FBI's Crime Report Bad News for Anti-Gunners

[ericire12]

....And SC

[Fatman]

While I will submit that you can make statistics read any way you want them, the Crime Report is very specific in how a crime is committed as to type of crime to what type of weapon.  Also just as Fatman mentions, the Brady Campaign to Disarm America uses those same numbers to say that violent crime IS directly tied to the number of firearms.  Just because the greater report is contradictory to what Brady has said is irrelevant.  They take the 1% of “assault weapons” and xx% of crime committed with handguns and uses that to say that crime is due to the weapon.  They totally ignore, for the moment, that 12% are knives and 6% are bodily harm.  No it isn’t a cause and effect relationship; but the Brady people want the general public to think so. 

What the numbers DON’T say is the number of violent crimes that are not committed due to the possibility of a weapon being present.  Those statistics are not reported because we can’t know 100% the target selection criteria of a criminal.  There is documented evidence that criminals have and do break off possible crimes when presented with less than favorable conditions, including the presence or possible presence of a firearm.  That is why most burglaries are during the daylight hours while homeowners are at work.  Nobody is there to defend the property. 

Might add  I  just checked Brady's website (with my eyes squinted, a clothespin on my nose and a garlic necklace on) they had a section on CCW and how they said it was ineffective because

# The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small.  According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Centers for Disease Control, out of 29,569 Americans who died by gunfire in 2004, only 229 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.9
# More guns = more crime, or at the very least they impede reduction of the crime rate.  A 1999 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence), using FBI crime statistics, demonstrated that relaxing CCW laws may have an adverse effect on a state's crime rate.

Interesting to see the Brady Bunch only consider self defense w/ a firearm successful if you kill the criminal. And there's the more guns = more crimes statement. 

[TAB]

I'd also like to point out that in some states CCWs are public record( by name in states like OR) Some are just listed by number, and others are Can not be released by state law.   Places like AK and vermont do have CCW permits...   There are way to many "road blocks" to get any type of solid stats when it comes to CCW, or firearms in general.

As much as I would love to say that X ammount of CCW stops Y ammount of crime, its does not work that way. 

Just something to think about for all you "true beleavers"

[tt11758]

...............and Iowa.

[Hazcat]

...............and Iowa.

Where?

[Sponsor]

[CJS3]

I'd also like to point out that in some states CCWs are public record( by name in states like OR) Some are just listed by number, and others are Can not be released by state law.   Places like AK and vermont do have CCW permits...   There are way to many "road blocks" to get any type of solid stats when it comes to CCW, or firearms in general.

As much as I would love to say that X ammount of CCW stops Y ammount of crime, its does not work that way. 

Just something to think about for all you "true beleavers"

The "total" number of licenses issued are not covered by confidentuality laws, because the states that issue them must account for the money recieved for the license. So there is an available number to use in the crime stats. Besides, the origonal article only made the corrollary between the number of violent assaults (down) to the number of guns sold (up) in the states with less restrictive gun laws on the books. States with increases in violent assauts have more restrictive firearms laws.

I hate to bust your bubble, but when you step on something squishy, and it smells like s**t. You can call it anything you want, but it's still s**t.

[TAB]

Actually they could just lump it all into one lump sum with out giving exact numbers.  Some states take privicy very serious, others do not.

[tt11758]

Where?

Iowa.  You know, that place between Minnesocold and Misery.  It's not Heaven, it's Iowa.  lol

[Bulldog39]

....... and KY

[CJS3]

Actually they could just lump it all into one lump sum with out giving exact numbers.  Some states take privicy very serious, others do not.

Actually they can't. It's called book keeping or accounting. States that don't do it have financial crises. Oh wait, that's California.