DOJ - Latest Firearm Report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Win

The timing of the release of this report looks suspect to me, to put it mildly.


How is it suspect?? The firearm bills have hit a stand still.
 
Doesnt look any different than the reports that have been circulating for years. Are you saying that a workforce subject to furlough should defer putting out reports because of something you think is "suspect"? LOL. Arent they supposed to put out such info yearly?

Do you call a full moon on Friday the 13th suspect too?
 
Not sure what you're getting at, Win.

Suspect to who? Sure the rates have gone down, but the figures are still staggering. Both sides can use these figures pretty easily. Roughly 470,000 nonfatal firearm crimes a year isn't exactly something that can be tossed aside and disregarded. However, we should take note that going from 1.5 mil to 470k is clearly a good thing.
 
Massive decline in firearm violence. AS ownership and concealed carry has increased. Hmmm would not that published if I was pushing for restrictions on law abiding citizens.
 
Quote:
In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun
at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at
a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm
from an illegal source.


So much for the "gun show loophole"....
 
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Less gun violence is a good thing..right?


A 40% reduction in firearm homicides (and 70% reduction in non-fatal gun crime) over a 20 year period is an excellent thing. Unless you're depending on a public perception of ever increasing firearms violence in order to push for restrictions. Then it's a mixed bag.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Massive decline in firearm violence. AS ownership and concealed carry has increased. Hmmm would not that published if I was pushing for restrictions on law abiding citizens.


That massive decline was over a very long period of time, and included a duration when the Brady bans were in place.

Its a great thing no matter what, but I dont buy the correlation 100%. Especially when southern states with the most lax laws and lower population density have far higher crime and firearm violence rates. Kind of like the correlation of auto accidents to ice cream purchases...
 
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Less gun violence is a good thing..right?


Always to anyone rational, but the politics that drive these issues seldom respond to reason!

The numbers are down where folks are able to arm themselves. The only places where numbers are up is the places where guns are illegal!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Win
.....so legislation can be done on the basis of facts......

The next time that happens, will be the first time.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Less gun violence is a good thing..right?


Always to anyone rational, but the politics that drive these issues seldom respond to reason!

The numbers are down where folks are able to arm themselves. The only places where numbers are up is the places where guns are illegal!


Ant't that the truth. When were politicians ever rational about facts verse emotion.
 
Originally Posted By: salesrep
The issue is really quite simple. One side believes in the 2nd amendment and one doesn't.


My sig on other sites is: If you don't like guns, don't own one.
 
Originally Posted By: salesrep
The issue is really quite simple. One side believes in the 2nd amendment and one doesn't.


I don't believe that is the case at all. That's a misconceptIon based upon fear. Some want us disarmed, but they are few and far between. Even the most liberal folks I know still believe in DC v Heller's finding of the right to own arms and defend, and that the population should have a basic right to bear arms. Even a few moms who really took Newtown to heart don't believ that the 2nd should be removed. I may fundamentally disagree with as far as they desire to go, and I tend to argue with many often (as opposed to many who likely just spout misconceptions based upon a talking head selling polarity and advertisements), but it doesn't mean that they are wholesale anti-2nd.

But personal responsibility and protection of life are valid things to be pursued. And their angle is as valid as anybody else's.

I like reports like the DOJ one because it allows one to call a spade a spade, and discern demographic trends without being called racist or a bigot. Unfortunately those stats show some sad trends as well as some others that show just how low the true statistical chance of being in a firearm jncident are, unless you are part of certain groups.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: salesrep
Less gun violence is a good thing..right?


Always to anyone rational, but the politics that drive these issues seldom respond to reason!

The numbers are down where folks are able to arm themselves. The only places where numbers are up is the places where guns are illegal!


Really? Then how did they come up with this?

Quote:

In 2011, residents in the South (1.9 per 1,000) had higher rates of nonfatal firearm violence than those in the Northeast (1.3 per 1,000) (figure 9). Residents in the South (1.9 per 1,000), Midwest (1.7 per 1,000), and West (1.8 per 1,000) had statistically similar rates of nonfatal firearm violence.



Isn't the south, Midwest and west where the rules are more lax, and not where the huge population centers are? Last I checked, it was far easier to get a gun in SC or FL than NJ - why are those states statistically less safe? The cities aren't even as large as those in or bordering the NE states!

And btw, between urban (where rights are restricted), suburban and rural areas:

Quote:

From 1994 to 2011, the rates of nonfatal firearm violence for all three locations declined between 76% and 78%.
 
I wonder if "North East" includes DC as it is not a state? I also wonder how the southern numbers would look without New Orleans included?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
I wonder if "North East" includes DC as it is not a state? I also wonder how the southern numbers would look without New Orleans included?


Im sure it includes Philadelphia, Camden, NYC, Hartford, etc. Youre speculating over a pretty insignificant low-tier city (NO), while ignoring the VAST population with highest density (note that urban centers were far higher in terms of violence, and what is in the NE, DC or not included) in the NE?

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Break those stats down by cities please. Highest rates of gun related violence occurs in urban areas where guns are illegal!


And? See above. The stats were given specifically by rural, urban and suburban areas. The reduction in violence was within a few percentage points over the duration of the study (>70% for all, BTW) for ALL areas. By your logic, the south and west with low population density should be the safest, yet the south is about the worst. And the south is filled with nothing but second tier cities, besides Houston. The greatest urbanization is in the NE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top