Posted by 79 at 10:10pm Jun 29 '12but i just took a look at illinois' crime stats for the same period (2000-2010 was available). you know, the only red state in your second right-to-carry graph.
here's what i saw:
(per 100,000 inhabitants - source)
violent crime:
1991 - 1,039.2
2010 - 435.2
why, that's an even bigger percentage drop than the national average!
murder:
1991 - 11.3
2010 - 5.5
forcible rape:
1991 - 40.0
2010 - 23.6
aggravated assault:
1991 - 531.8
2010 - 249.7
just tossing some stats your way. illinois doesn't just keep up with the national trend of decreasing violent crime; it beats it. it seems quite clear to me that the increase in gun ownership has very little, if anything, to do with the drop in violent crime.
but let's not be hasty. what about arizona? it went from red to green. stats?
(source - still per 100,000 inhabitants)
violent crime:
1991 - 670.7
2010 - 408.1
murder:
1991 - 7.8
2010 - 6.4
forcible rape:
1991 - 42.4
2010 - 33.9
aggravated assault:
1991 - 454.8
2010 - 259.3
decrease, yes. but nowhere near illinois. seems to me that the link, if any, between loosening gun laws and decreasing violent crime does not look good for the gun-rights people. so can we please put this to rest, and stop pretending that guns make crime go away?
The fact of the matter is that guns of all kinds have multiple legitimate uses, including sport, recreation, and defense;...
agreed.
...criminal use of guns is far and beyond the exception rather than the rule,
using most statistics, yes.
...and is easily outweighed on a daily basis by lawful gun use all over the country.
what metric are you using? per bullet? per gun? yes, of course. i won't even ask what you think a hypothetical balancing point would be (1 illegal discharge per 1,000 legal ones? 1,000,000? 100? these are the sorts of things you gloss over in your sweeping statements). you're right if that's your measurement.
but what if we're only talking about guns acquired or owned illegally? by a felon, say, or sold without a background check? i notice that you specified "criminal use". does that mean you don't think criminal possession is a problem worth worrying about, or attempting to do something about?
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
i'll leave aside the fear-mongering, and just point out that a valid question of morality was the victim here, twisted out of shape and left to die by graphical, visceral rape with conversational implicature.
the cartoon of ben frankling above is also wrong. again, it's only true if you're talking about the fear-mongering specter of rape, robbery, and violence perpetrated by someone else. in all other cases, an innocent person without a firearm is safer than an innocent person with one.
as far as the spock bit goes, i disagree wholeheartedly. guns don't have to be used in order to impinge on others' rights. now, not all gun owners use their weapons for intimidation, but quite a few do - there was a protest down in arizona about concealed-carry on university campuses, and pro-gun people showed up. they carried openly, and got in the faces of the protesters - shouting, shoving, cursing, etc. it's quite illogical to opine that they weren't deliberately using their 2nd amendment rights to impinge on others' 1st amendment rights. even though the guns weren't fired, the fear was effective. and perfectly legal, thanks to the carry laws.
just sayin'. you don't have to actually fire a weapon to harm an innocent person.
here's what i saw:
(per 100,000 inhabitants - source)
violent crime:
1991 - 1,039.2
2010 - 435.2
why, that's an even bigger percentage drop than the national average!
murder:
1991 - 11.3
2010 - 5.5
forcible rape:
1991 - 40.0
2010 - 23.6
aggravated assault:
1991 - 531.8
2010 - 249.7
just tossing some stats your way. illinois doesn't just keep up with the national trend of decreasing violent crime; it beats it. it seems quite clear to me that the increase in gun ownership has very little, if anything, to do with the drop in violent crime.
but let's not be hasty. what about arizona? it went from red to green. stats?
(source - still per 100,000 inhabitants)
violent crime:
1991 - 670.7
2010 - 408.1
murder:
1991 - 7.8
2010 - 6.4
forcible rape:
1991 - 42.4
2010 - 33.9
aggravated assault:
1991 - 454.8
2010 - 259.3
decrease, yes. but nowhere near illinois. seems to me that the link, if any, between loosening gun laws and decreasing violent crime does not look good for the gun-rights people. so can we please put this to rest, and stop pretending that guns make crime go away?
The fact of the matter is that guns of all kinds have multiple legitimate uses, including sport, recreation, and defense;...
agreed.
...criminal use of guns is far and beyond the exception rather than the rule,
using most statistics, yes.
...and is easily outweighed on a daily basis by lawful gun use all over the country.
what metric are you using? per bullet? per gun? yes, of course. i won't even ask what you think a hypothetical balancing point would be (1 illegal discharge per 1,000 legal ones? 1,000,000? 100? these are the sorts of things you gloss over in your sweeping statements). you're right if that's your measurement.
but what if we're only talking about guns acquired or owned illegally? by a felon, say, or sold without a background check? i notice that you specified "criminal use". does that mean you don't think criminal possession is a problem worth worrying about, or attempting to do something about?
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
i'll leave aside the fear-mongering, and just point out that a valid question of morality was the victim here, twisted out of shape and left to die by graphical, visceral rape with conversational implicature.
the cartoon of ben frankling above is also wrong. again, it's only true if you're talking about the fear-mongering specter of rape, robbery, and violence perpetrated by someone else. in all other cases, an innocent person without a firearm is safer than an innocent person with one.
as far as the spock bit goes, i disagree wholeheartedly. guns don't have to be used in order to impinge on others' rights. now, not all gun owners use their weapons for intimidation, but quite a few do - there was a protest down in arizona about concealed-carry on university campuses, and pro-gun people showed up. they carried openly, and got in the faces of the protesters - shouting, shoving, cursing, etc. it's quite illogical to opine that they weren't deliberately using their 2nd amendment rights to impinge on others' 1st amendment rights. even though the guns weren't fired, the fear was effective. and perfectly legal, thanks to the carry laws.
just sayin'. you don't have to actually fire a weapon to harm an innocent person.
it's a pretty picture, yes - 79