Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumConcealed Carry Laws Don't Decrease Gun Violence -- But the NRA Continues to Say the Opposite
Another, much more troublesome report was issued in January with data and conclusions that the NRA chooses to ignore. The report was based on a study of 6,300 patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center in Newark suffering from gunshot wounds between 2000 and 2011, a time when, according to the FBI-UCR data, overall violent crime in Newark dropped by 22%. Actually, the murder rate during that period increased by nearly 60%, but since we're only talking about less than 60 dead bodies lying around, we'll leave that one alone.
Getting back to the gunshot wounds, the physicians who conducted the research found that the number of patients didn't significantly change, notwithstanding the alleged drop in gun violence everywhere else, and the severity of the wounds substantially increased. Despite the fact that Level 1 trauma centers utilize the most advanced life-saving skills imaginable, the mortality rate from gunshot wounds climbed from 9% to 14%, the number of spinal cord and brain injuries nearly doubled, and the incidence of multiple bullet wounds increased from 10% to nearly 25%.
The gun lobby could (and will) ignore these numbers were it not for the fact that the national picture for the trend gunshot wounds is roughly the same as what happened in Newark. According to the CDC, the rate of intentional gun injuries per 100,000 was 17.25 in 2000 and 17.83 in 2011, holding steady nationally just like the researchers in the case of Newark's University Hospital found over the same eleven years. That being the case, how does one reconcile those numbers with the BJS report that the NRA uses to bolster its claim of such a dramatic decrease in the criminal use of guns? The BJS report shows a decline in the gun homicide rate from 7 per 100,000 to less than 4 from 1993 to 2011, and a decline in nonfatal gun victimizations from above 7 per 1,000 persons to less than 2. So who's right?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/concealed-carry-laws_b_5479055.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: this study should have been ignored ... The fact that the study focused only on one city {Newark} in New Jersey invalidates the study. Why? New Jersey was one of the few states that did not liberalize concealed carry.
Did you bother to read the whole article, Johnston?
The gun lobby could (and will) ignore these numbers were it not for the fact that the national picture for the trend gunshot wounds is roughly the same as what happened in Newark.
According to the CDC, the rate of intentional gun injuries per 100,000 was 17.25 in 2000 and 17.83 in 2011, holding steady nationally just like the researchers in the case of Newark's University Hospital found over the same eleven years. That being the case, how does one reconcile those numbers with the BJS report that the NRA uses to bolster its claim of such a dramatic decrease in the criminal use of guns? The BJS report shows a decline in the gun homicide rate from 7 per 100,000 to less than 4 from 1993 to 2011, and a decline in nonfatal gun victimizations from above 7 per 1,000 persons to less than 2. So who's right?
They're both correct except that virtually the entire decline in gun violence occurred between 1993 and 2002, while since the latter date the gun violence rate, including both fatalities and injuries, has stabilized or slightly increased. This stabilization of the number of admissions for gun violence is exactly what was reported by the medical team at University Hospital in Newark, even while the severity and cost of injuries continues to climb. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/concealed-carry-laws_b_5479055.html
Also, gun ownership rates have fallen since the early 90's, in sync with the decline in murder rates & violent crime rates.
So it's more like 'LESS GUNS, LESS CRIME & MURDER RATES'
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to {GSS} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The NRA uses the FBI's numbers. Yes I read the entire article. I would like to read the entire study because I doubt Mike the "gun guy" is explaining it very ummm well. For example:
I also would like to see the raw data from this study. MD's pretending to be criminologists while funded by Bloomberg, not something I'm going to take at face value.
Gallup has been asking do you have any guns since 1960. They report 51 percent in 1993, 34 percent in 1998, and 43 percent in 2012. There are a lot of possible reasons for that. Also, most murders and violent crimes, per capita and raw numbers, are in places where legal gun ownership is not common if possible.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's not the NRA that says this, but the FBI.
For those more inclined to believe doctors at one urban hospital and
a writer with an agenda:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls
Response to jimmy the one (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DonP
(6,185 posts)Funny how the gun control progressive's here seem to overlook who's running the FBI that they don't want to listen to.
You'd almost think their hatred of guns and gun owners over rides any political principles.
Response to DonP (Reply #2)
friendly_iconoclast This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...attempts to oust him during Fast And Furious while at the same time
allowing them to manipulate crime statistics to show murder and aggravated assault rates declining drastically over the past twenty years or so.
Or so some of our more overheated posters would have us believe...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I saw nothing that indicated a "hatred of guns and gun owners". Did I miss something?
beevul
(12,194 posts)It is crystal clear that there exists a subset of the population that hates guns.
They've been around since before Clinton was President.
Can you really say with a strait face, that there is no overlap with that subset, and the subset that demands more and more gun control, and then truly expect anyone to believe it?
You'd have better luck trying to sell Arizona oceanfront property.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)When one side starts using words like hatred, then there is little room for discussion.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its pretty clear who Don was referring to, and when he said "here" It appears he was referring to "on DU".
"When one side starts using words like hatred, then there is little room for discussion."
But "second amendment absolutists" "gun nuts" Gun humpers" "ammosexuals" and the like, are just peachy, and leave plenty of room for discussion, right?
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Because there is nothing controversial about those terms at all. Do I need a "sarcasm" tag?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Or do we have to revert to insults in every thread to prove we are not interested in civilized discussion?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Why do we never see grabbers confronting those that use such terms?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you ever read what you write?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Choice of words can derail meaningful conversation. I understand that cultural wars and not meaningful dialog motivate most anti-gun posters here but even you should understand how two faced it is to vilify gun owners on one hand and demand our cooperation on the other.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't use words like "grabbers" or "banners".
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)
The day I see so call reasonable gun controllers confront Hoyt, Jpak and the host of others that use vile broadbrush slanders against legal gun owners is the day I will take them seriously.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If pro-gun posters are responsible every time theres a school shooting, or other gun crime, why aren't you responsible every time an anti-gunner insults demeans and vilifies us?
Sauce for the goose.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The RKBA ain't social policy, one way or t'other.
It is a choice Americans take or don't take as they see fit, under the Constitution. If the practice lowers the crime rate, fine. My decision is unaffected.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's pretty simple... if the primary reason gunshot-related murder was down was that we had better medicine and faster response times (due to widespread cell phone coverage and usage), then the violent crime rate and the aggravated assault rate would stay roughly flat.
Same number of people shot, but fewer deaths (homicides) and more survivors (attempted homicides).
BUT, as we can CLEARLY see from the FBI stats (above), ALL crime indicators have been falling proportionally. The tracks are parallel, or nearly so; only one line (motor vehicle theft rate) crosses another (aggravated assault rate). Once.
With only a couple of percentage points of the population having CCW permits, and even fewer carrying on a regular basis (which, I believe, is your goal anyway), OF COURSE it's not going to have a noticeable impact on the crime levels, either raising or lowering them.
You fight hard to make owning guns, much less carrying concealed guns, a social issue, a reason to shame and shun a person, then act jaw-droppingly surprised when only a relative handful of people do so and it doesn't change anything.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Lot more about inappropriate behavior.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)What is "inappropriate" behavior?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Sometimes, as humans, we over-react to situations. Maybe we decide to carry concealed weapons everywhere we go out of unrealistic fear of our fellow humans. Carrying a weapon for sound reasons may well be appropriate. Carrying one, especially in an urban environment, just because it is a so-called right, is not. But that's for each individual to figure out for themselves.
It's called "reality testing".
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)why not in an urban environment? You are more likely to need it in the city than in rural areas.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Much more chance of collateral damage in an urban environment.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)perhaps cops should be expected to go to the range as often or more than the average "gun nut". At most a big city cop might go to the range twice a year and fire 40 rounds each time. I do at least 100 rounds every other week, and I don't carry. I went every week before I went into the military, when it was easier to get a CCW in Germany, Canada, and California than it was in Wyoming.
Statistically, cops shoot more innocents than CCW holders, and are held to a lower legal standard than a non LE. LAPD for example. Those cops probably still have their badges and guns, even though the violated department policy. Either one of us would be in jail.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Columbo was not a real cop, I know.
Fortunately, the US is not the world.
BTW, my view on cops being armed or not isn't absolute. There are times when it is wise for them to be armed and I think they should have weapons available for such occasions. But the routine carry of sidearms is not IMO, good practice.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Most of the comments I've seen regarding public carry has been directed at the action of others. No, I'm not talking about this thread but on the subject in general.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Whether that behavior is appropriate or not is ultimately up to the individual.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Inappropriate" is one half of "arbitrary and capricious".
For the other half, see "second amendment absolutists" "gun nuts" Gun humpers" "ammosexuals" and the like.
I trust you can do the math.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's your life. You decide what's appropriate or not and you live with the consequences.