Hi /k/.
Oftentimes, in the gun ownership debate, I'm confronted by people who pull out sources from their asses on either side. Here I will provide you all with an in-depth look at the FBI's data pertaining to violent crime in the United States, especially pertaining to firearms. This isn't necessarily about gun control, but rather, the effect that this has on violent crime rates in the United States. As such this is very relevant to weapons, as we're observing the effects of firearm ownership on a large scale. In this thread, I will provide data that very effectively demonstrates that gun ownership has very little, if any, correlation with violent crime, and that variables such as population density and poverty are far better predictors of violent crime. When incorporated with the very basic argument that one should have the right to defend oneself, however, the data supports an opinion heavily in favor of private firearm ownership of all types, and all sorts of carry laws. If providing this data to someone turns them to shifting the goalposts, you probably can't reason with them, but try to remain reasonable. This is very compelling, transparent data from a very reputable source (the FBI) that does not actually benefit or suffer from policy pertaining to firearms.
First we have the following link to the FBI's analysis of violent crime rates between 1990 and 2011.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Viewing this table, one may observe a very steady decline in violent crime between the years 1992 and 2011 on the federal level. While many people would have you believe that violent crime is "on the rise", violent crimes of all types have actually been on a dramatic decline. The only reason they would argue otherwise is for supporting their agendas. In 1992, the violent crime rate was ~757 per 100,000 people; in 2011, it was ~386. Even with the introduction of the Federal Assault Weapons ban in the mid-1990s and its expiration in the early 2000s, the decline has remained fairly steady. Things are going very well, to be blunt, and will likely continue to do so. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ANYONE USING DATA ON "GUN VIOLENCE" IS CHERRYPICKING, AS ANY COMMON SENSE WOULD INDICATE THAT HIGHER AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS WOULD INCREASE THEIR USAGE IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME. We must look at violent crime as a holistic concept to understand where correlations actually lie. We will dispel the idea that firearm possession increases violent crime rates soon in this analysis.
Next we have the FBI's analysis of the implements used in violent crimes:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Please keep in mind that there are firearms used in crimes of which the types are not stated; however, this is very scientifically-valid and well-done analysis. In this analysis, we see that by far pistols make up the vast majority of firearms used in the commission of a homicide. This is contrary to the common narrative that ownership of "assault rifles" is a growing crisis in the realm of violent crime. "Assault rifles" by most people's definitions are semi-automatic rifles meeting certain cosmetic traits which have little impact on the rifle's function; the AR-15 is a commonly-cited example. They are not automatic. According to the analysis performed by the FBI, rifles actually consist a much smaller proportion of firearms used in the commission of homicides than pistols- in 2011, rifles were used in 356 commissions of homicide whereas pistols were used in 8,583 commissions of homicide. Keep in mind that an AR-15 is only a subset of the "rifle" category. Also, the rate of homicides committed with any firearm has been on a steady decline despite numerous complaints about "mass shootings". To put things in perspective, knives/cutting instruments consisted the weapons used in 1,694 commissions of homicide in 2011: this is more than twice the number of homicides committed with cutting instruments than with both rifles of all types and shotguns of all types combined. Rifles and shotguns of all kinds are essentially a non-issue: hands, fists, feet, and other "personal weapons" were used more in 2011 than both all types of shotguns and all types of rifles.
But what about handguns? To understand the issue of crimes committed with handguns, we must understand why they are so often used: they are cheap when
available, and more importantly are very easy to conceal. Numerous territories such as New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois, and the District of
Columbia have made obtaining and legally carrying them very difficult. In New Jersey, one must acquire a pistol purchase permit for each pistol one desires
to purchase. If they request the laws, you can just Google them: the overall idea is that many regions have strict laws regarding handgun ownership and
carrying. So, let's view the figures for each territory regarding violent crime rates per 100,000 people:
New Jersey: ~261
New York: ~381
California: ~396
Illinois: ~370
District of Columbia: ~1244 (yes, 1,244)
We see wide variation. New Jersey has what would be considered a relatively-low rate of violent crime, whereas the other states have 2x-5x as much violent
crime. Let us view, now, violent crime rates in states having far fewer regulations on handgun purchasing and ownership. For argument's sake, I will
include states spread out throughout the United States, just as I did in the last example. Let's use Mississippi, Idaho, Oregon, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Maine:
Mississippi: ~278
Idaho: ~212
Oregon: ~232
Louisiana: ~514
Michigan: ~427
Pennsylvania (all parts, including Philadelphia): ~314
Maine: ~127
Lurkan
We see here that there are some states with greater rates of violent crime, some with lower. You can always find states with higher rates of violent crime
in the opposite category from the one you're viewing. New Jersey, which has very strict gun laws, has 2x the violent crime of Maine (a gun-friendly state),
1/2 the violent crime of Louisiana (another gun-friendly state), and 1/4 the crime of D.C. (a very gun-unfriendly state). Trying to compare violent crime by
gun laws is fallacious: there is no reasonable correlation whatsoever in the United States that demonstrates that gun laws are affiliated with rises or
declines in violent crime. Anyone who argues otherwise after seeing the data, again, cannot be reasoned with. These data show that we must look at other
factors in order to reduce violent crime. Any policies that restrict human rights on the basis of reducing violent crime via restricting access to firearms
are passed for another agenda, as they clearly do not help or hurt the presence of violent crime in any way, shape, or form.
Finally, is the last FBI table we will be viewing:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-
2011/tables/table_16_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_by_population_group_2011.xls
Here we see that population density is strongly correlated with violent crime rates. As one enters metropolitan areas, or cities >250,000 people in size,
the rate (not number of crimes, but the rate per 100,000) of violent crime dramatically increases. From rural to suburban to metropolitan settings, there is
still a very steady increase in violent crime as population size increases. So while there isn't a correlation between strictness of gun laws and violent
crime, there is a very strong correlation between population density and violent crime.
Where does violent crime come from, then? How can we combat it? A right to self-defense is certainly a very valid option for individuals and one which
should not be inhibited, but on the large scale, we must look at the factors in big cities which affect violent crime. Namely, the presence of poverty.
Anyone who has visited any large metropolitan area knows of "slums" or "ghettos", which are the areas one avoids. In New York City, one avoids certain
neighborhoods in the Bronx district; in San Francisco, there are pockets of very violent areas where one avoids walking through at all costs. And how often
does one find wealthy citizens performing forcible rapes, burglaries, homicides, and aggravated assaults when compared to those in poverty with nothing to
lose? Poverty itself is responsible for violent crime; by reducing it, we can improve the quality of life for everyone and make the United States a more
peaceful place to be. When considering that the standard of living has improved dramatically since the 1990s (very few people starve anymore, almost
everyone has access to the same Internet with free social networking and information available on Google, food has become much cheaper thanks to advancements
in agricultural technology) it's no surprise that violent crime has been on a decline. While the means of reducing poverty are a discussion of economics
experts (and are a controversial topic of discussion), it is clear that the task of reducing general violent crime lies in the hands of those seeking to
reduce poverty. Any effort to reduce human rights by disarmament or restriction of arms in the name of reducing violent crime is ill-aimed, uninformed, and
pointless save for those lying in order to reduce the power of the people.
Sorry about the weird spacing, I wrote this in a text file and the spacing tends to transfer strangely. Anyhow, here you all go. Any questions, comments, or concerns?
>>27914219
I can get behind this. Upward mobility, enfranchisement, engagement with the larger culture, equality of opportunity, access to high quality education, etc. removes the idea that to commit crimes is the only way to improve one's lot in life.
>>27914243
As the person solely talking about violent crime rates, I'm going to have to remain neutral on this issue so that people trust the data I'm providing from the FBI.
However, I can say:
>"...the idea that to commit crimes is the only way to improve one's lot in life"
Is what should be the focus of any legislation designed to reduce violent crime.
First off, thank you. Saved the thread. Wish we would have something like this stickied.
My criticism is with the selection of random states. Consider putting in something explaining the process to avoid cherry picking critique.
>>27914328
You can literally use the link to take any states you'd like. I picked different ones with differing rates of crime in order to avoid picking a bunch of flyover states with even lower crime rates, which would have seemed to be even worse cherry-picking.
Do you want me to put this on a pastebin? I have a text file.
>>27914328
>>27914366
Oh fuck, I needed to include this URL to make it valid:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
Here are the offenses by state totals.
>>27914366
>Do you want me to put this on a pastebin? I have a text file.
That would be outstanding. Cheers, OP.
>>27914366
A pastebin would be nice, I'd save it.
>>27914387
>>27914398
Here you go:
http://pastebin.com/xqDiLnnP
I've saved it forever. I've also included the link for state-by-state analysis of violent crime rates. :) Enjoy.
Btw, a couple of guys on Facebook last night were trash talking gun owners and gun ownership in the US. So I told them I'd have some stats to explain to them why gun ownership is a non-issue. One of them was convinced after a similar explanation using these statistics, the other one ran in circles, shifted goalposts, etc. Don't be scared to end an argument with someone after presenting this to them.
I'd also recommend saving the FBI's crime stats somewhere safe. As in, saving the HTML files from your browser. Never know when it might go down for some reason, though it's less likely because stuff stays up on government sites forever.
I made a screencap for you bro.
>>27914684
Thanks, friend. I wish I had included the state-by-state analysis link in that, it'd have been perfect. The Pastebin still has it. You can also feel free to screencap the post where I include it.
Appreciate it either way.
>>27914699
Here you go.
>>27914862
Thank you. :)
>>27914442
>Don't be scared to end an argument with someone after presenting this to them.
Yeah, don't get into endless arguments with tards. They're already convinced that they're right. You'll only raise your blood pressure.
Did you really walk in here and think you could really say anything different than what we all already know?
OP is a fag
Nice post, man.
This table is my favorite reply for people talking about AWBs. It's the FBI's stats for Murder Victims by Weapon 2007–2011. I made it a few years ago because I'm too lazy to update it but it gets the point across.
>>27915642
He gave you something to copy-paste and with sources, retard, he wasn't trying to sway your belief.
>>27914148
>>27914684
This thread will probably be kill before either of you see this, but I'm going to say it any way.
Thank you based anons for creating this thread and making the cap.
OP was not a fag today.
>>27914148
>Oftentimes, in the gun ownership debate, I'm confronted by people who pull out sources from their asses on either side
do you actively walk around debating gun ownership and control with people? are you that fucking autistic?
>>27915642
Nah.
>>27917948
Appreciate it mate.
>>27917956
I try to avoid it unless someone else asks or brings it up, says something erroneous, etc. Somebody get this hothead outta here.
>>27914148
Bump for interest.
>>27919033
Thanks m8. Anyone else have interesting stats and data to share?
Posting a similar screencap. OP did his research well.
I feel like a bunch of us should get together and create a nice printable packet chock full of statistics and comparisons for when you need to argue a point with someone.
>>27920731
Thanks m8. My approach involved more saturation of transparent and available sources that had great reputability. So it's a method of citation-based demoralization before they even see the data, which also draws from the sources provided.
