FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition & Large Mag. Sales Soar

[MaineCWPtraining]

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963—a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.

According to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and “large” ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned—AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.

Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS’ inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008.

More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.

 

[AKman]

Reports like this need to be noted in anti 2nd states, but this report will no doubt get "lost". They will somehow remove all credibility from the FBI rendering it useless information. Oh I forgot. They have already discredited the FBI.

It has been proven through data every time. Less guns=more crime. Obama land Chicago. Case in point. Worst crime rate in the country. They choose to ignore and continue to erode our rights under the 2A.

 

[goofycj7]

Bloomberg is claiming it is his anti-gun policies making this happen.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=87832

 

[economist]

This is an NRA-ILA release, and they really need to be careful with this stuff. The right of the individual to defend his life is not subject to evidence of a negative correlation between growth rates of murders and gun sales. And a positive correlation, however much it might please the gun grabbers, similarly should be irrelevant. Let's leave the specious reasoning to the other side.

 

[06LemansC6]

Is there a link to this story?

 

[drgrant]

Gee, only more evidence showing that the rate of citizen firearm ownership has absolutely nothing to do with violent crime.

I don't think there is necessarily a clean correlation between "more guns less crime" but IMO there is a pretty clear correlation between more guns not "CAUSING" more crime, which is a bull**t notional that's been paraded around by the antis forever.


-Mike

 

[JackDaniels]

This is an NRA-ILA release, and they really need to be careful with this stuff. The right of the individual to defend his life is not subject to evidence of a negative correlation between growth rates of murders and gun sales. And a positive correlation, however much it might please the gun grabbers, similarly should be irrelevant. Let's leave the specious reasoning to the other side.

Will you provide evidence for any of this?

 

[economist]

Will you provide evidence for any of this?

I said:

This is an NRA-ILA release, and they really need to be careful with this stuff. The right of the individual to defend his life is not subject to evidence of a negative correlation between growth rates of murders and gun sales. And a positive correlation, however much it might please the gun grabbers, similarly should be irrelevant. Let's leave the specious reasoning to the other side.

Here is "evidence" that the release is from NRA-ILA. If you think natural rights require law or other "evidence" in order to confirm their existence, then I can't help you.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Bloomberg is claiming it is his anti-gun policies making this happen.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=87832

And I say pigs can fly!

 

[drgrant]

Will you provide evidence for any of this?

I think what he's referring to is the fact that it is difficult to correlate gun ownership to any reduction in crime rates. Part of the reason for this is the data collection sucks. Many defensive gun uses are not reported, among other things. Many criminal assault attempts are not even reported to the police. The picture we have of how gun ownership influences crime is, unfortunately, extremely inaccurate on the front end. There are also areas of this country with high gun ownership and high crime rates. (Parts of FL, for example. ). There is no clean correlation in this regard, so it is hard to make conclusions that are not easy to cut holes in in terms of the science behind the research.

He's also talking about the principle of natural rights and the attendant "cost of liberty" that comes with them. EG- the notional that even if it was somehow proven that guns did cause crime, that it shouldn't matter- because the rights of the individual are so important and so worth protecting, that society just needs to sack up (and shut up) and eat whatever costs exist.... which I agree with, but it's hard to convey these concepts to most people, especially the ones running around wanting the government to "do something" for them. Most have lost the sense of how important liberty should be to them as an individual- Especially in a nation founded on a core concept of "The Curse Of The Individual". The founders did not want the people to be enslaved by their government, even if that freedom has costs attached to it that the people have to absorb.

-Mike

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Gee, only more evidence showing that the rate of citizen firearm ownership has absolutely nothing to do with violent crime.

I don't think there is necessarily a clean correlation between "more guns less crime" but IMO there is a pretty clear correlation between more guns not "CAUSING" more crime, which is a bull**t notional that's been paraded around by the antis forever.


-Mike

Mike, I do think the stats show the whole gun control experiment failed. Those are over a number of years. Ask that poor Nepal guy at the Boston convenience store if complying helped him.

 

[JackDaniels]

I said:



Here is "evidence" that the release is from NRA-ILA. If you think natural rights require law or other "evidence" in order to confirm their existence, then I can't help you.

I mistook what you said for implying that there is no correlation, instead of that our rights our not subject to the correlation, if a correlation does exist.

 

[JackDaniels]

I think what he's referring to is the fact that it is difficult to correlate gun ownership to any reduction in crime rates. Part of the reason for this is the data collection sucks. Many defensive gun uses are not reported, among other things. Many criminal assault attempts are not even reported to the police. The picture we have of how gun ownership influences crime is, unfortunately, extremely inaccurate on the front end. There are also areas of this country with high gun ownership and high crime rates. (Parts of FL, for example. ). There is no clean correlation in this regard, so it is hard to make conclusions that are not easy to cut holes in in terms of the science behind the research.

He's also talking about the principle of natural rights and the attendant "cost of liberty" that comes with them. EG- the notional that even if it was somehow proven that guns did cause crime, that it shouldn't matter- because the rights of the individual are so important and so worth protecting, that society just needs to sack up (and shut up) and eat whatever costs exist.... which I agree with, but it's hard to convey these concepts to most people, especially the ones running around wanting the government to "do something" for them.

-Mike

I agree. I just didn't read his post properly.

 

[economist]

I think what he's referring to is the fact that it is difficult to correlate gun ownership to any reduction in crime rates. Part of the reason for this is the data collection sucks. Many defensive gun uses are not reported, among other things. Many criminal assault attempts are not even reported to the police. The picture we have of how gun ownership influences crime is, unfortunately, extremely inaccurate on the front end. There are also areas of this country with high gun ownership and high crime rates. (Parts of FL, for example. ). There is no clean correlation in this regard, so it is hard to make conclusions that are not easy to cut holes in in terms of the science behind the research.

He's also talking about the principle of natural rights and the attendant "cost of liberty" that comes with them. EG- the notional that even if it was somehow proven that guns did cause crime, that it shouldn't matter- because the rights of the individual are so important and so worth protecting, that society just needs to sack up (and shut up) and eat whatever costs exist.... which I agree with, but it's hard to convey these concepts to most people, especially the ones running around wanting the government to "do something" for them.

-Mike

Thanks. That's it exactly.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

NRAILA LINK TO STORY