even while giving them that tribute, it's important to reflect that the only direct result of their gun control efforts in the past -- the Clinton administration's regulation forbidding U.S. military personnel from carrying personal firearms -- resulted in the deaths of thirteen people and an unborn infant in Fort Hood.

Sadly, those deaths will add to an increase in the second half of 2009's statistics -- and renewed calls for gun control legislation, to be sure.

Not a valid argument.

Where did the Fort Hood shooter get his gun?

The American Law enforcement officials have said that the 5.7 mm pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting rampage was purchased legally at a Texas gun store. The officials reportedly spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not supposed or authorized to discuss the case. Records show that Hasan bought the FN 5.7 from “Guns Galore†store in Killeen, Texas, well before the attack that killed 13 people.

Guns Galore??? Hmmmm. I wonder why I don't see one of those in my neighbourhood. Or that our Australian friends don't see one in their neighbourhood?

Oh yeah, we control guns.

 

[John]

Guns Galore??? Hmmmm. I wonder why I don't see one of those in my neighbourhood. Or that our Australian friends don't see one in their neighbourhood?

Oh yeah, we control guns.

There is a gun store that has over 300 guns in stock down the road, i can walk in and buy one and walk out with it in less then 5 minutes.

On a second note perhaps the reason why you do not have a gun store near you is because you live in Ontario, Ontario and Quebec are the worst places to live if your a gun owner.

 

[follower of Christ]

.
More guns equal more crime? Not in 2009, FBI crime report shows.
FBI's latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged. Deterrent effect may have a role, but others see no correlation.

Atlanta

The oft-cited credo that more guns equal more crime is being tested by facts on the ground this year: Even as gun ownership has surged in the US in the past year, violent crime, including murder and robbery, has dropped steeply.

Add to that the fact that many experts had predicted higher crime rates as the US grinds through a difficult recession, and the discrepancy has advocates on both sides of the Second Amendment debate rushing to their ramparts.

After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole.

Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of President Obama, a dramatic run on guns prompted in part by so-far-unwarranted fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House will curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.

Pro-gun groups jumped at the FBI report, saying it disproves a long-running theory posited by gun-control groups and many in the mainstream media that gun ownership spawns crime and violence. “Anti-gunners have lost another one of their baseless arguments,†Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told the Examiner's Dave Workman.

Some gun-control groups have long sought to establish gun ownership as a health issue, which would expose purchasers to the kind of regulation now imposed on prescription drugs and alcohol. That view embodies the idea that mere exposure to guns makes people more violent.

But more pragmatically, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have mostly targeted illegal sales and gun-show loopholes as the primary problem in America’s gun culture. They say such loopholes and lax enforcement allow violent criminals to get their hands on used, stolen, and inexpensive guns. “The guns that cause the worst problems in this country are not selling for very high prices,†Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm has said.
No correlation, researchers say

As advocates on both sides keep score, what’s the rest of America to think as they weigh the relative crime risks – and statistics – in their own neighborhoods?

The debate over whether guns spur or deter crime has been under way for decades. So far, research has come out with, in essence, a net-zero correlation between gun sales and crime rates. More likely factors for the crime rate decline have to do with Americans hunkering down, spending less time out on the town with cash in their pockets and more time at home with the porch lights on, experts say. So-called "smart policing" that focuses specifically on repeat offenders and troubled areas could also be playing a role, as could extended unemployment benefits that staved off desperation.

“We can absolutely draw a fact-based conclusion about [whether there’s a correlation between declining crime rates and increasing gun ownership], and the answer is no,†says David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control in New York. “There are very consistent findings that the acquisition and obtaining of carry permits by ordinary law-abiding people has either no or very little impact on the crime rate.â€

He finds more evidence in the FBI’s new report, which shows crimes declining not only across a variety of violent and nonviolent crime classifications, but also in both gun-resistant and gun-friendly corners of the country.

“When you’re seeing declines [in violent crime] both in cities like Atlanta, which is in a relatively gun-friendly state, and in places like New York City, where it is essentially impossible for ordinary folks to acquire and carry especially handguns, then it’s not the guns that are driving the [statistics],†Mr. Kennedy says.
A possible deterrent effect?

But one prominent gun rights researcher, Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, leaves the door open to the idea that news of booming gun sales could have a deterrent effect on violent criminals.

“It’s possible that criminals hear about lots of people buying guns, and then you can see a plausible mechanism, that conceivably could have produced a reduction in murder,†says Professor Kleck. “It’s all a matter of perception, not reality, for prospective murderers."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... port-shows.

 

[follower of Christ]

.
New FBI Crime Data Proves Gun Grabbers Wrong

October 16th, 2008

This article also appears this week at USConcealedCarry.com.

By Jim Irvine and Chad D. Baus

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (and other supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign), “more guns = more crime.†The logical conclusion they hope lawmakers reach is that guns should be banned, or at least be severely restricted.

But changes to gun laws over the past five years, and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), suggest something else entirely.

From an FBI press release announcing the release of the latest data:

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of more than 17,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. Since 1930, the FBI has administered the UCR Program and continued to assess and monitor the nature and type of crime in the Nation. The Program’s primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management; however, its data have over the years become one of the country’s leading social indicators. Criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, and other students of criminal justice use the data for varied research and planning purposes. In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population. The coverage amounted to 95.7 percent of the population in Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 88.0 percent of the population in cities outside metropolitan areas, and 90.0 percent of the population in nonmetropolitan counties.[1]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently released the 2007 edition of Crime in the United States, which shows that both violent and property crimes fell in 2007.

According to the FBI, “the UCR program gathers offense data for violent and property crimes. Violent crimes are the offenses of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; property crimes are the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The program also collects arrest data for violent and property crimes as well as 21 additional offenses that include all other offenses except traffic violations.â€

Before we dig into the UCRs, let us first consider the changes made to our gun laws from 2003 through 2007. During that five-year period, firearms laws have become less restrictive. We have seen passage of concealed carry laws in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico and Ohio. We have seen the sunset of the Joe Biden-authored Federal “assault weapons†ban. No state has enacted significant bans on purchase or bearing of firearms. Firearms sales have been strong, and we have seen spikes in the purchase of firearms related to events such as hurricane Katrina and the Northeast Blackout of 2003. There are more gun owners and millions more firearms in the United States today than five years ago.

More guns, more crime? Not hardly. In fact, according to the past five years of FBI data, the murder rate has declined.

That’s right, the murder rate declined. You will hear from the anti-gun media and gun ban lobby that the number of murders increased (by 2.5%), but what they won’t tell you is that in the same time period, the American population has grown by 3.8% [2]. That means the murder rate (the “odds of being murderedâ€) has decreased.

Drilling further into the data, we see that while the increase in use of firearms was 4.4%, we see a decrease of 5.0% (from 7,745 to 7361) in the number of murders committed with a handgun. Note – that is not a just a per capata decrease but a decrease in the total number of murders committed by a handgun over the last 5 year period. This decrease occurred in the midst of an explosion in handgun sales. Clearly the FBI data is exactly opposite of what the anti-gun groups have been preaching.
Anti-gun = anti-good guy

When considering killings by criminals (murder), we see that the instrument used by the criminal is a firearm 67% of the time, and more specifically a handgun 51% of the time. (Over the last five years, the percentage of killings by gun has remained fairly consistent, so we shall use the average for our comparison. Results would be very similar for specific data in any given year.)

The gun ban lobby uses these numbers to try to justify banning guns. If two-thirds of murders are committed with guns, and over one-half with handguns, they argue, then surely banning these things would decrease murders. But a closer examination reveals something interesting. For each murder, there is a victim. Sometimes those victims fight back and win the deadly encounter. When the intended victim kills the person trying to murder them (or do great bodily harm to them) it is called a “justifiable homicide.â€

Justifiable homicide — Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable, or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

* The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
* The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. Justifiable homicide information, which is collected by the FBI via the UCR Program’s SHRs, are included in this section and in Expanded Homicide Data Table 13, “Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2003–2007†and Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, “Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2003–2007.â€

Using five-year averages from the UCRs, we see that 78% of these defensive killings are with firearms, and 63% with handguns. In other words, the good guy is 16% more likely to use a gun, and 23% more likely to use a handgun to save a life than a criminal is to take a life. So while there are many ways to kill another person, it is more likely for a good person to save their life with a gun, than for a bad person to take it with a gun.

Data on law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty was not available at the time of publishing, but there is still something to be learned about our police and their safety as it relates to guns. Using the same 5 year average data, we see that when law enforcement kills someone, they use a gun 99% of the time, and a handgun 86% of the time. There is a reason for these staggering statistics; police have studied and trained on the most effective and safe way to stop violent criminals. Use of a firearm is clearly the best and safest way to deal with violent aggressors. Police who want to go home to their families after a day’s work know how to defend their life with a firearm. Increasingly, citizens are doing the same thing.
A few observations from state data

We often hear about differences in “rural and urban†areas and the need for different gun laws. States have vastly different gun laws and self-defense laws, and as one might expect, vastly different crime data. Looking at state by state data for 2007, we see that guns as a murder weapon ranged from 25% for Hawaii and North Dakota, to 79% for Louisiana. Looking only at handgun data, we see a variance from 11% in Iowa to 71% for Illinois.

Let us consider that last figure for a moment. 71% of Illinois murders are carried out with a handgun, despite the fact that Illinois suffers under what are arguably the most severe handgun restrictions in the country. It is one of only two states (along with Wisconsin, where it is also more likely than the average for murders to be committed with a handgun) that do not allow any form of concealed carry for its citizens. The state’s largest city (where close to one-half of Illinois residents, as well as Sen. Barack Obama, live) has a complete ban on handgun ownership. Even a retired police chief is not permitted to have a handgun in his house to defend his life. The FBI data prove that banning handguns does not stop murders from using them.

In late 2006, the Ohio General Assembly passed a bill that preempted local gun control laws, over the objections of big city mayors and even a veto by then-Gov. Bob Taft. Despite claims from big-city mayors that taking away their ability to enact still more oppressive gun control laws was robbing them of a valuable crime-fighting tool, the many Republican and Democrat legislators who supported this bill recognized gun control as a failure, and understood that there was nothing to fear from trained, law abiding citizens being armed. The law went into effect in the early months of 2007, and the last FBI data support what Buckeye Firearms Association and pro-gun legislators knew all along: Crime is down in Ohio in nearly every sector.

Forty-eight states now have some form of concealed carry laws. No state has ever revoked their law once enacted. Each year, many states revise their firearms laws and remove restrictions on gun owners and permit holders. Every year former anti-gun people learn the truth and then start supporting concealed carry laws, often becoming gun owners and license-holders themselves.

The FBI’s 2007 edition of Crime in the United States simply adds to the enormous pile of evidence showing that guns in the hands of good people are the best way to stop a violent criminal from harming you or a loved one.

Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman. Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

Footnotes:

[1] FBI Releases 2007 Crime Statistics,
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/ucr091508.htm

[2] Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007, http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tab ... 007-01.xls