quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

However, the report of President Obama's Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence concluded:

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ~Source

It's always convenient to assume that studies with findings to your liking used appropriate measures and evaluated the data in a correct an unbiased manner. But needless to say, there are always other studies with different findings that claim to debunk the former. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and actually look for yourself. Let's take a case in point:

The State of Florida publishes crime statistics dating back to 1971. Florida became a "shall issue" concealed carry state in 1987. So we have 17 years of data before the law was passed, and 25 years of data since. In the years from 1971 to 1987 inclusive Florida's total crime rate rose 49.6%, violent crime went up 86.4%, and forcible rape offenses more than doubled.

When we compare 2012, the latest year for which data is available, to the 1987 rates we find that total crime fell by 55.1%, violent crime dropped 52.7%, and forcible rape offenses were down by 44.9%. More interestingly, attempted forcible rape plummeted 84.4%. It would seem the rapists were taking more care to choose likely to be defenseless targets.

Now, crime in the United States has been dropping since the early 90's. So the question arises as to how much (if any) of Florida's drop in crime can be credited to concealed carry and how much was due to the general trend toward lower crime rates. Or as the question is usually put, how much was due to something else? But I have to ask, why the embedded assumption that it was "something else"?

In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws, and 1 allowed unrestricted carry. By five years later, in 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had risen to 16. Five years later again, in 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 2006, 37 states had gone to "shall issue," and the number of unrestricted carry states rose to 2. Today in 2013 we have a total of 37 states with "shall issue" concealed carry, and 5 that now allow unrestricted carry.

So, there seems little basis on which to assume that our national drop in crime rates was due to "something else". Granted there are other factors involved in crime rates, and states vary. But that opens up a whole different subject. I know of nothing that tracks the overall trend as clearly and unambiguously as the spread of concealed carry.

As a closing note, the percentages above are my calculations from the data and any errors are mine alone. The sources are here:

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/f089698a-26f4-4899-9695-7c2dbc41f674/1971_fwd_sex_offenses.aspx
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/d75b9423-91ea-4704-86c8-5beb8c50fb61/1971_fwd_totalcrime.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

However, the report of President Obama's Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence concluded:

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ~Source

It's always convenient to assume that studies with findings to your liking used appropriate measures and evaluated the data in a correct an unbiased manner. But needless to say, there are always other studies with different findings that claim to debunk the former. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and actually look for yourself. Let's take a case in point:

The State of Florida publishes crime statistics dating back to 1971. Florida became a "shall issue" concealed carry state in 1987. So we have 17 years of data before the law was passed, and 25 years of data since. In the years from 1971 to 1987 inclusive Florida's total crime rate rose 49.6%, violent crime went up 86.4%, and forcible rape offenses more than doubled.

When we compare 2012, the latest year for which data is available, to the 1987 rates we find that total crime fell by 55.1%, violent crime dropped 52.7%, and forcible rape offenses were down by 44.9%. More interestingly, attempted forcible rape plummeted 84.4%. It would seem the rapists were taking more care to choose likely to be defenseless targets.

Now, crime in the United States has been dropping since the early 90's. So the question arises as to how much (if any) of Florida's drop in crime can be credited to concealed carry and how much was due to the general trend toward lower crime rates. Or as the question is usually put, how much was due to something else? But I have to ask, why the embedded assumption that it was "something else"?

In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws, and 1 allowed unrestricted carry. By five years later, in 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had risen to 16. Five years later again, in 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 2006, 37 states had gone to "shall issue," and the number of unrestricted carry states rose to 2. Today in 2013 we have a total of 37 states with "shall issue" concealed carry, and 5 that now allow unrestricted carry.

So, there seems little basis on which to assume that our national drop in crime rates was due to "something else". Granted there are other factors involved in crime rates, and states vary. But that opens up a whole different subject. I know of nothing that tracks the overall trend as clearly and unambiguously as the spread of concealed carry.

As a closing note, the percentages above are my calculations from the data and any errors are mine alone. The sources are here:

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/f089698a-26f4-4899-9695-7c2dbc41f674/1971_fwd_sex_offenses.aspx
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/d75b9423-91ea-4704-86c8-5beb8c50fb61/1971_fwd_totalcrime.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

It's always convenient to assume that studies with findings to your liking used appropriate measures and evaluated the data in a correct an unbiased manner. But needless to say, there are always other studies with different findings that claim to debunk the former. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and actually look for yourself.

quote:

Let's take a case in point:

The State of Florida publishes crime statistics dating back to 1971. Florida became a "shall issue" concealed carry state in 1987. So we have 17 years of data before the law was passed, and 25 years of data since. In the years from 1971 to 1987 inclusive Florida's total crime rate rose 49.6%, violent crime went up 86.4%, and forcible rape offenses more than doubled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Cite an actual controlled study from a reputable journal. I actually think it's beyond your ability.

Aww, stomping your feet and throwing insults? That's sooooo cute. Always a pleasure to have an intelligent conversation. Thanks so much for sparing your time.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Hum, I'm going to be silly again and discuss the last time I had a knock down offer.

I was working as a bouncer in a topless bar in Scotsdale Az. A dancer I was fucking was dancing for an Apache Indian at the table next to me. The reference to an Apache Indian is germain to the story.

So sitting at the table next to me this blond dancer I was fucking was dancing for an Apache. He, for some reason, hauled off and hit her. My reaction was immediate. I stood up and hit the Apache and knocked him over his table. Unfortunately, the cranial configuration of the Apache meant I hooked my last two knuckles on his cheek bones and shattered my hand. It was the third time I actually shattered those specific bones. But, regardless the effect was the same and I was one handed in a knock down fight.

Actually, it ended up working out well. The bar had a heavy steel front door and I was able to pick up the dude and run him head first into the steel door one handed a few times before actually throwing him outside one handed.

I then set the bones in my hand, for the third time and went outside and hauled the guy to the dumpster into which I deposited him. I don't even wonder if he woke up before the trash company came.

But the point is, it's been a long long time since I've been in a knock down situation and I'm curious what butterscotch has in mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You know, I'm a fat old man pushing 60.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273

California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results.

I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime are, from my point-of-view, a bigger issue. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy.

If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem.

I have long quoted a paper written in the late sixties / early seventies that predicted the huge crime jump we experienced and accurately predicted when it would begin the rapid drop we have seen in recent years.  This theory has recently revived but has received little attention.
Simply put it is the baby boomer's (my generation)  "fault"
It stated that a rise in crime was unavoidable due to the population bulge represented by my generation.  As you know doubt know certain age groups are more prone to crime and violence.  While the baby boomers are no worse than any other but when they hit that age they  contributed a larger portion of the total population than that age group had previously contributed.  As the baby boomers aged the crime rate began to fall.
Of course this isn't  a "sexy" explanation and politicians can't get headlines with it so it tends to be ignored.
It leaves us with boring solutions like community policing and full employment. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Dude, put your tail between your legs and slink off.

He doesn't have a tail. He doesn't even have legs. He's just a big butternut squash.



Get it?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

If you are talking about 'aging out of crime', that wasn't a theory or a prediction, it was an observation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273

California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results.

I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime are, from my point-of-view, a bigger issue. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy.

If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem.

I have long quoted a paper written in the late sixties / early seventies that predicted the huge crime jump we experienced and accurately predicted when it would begin the rapid drop we have seen in recent years.  This theory has recently revived but has received little attention.
Simply put it is the baby boomer's (my generation)  "fault"
It stated that a rise in crime was unavoidable due to the population bulge represented by my generation.  As you know doubt know certain age groups are more prone to crime and violence.  While the baby boomers are no worse than any other but when they hit that age they  contributed a larger portion of the total population than that age group had previously contributed.  As the baby boomers aged the crime rate began to fall.
Of course this isn't  a "sexy" explanation and politicians can't get headlines with it so it tends to be ignored.
It leaves us with boring solutions like community policing and full employment. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

If you pull a gun on somebody, that person is likely to pull out his own gun and shoot your ass.

That's soooo true. I can't tell you how many times it's happened to me. I pull a gun on somebody, he makes a move for something, I shake my finger at him sternly, and I still end up getting shot. I just can't figure it out. What am I doing wrong?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

BY THE WAY, IS PUBMED TOO FUCKING POLITICALLY BIASED FOR YOU?

Please don't shout. People won't take you seriously. It's undignified.

K.