Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Surprise, surprise, surprise. More guns, less criminals.

As they say, an armed society is a polite society.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/04/vi ... ales-soar/

Amid calls nationwide for stricter gun control laws, Virginia is experiencing a unique trend: the state's gun-related crime is declining but firearms sales are increasing.

Firearms sales rose 16 percent to a record 490,119 guns purchased from licensed gun dealers in 2012, according to sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

During the same period, major crimes committed with firearms dropped 5 percent to 4,378.

"This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don't necessarily lead to more crime," said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University's L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory...

And this is shocking only to anti-gunners, and those people suffering from Hoplophobia...

I was going to post this earlier but thought, why.........anti gunners are too stupid to get the correlation and frankly I just want them to keep being unarmed and pray that math catches up to them.

Virginia should count all those guns bought in VA, driven up 95 and used in New York.

I wonder what their crime stats would look like then?

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP7bc922f ... e076e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2011, 90 percent of the 2,433 traceable guns used in crimes were from outside New York state. The year before, 86 percent of the 2,319 guns came from out-of-state.

"Despite all we do to keep our city safe, we are increasingly at the mercy of weak national gun laws and gun laws in other states," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "We've done what we can, but it's unfortunately very easy to carry a gun from one state to another."

Most of the guns come from 10 states, particularly Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. City officials said the states supplying illegal guns have weak gun laws.

New York's crime stats would look a lot better if people were allowed to arm themselves legally. Something about criminals being less likely to commit an armed crime if there was an actual chance that the victim might have equal firepower.

That was the point of the article.

Let's face it. Charles Schumer agrees with me. That's why he has a concealed permit of his own (nearly impossible for an average citizen to obtain in New York) and utilized an armed detail in NYC.

danefan wrote:Virginia should count all those guns bought in VA, driven up 95 and used in New York.

I wonder what their crime stats would look like then?

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP7bc922f ... e076e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2011, 90 percent of the 2,433 traceable guns used in crimes were from outside New York state. The year before, 86 percent of the 2,319 guns came from out-of-state.

"Despite all we do to keep our city safe, we are increasingly at the mercy of weak national gun laws and gun laws in other states," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "We've done what we can, but it's unfortunately very easy to carry a gun from one state to another."

Most of the guns come from 10 states, particularly Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. City officials said the states supplying illegal guns have weak gun laws.

Fuck Bloomberg. That dude would sell his own fucking mother down the river to get his anti-gun agenda rammed through.

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:Virginia should count all those guns bought in VA, driven up 95 and used in New York.

I wonder what their crime stats would look like then?

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP7bc922f ... e076e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fuck Bloomberg. That dude would sell his own fucking mother down the river to get his anti-gun agenda rammed through.

A powerless citizenry is a politician's best friend.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Fuck Bloomberg. That dude would sell his own fucking mother down the river to get his anti-gun agenda rammed through.

A powerless citizenry is a politician's best friend.

A-fucking-men.

danefan wrote:Virginia should count all those guns bought in VA, driven up 95 and used in New York.

I wonder what their crime stats would look like then?

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP7bc922f ... e076e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2011, 90 percent of the 2,433 traceable guns used in crimes were from outside New York state. The year before, 86 percent of the 2,319 guns came from out-of-state.

"Despite all we do to keep our city safe, we are increasingly at the mercy of weak national gun laws and gun laws in other states," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "We've done what we can, but it's unfortunately very easy to carry a gun from one state to another."

Most of the guns come from 10 states, particularly Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. City officials said the states supplying illegal guns have weak gun laws.

I'm all for guns and shit, but hasn't NY's violent crime rate dropped significantly since the 70s/80s, when they had (I assume) weaker gun laws?

Grizalltheway wrote:

danefan wrote:Virginia should count all those guns bought in VA, driven up 95 and used in New York.

I wonder what their crime stats would look like then?

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP7bc922f ... e076e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm all for guns and shit, but hasn't NY's violent crime rate dropped significantly since the 70s/80s, when they had (I assume) weaker gun laws?

DF can probably tell you better than I, but I believe NYC's drop in crime was mostly due to more policing and heavier sentences.

This just in:
All statistics show (since 1992) violent crime is down across the board
Murder / Rape / Robbery / Assault = all down

Only the Republican brain trust Heritage Foundation continually miss-reports (over and over again)
That violent crime is on the rise / which is a complete fabrication / in short / a lie
Gotta keep the fear machine pumping...

This is not "secret data" it's available from the FBI annually
Violent crime is steadily on the decline since 1992

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I was going to post this earlier but thought, why.........anti gunners are too stupid to get the correlation and frankly I just want them to keep being unarmed and pray that math catches up to them.

speaking of too stupid, correlation is not cause and effect.

Chizzang wrote:This just in:
All statistics show (since 1992) violent crime is down across the board
Murder / Rape / Robbery / Assault = all down

Only the Republican brain trust Heritage Foundation continually miss-reports (over and over again)
That violent crime is on the rise / which is a complete fabrication / in short / a lie
Gotta keep the fear machine pumping...

This is not "secret data" it's available from the FBI annually
Violent crime is steadily on the decline since 1992

Pretty much right in line with the decrease in crack use.

But there are also a 100 other things that can be correlated to the crime rate.

Guns
Drugs
Economics
Crack down on petty crime
Availability of air conditioning
Internet Porn

danefan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:This just in:
All statistics show (since 1992) violent crime is down across the board
Murder / Rape / Robbery / Assault = all down

Only the Republican brain trust Heritage Foundation continually miss-reports (over and over again)
That violent crime is on the rise / which is a complete fabrication / in short / a lie
Gotta keep the fear machine pumping...

This is not "secret data" it's available from the FBI annually
Violent crime is steadily on the decline since 1992

Pretty much right in line with the decrease in crack use.

But there are also a 100 other things that can be correlated to the crime rate.

Guns
Drugs
Economics
Crack down on petty crime
Availability of air conditioning
Internet Porn

Chizzang threw out 1992 as a turning point.

Another "thing" you may want to consider is that that was about the point in time that many states began enacting laws that allowed concealed carry. In the early 90s, a majority of US states were still no-issue or may-issue states. Now only 9 + DC are (CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI). The other 41 states have moved to being shall-issue CCW permit states, and if you don't think that's a deterrent to crime, you're just kidding yourself.

93henfan wrote: ........you're just kidding yourself.

I tried to kid myself yesterday afternoon.

I was not amused.

93henfan wrote:

danefan wrote:

Pretty much right in line with the decrease in crack use.

But there are also a 100 other things that can be correlated to the crime rate.

Guns
Drugs
Economics
Crack down on petty crime
Availability of air conditioning
Internet Porn

Chizzang threw out 1992 as a turning point.

Another "thing" you may want to consider is that that was about the point in time that many states began enacting laws that allowed concealed carry. In the early 90s, a majority of US states were still no-issue or may-issue states. Now only 9 + DC are (CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI). The other 41 states have moved to being shall-issue CCW permit states, and if you don't think that's a deterrent to crime, you're just kidding yourself.

You're giving criminals too much credit.

I'm sure the threat of gun ownership has had a direct impact in some communities. But trying to generalize the impact of gun ownership on the crime rate across the entire country is impossible.

Take the South Side of Chicago....most of that crime is between illegally armed individuals. Do you think relaxing gun laws will do anything to help at?

The "victims" and the "criminals" are all armed. Crime is through the roof.

Being armed might alter the end-result of a crime (good enough for me in regards to gun rights), but I'm still skeptical that criminals care or even think about the fact that someone might be armed. I work with alternative students and I've seen them attack a cop armed with a baton, taser, and gun. Criminals are opportunistic and I think the majority will attempt the crime regardless - most live in the moment.

danefan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Chizzang threw out 1992 as a turning point.

Another "thing" you may want to consider is that that was about the point in time that many states began enacting laws that allowed concealed carry. In the early 90s, a majority of US states were still no-issue or may-issue states. Now only 9 + DC are (CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI). The other 41 states have moved to being shall-issue CCW permit states, and if you don't think that's a deterrent to crime, you're just kidding yourself.

You're giving criminals too much credit.

I'm sure the threat of gun ownership has had a direct impact in some communities. But trying to generalize the impact of gun ownership on the crime rate across the entire country is impossible.

Take the South Side of Chicago....most of that crime is between illegally armed individuals. Do you think relaxing gun laws will do anything to help at?

The "victims" and the "criminals" are all armed. Crime is through the roof.

There is some truth to that, but illegally-armed people are criminals and have often chosen a path (drug dealing, pimping, burglary) that is going to put them in harm's way. I am more concerned with crime against innocent victims.

If they are allowed to defend themselves, I do believe that's a deterrent. I believe that I am far more likely to be robbed in Philly or DC or New Jersey or New York, where I am not allowed to carry, than in Virginia, where a potential criminal has to weigh the options of whether or not I might have quick access to a firearm if he jumps me.

93henfan wrote:

danefan wrote:
You're giving criminals too much credit.

I'm sure the threat of gun ownership has had a direct impact in some communities. But trying to generalize the impact of gun ownership on the crime rate across the entire country is impossible.

Take the South Side of Chicago....most of that crime is between illegally armed individuals. Do you think relaxing gun laws will do anything to help at?

The "victims" and the "criminals" are all armed. Crime is through the roof.

There is some truth to that, but illegally-armed people are criminals and have often chosen a path (drug dealing, pimping, burglary) that is going to put them in harm's way. I am more concerned with crime against innocent victims.

If they are allowed to defend themselves, I do believe that's a deterrent. I believe that I am far more likely to be robbed in Philly or DC or New Jersey or New York, where I am not allowed to carry, than in Virginia, where a potential criminal has to weigh the options of whether or not I might have quick access to a firearm if he jumps me.

I think you're ignoring a very important factor in the robbery scenario - if I'm going to rob you it doesn't matter if you have a gun, it matters who gets the drop. In fact, a robber in a carry state would be much more likely to have a gun exactly because his victim would be more likely to have a gun. So really all you're doing is adding your gun to the robber's collection of firearms. I'm not against carrying but I don't think that carrying is a particularly effective deterrent to robbery. Might even be more likely to cause a robber to shoot first just in case. Maybeone could argue that a wack job is less likely to shoot up a public venue because of the fear of armed victims, but as was said above they aren't thinking that far ahead. Also think its possible that having a gun would make somebody less likely to act like a victim, which is a deterrent in itself.

houndawg wrote:

93henfan wrote:
There is some truth to that, but illegally-armed people are criminals and have often chosen a path (drug dealing, pimping, burglary) that is going to put them in harm's way. I am more concerned with crime against innocent victims.

If they are allowed to defend themselves, I do believe that's a deterrent. I believe that I am far more likely to be robbed in Philly or DC or New Jersey or New York, where I am not allowed to carry, than in Virginia, where a potential criminal has to weigh the options of whether or not I might have quick access to a firearm if he jumps me.

I think you're ignoring a very important factor in the robbery scenario - if I'm going to rob you it doesn't matter if you have a gun, it matters who gets the drop. In fact, a robber in a carry state would be much more likely to have a gun exactly because his victim would be more likely to have a gun. So really all you're doing is adding your gun to the robber's collection of firearms. I'm not against carrying but I don't think that carrying is a particularly effective deterrent to robbery. Might even be more likely to cause a robber to shoot first just in case. Maybeone could argue that a wack job is less likely to shoot up a public venue because of the fear of armed victims, but as was said above they aren't thinking that far ahead. Also think its possible that having a gun would make somebody less likely to act like a victim, which is a deterrent in itself.

Plausible points. The last one is of particular concern to me, and is the reason I have read several books on justifiable use of deadly force. Even though I don't think G Zimm was guilty of murder, I do think he was guilty of putting himself in a bad situation. That's the bigggest drawback to CCW: wannabes who carry. If I'm carrying, drawing the weapon and firing the weapon are the second to last and last courses of action on my mental checklist if a situation arises. I am thinking of every possible way to extricate myself from the situation before I get to those last two, unless it is in my home, in which case I have already been violated.

∞∞∞ wrote:Being armed might alter the end-result of a crime (good enough for me in regards to gun rights), but I'm still skeptical that criminals care or even think about the fact that someone might be armed. I work with alternative students and I've seen them attack a cop armed with a baton, taser, and gun. Criminals are opportunistic and I think the majority will attempt the crime regardless - most live in the moment.

I agree. Giving criminals too much credit.

93henfan wrote:

danefan wrote:
You're giving criminals too much credit.

I'm sure the threat of gun ownership has had a direct impact in some communities. But trying to generalize the impact of gun ownership on the crime rate across the entire country is impossible.

Take the South Side of Chicago....most of that crime is between illegally armed individuals. Do you think relaxing gun laws will do anything to help at?

The "victims" and the "criminals" are all armed. Crime is through the roof.

There is some truth to that, but illegally-armed people are criminals and have often chosen a path (drug dealing, pimping, burglary) that is going to put them in harm's way. I am more concerned with crime against innocent victims.

If they are allowed to defend themselves, I do believe that's a deterrent. I believe that I am far more likely to be robbed in Philly or DC or New Jersey or New York, where I am not allowed to carry, than in Virginia, where a potential criminal has to weigh the options of whether or not I might have quick access to a firearm if he jumps me.

I think you're giving petty criminals too much credit for rationale thought.

So then, if we have so many automatons running around looking to do harm without any forethought, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

We have gone circular in this thread, so there will be no resolution. I accept that.

93henfan wrote:So then, if we have so many automatons running around looking to do harm without any forethought, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

We have gone circular in this thread, so there will be no resolution. I accept that.

∞∞∞ wrote:Being armed might alter the end-result of a crime (good enough for me in regards to gun rights), but I'm still skeptical that criminals care or even think about the fact that someone might be armed. I work with alternative students and I've seen them attack a cop armed with a baton, taser, and gun. Criminals are opportunistic and I think the majority will attempt the crime regardless - most live in the moment.

Similar to the death penalty which isn't that much of a deterrence either.