If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   Since 2006 Virginia has had a 73% increase in guns sales and the violent crime rate exploded...Wait. Sorry... I mean dropped 27% and gun violence down 26% and over all crime down. So Brady Campaign lets ban guns to make things safer   (hotair.com) divider line 30
    More: Interesting, Brady Campaign, Richmond Times-Dispatch, population growths, vcu, negative relationship, Ice T  
•       •       •

1358 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 11:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-27 09:13:30 PM  
8 votes:
"It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.
2012-11-27 09:35:09 PM  
6 votes:
Correlation, causation, statisticals, etc.

But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore? It seems like conservatives are just screaming at a wall here, since I don't hear any liberals who have not personally been shot by a crazed gunman coming out against responsible gun ownership.

/member of my local Liberal Gun Club
2012-11-27 09:27:49 PM  
4 votes:
What is the violent crime rate in other states? What about the rate of gun ownership? This is not enough data to reach the conclusions that the entire internet has apparently reached.
2012-11-28 03:08:54 AM  
3 votes:
xtupload.com

If liberals just forgot about this stupid gun control wedge issue (their version of the right wing's flag burning amendment) and embraced firearms they would rob the GOP of one of the only remaining legs they have to stand on. It would be like kicking them in the nuts.

Think of the trolling opportunities for Obama. If he went out duck hunting one weekend with someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary, and got plenty of pictures of them carrying a shotgun, wearing his neon vest, camo, and shiatkickers with some dead ducks slung over his shoulder, he would have the GOP passing anti-gun laws within days. 

/pro-gun liberal
2012-11-27 09:54:04 PM  
3 votes:
Firstly, gun purchases don't directly correlate with gun ownership - every firearm a particular individual owns after the first increases gun sales but not the number of gun owners. Also, I don't think anyone claimed that total gun ownership corresponds with violent crime - even those who believe firearm restrictions would reduce violent crime aren't making that argument.

Basically, consider the population broken into three groups:

A) Those who would commit premeditated violent crimes,
B) Those who might commit a violent crime in the heat of the moment under some circumstances,
C) Those who would not commit a violent crime.

Of these, the largest group by far is group C, but for them, it doesn't matter if gun ownership is 0% or 100% - they won't commit violent crimes no matter what. This presents a large confounding variable because they make up a large portion of gun owners and gun purchasers, when by definition they will not affect the violent crime rate.

I'm also assuming that people in group A would commit violent crimes irrespective of access to firearms - if you're so bent on committing a crime that you'll plan it out in advance and do it in cold blood, you'd find a way to commit a violent crime no matter what method you used.

The real questions for gun control advocates or opponents to focus on are threefold:
1. Does having access to firearms increase the number of victims or severity of injury for victims of group A or B?
2. Does having access to firearms make it more likely that those in group B will commit a crime at all? That is, does the availability of a gun factor into whether or not they choose to commit a crime?
3. Could firearm restrictions actually effectively reduce the gun ownership by those in groups A and B?
2012-11-28 12:41:55 AM  
2 votes:
Jesus Christ - I actually used to sort of like guns a little bit before I started hanging out here. Now, I'm constantly reminded that most of you compulsively masturbate over your Cabela's catalog, using bore oil for lube, and frankly I'm so disgusted that I'm finally ready to ban the goddamn things.
2012-11-28 12:32:08 AM  
2 votes:
Ooo, looky what I found! It appears that median household income in Virginia has been dropping at about half the national average. And since gun violence, and violent crime in general, is linked to income levels, that perfectly explains away the fact that gun crime is down by about 2x the national average in VA. In fact, I will make a bold assertion that if you look at gun violence in any state and compare it to the national average, you will find that the relationship almost perfectly matches the relationship between median household income in that state compared to the country.

And that took me like 5 minutes to find, so TFA has no excuses except that it was written by partisan hacks with no interest in the truth.
2012-11-28 12:20:01 AM  
2 votes:
Has anyone pointed out yet that since 2006, Virginia has become significantly more blue? Obviously, Republicans cause gun violence!

or

Since 2006, Virginia has experienced a noticeable rise in average temperatures. Global warming clearly leads to less gun violence.

or

Since 2006, the number of IT workers in Virginia has climbed steadily while gun crimes have gone down. Clearly, more basement-dwelling nerds leads to a safer society.

or

Ok, you get the point. All this proves is that either increased number of privately owed guns do not lead to an increase in gun violence (which makes sense, since most gun owner are not killers/shooters, and since someone who is likely to attack someone with a gun only needs one. Giving him two or three isn't going to make him more prone to using them); OR that increased number of guns purchased DO cause an increase in the amount of gun violence, but other factors outweigh this relationship and are causing gun violence to drop despite the increased number of guns; OR that a large number of guns purchased in Virginia end up in other states.

Until the exact relationship is sussed out, this stat is (like 99% of stats) absolutely useless.
2012-11-28 12:00:54 AM  
2 votes:
I have my students pick a final project based around a controversial scientific theory and I have one group doing the "gun ownership reduces crime rates" bit next week. As many have mentioned, this is all about correlation and causation- they have lots of nice graphs showing gun ownership rates over time vs. violent crime rates.

I can draw those exact same graphs looking at violent video game sales, which have increased as crime rates have dropped. Ditto increase in porn website views. And miles flown by the average American. And ice cream sales.

I have a counter group for each that's supposed to criticize the other group. If their entire paper isn't an attack along these lines I'll be disappointed. The proposing group better be ready for it as well- I've already warned them it's coming.
2012-11-27 11:54:26 PM  
2 votes:
It's almost as if there are other factors involved, besides the ownership of guns, that would account for a drop in violent crime.
2012-11-27 10:52:16 PM  
2 votes:

thomps: "It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.


Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)
2012-11-28 11:09:39 AM  
1 votes:

jso2897: As in Japan, our aging population has meant dropping crime rates - everywhere in the industrialized West. When the Boomers die, society will trend young again - and, guess what?
In the meantime, though, we have to listen to every idiot who has a theory about crime prevention claim success. We'll have to listen to another ten-fifteen years of it, at least.
[i18.photobucket.com image 384x400]


I guess we'll also have to listen to people who think dropping crime rates have one single cause.
2012-11-28 09:10:31 AM  
1 votes:

Dimensio: You are correct. The risk of a non-firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is zero. The risk of a firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is nonzero. Dividing the latter by the former reveals that firearm owners are infinitely more likely than non-firearm owners to shoot family members.


You don't seem to understand. I'm absolutely on the side of firearm owners but you may be confused by the fact that I have little respect for them or their posturing.
2012-11-28 07:39:18 AM  
1 votes:

sno man: /a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)


population density has a lot more to do with violent crime than population alone. L.A. has 1/10th the population of Canada in about 1/20000 the land area.
2012-11-28 07:15:57 AM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Befuddled: I don't get why the pro-gunners aren't pushing for more things to keep people from committing crimes so that guns don't get blamed for high crime, basically a far better social safety net. Maybe I'm expecting too much from them.

Because there are some of us who feel that a guy who crawls though your window at night looking for electronics in your kid's bedroom is actually a criminal and not some victim of society and if only we increased funding to XYZ, then there wouldn't be any more crime.

The first question in any ethics 101 class asks people to consider if it is okay for a hungry man to steal a loaf of bread off someone else's windowsill. (The answer is no, by the way)


Sigh.

Nobody is born a criminal. It is a learned behavior. Yes, enforcement of the law is paramount, and gun ownership *can* save your life. But that doesn't mean we have to choose only one solution. Solve the root cause AND deal with the symptoms. Your way deals with the symptoms, and does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of crime.
2012-11-28 02:13:52 AM  
1 votes:

dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)


President Merkin Muffley: dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)

I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.


I checked it out, and they're actually comparable. However, they're in completely different parts of the state, and have completely different demographics.

Kennesaw median income: $61,000
Hinesville median income: $35,000
Dalton median income: $35,000

It's no coincidence that lower income areas have higher crime. To attribute this solely to guns is just dumb.
2012-11-28 01:47:05 AM  
1 votes:
It's not the guns causing the violence, it's people. Canada also has a fairly high rate of gun ownership, yet their murder rate is much lower. Given that, I'm lead to believe that it's Americans, not the guns, that are the problem
2012-11-28 01:33:21 AM  
1 votes:

BSABSVR: What is the violent crime rate in other states? What about the rate of gun ownership? This is not enough data to reach the conclusions that the entire internet has apparently reached.


This one data point, no.

However, you can find all the shiat you've just asked about with Google, and it also largely supports the zero- or negative-correlation conclusion. And by largely I mean... entirely. The entire nation has had declining gun crime along with all crime over the past 20 years or so, roughly evenly distributed. The other major gun-related thing that's happened nationally in that time frame? Essentially every state has implemented a concealed-carry program, and some states have gone open-carry.

The thing that had no noticeable impact on the downward trend? The assault weapons ban.

The relative strictness of gun control, and suppression of legal gun sales, is either actively counterproductive in preventing gun violence or has so little impact compared to other factors that if you're seriously advocating them you need to have your head examined. Thoroughly, thoroughly discredited ideas at this point. Crime is addressed by addressing education, the economy, and criminals directly, roughly in that order. Picking an arbitrary tool sometimes used in crime and arbitrarily picking on the people that use or make it has done nothing to prevent any crime, ever. This is very, very firmly established at this point.

//There is a correlation between gun ownership and gun _accidents_, that's about it.
2012-11-28 12:47:29 AM  
1 votes:
I like my guns. I think the anti-gun folks skewers the holy fark out of their numbers all the time. I also think that more gun laws is going to do nothing to prevent violent deaths. People either acquire guns illegally, or they use other weapons...

That said, until they show a statistic of how many people used their gun to prevent a crime, I'm not buying it. I can guarantee you that any researcher worth his pay can find 10 other things that correlate just as well. This is incomplete data, and as a result just as skewed as I just accused the anti-gun people of being. Not that I'm surprised, mind you.

Get better data and get back to me.
2012-11-28 12:46:52 AM  
1 votes:
The original reason for the gun purchase limitation in VA wasn't to reduce gun crime... in Virginia. It was to prevent straw purchases of handguns from ending up in NYC in the late '80s early '90s.
2012-11-28 12:32:32 AM  
1 votes:

dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)


I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.
2012-11-28 12:18:41 AM  
1 votes:
cdn.ksk.uproxx.com

Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Right retardlicans?
2012-11-28 12:13:45 AM  
1 votes:
Most places find that violent crime goes DOWN when gun laws are less strict

Real reason the left pushes gun control is that they hate white folks having guns to shoot back at minority criminals. Our politically-correct and White Guilt Liberal media will never report nor admit to this
2012-11-28 12:12:48 AM  
1 votes:
Chicago's murder rate plummeted during it's 30-year handgun ban.

Chicago's murder rate has soared with legal handguns.

For some reason conservatives don't shout about these facts.

Well, they don't shout about one of them.
2012-11-28 12:10:13 AM  
1 votes:

CanuckInCA: sno man:Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.


It's harder to murder people when your gun get's lost in your parka
2012-11-28 12:09:49 AM  
1 votes:
The issue isn't gun ownership, but with gun culture. Canada, for instance, has a lot of gun owners.but not the gun violence the US has.
2012-11-28 12:04:52 AM  
1 votes:
sno man:Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)


I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.
2012-11-27 11:59:43 PM  
1 votes:
I don't get why the pro-gunners aren't pushing for more things to keep people from committing crimes so that guns don't get blamed for high crime, basically a far better social safety net. Maybe I'm expecting too much from them.
2012-11-27 11:58:56 PM  
1 votes:

Sum Dum Gai: I'm also assuming that people in group A would commit violent crimes irrespective of access to firearms - if you're so bent on committing a crime that you'll plan it out in advance and do it in cold blood, you'd find a way to commit a violent crime no matter what method you used.


What you're not taking into account here is how a gun would compare to the other methods. It's likely the gun would cause more casualties both intentional and unintentional, especially when the crime involves shooting guns indiscriminately like a mass shooting or a drive by. The Columbine killers don't get nearly the body count with knives.
2012-11-27 09:36:43 PM  
1 votes:
Guns don't commit crime, people commit crime
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report