21–30 of 266 posts
The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least 168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide peaked in 1993.[1] [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...
The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least 168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide peaked in 1993.[1] [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...
If you're going to talk about gun inflation, it helps to also mention human inflation.
The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least 168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide peaked in 1993.[1] [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...
1993: 257,746,103
2012: 315,809,000
= 58,062,897 more people since 1993.
So 2.8x as many guns than population increase.
Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0 Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote. Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support. That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.
> selectively choose which crime stats to promote For example, FBI homicide stats last year show 350 killed by rifles of any kind, assault or otherwise, while 750 killed by hammers. I keep waiting for the groundswell of public support for hammer control.
In a totally and completely unrelated fact, the rate of gun ownership is also down 30% since the 1980's. It's almost as if the two may have a relationship, but that certainly cannot be the case because the NRA has spent a jillion dollars telling me otherwise!
Negative correlation would be my guess[1]. Where do I get my NRA check for telling you that?
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10129
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Violent non-fatal crime victimization Why are you comparing violent non-fatal crime , to gun homicides ?
He answered your question in his second line, " . . . gun crime's falling significantly lower than crime in general." Yes, he's comparing violent non-fatal crime to gun homicides. He's making a comparison of gun homicides to general crime, and the rate of change.
The second line doesn't follow from the first as it is implied.
You can't get "gun crime is falling more slowly than crime in general" from that statistic, because "general crime" includes homicides which were removed from that statistic. It is entirely possible that if you add in homicides that overall crime is decreasing faster.
The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least 168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide peaked in 1993.[1] [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...
Possible cause and effect? That's one of the claims of the folks who promote private gun ownership.
Please keep the politics out of HN. Edit: Referring to some of the comments in this thread, not the article.
Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0 Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote. Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support. That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.
> selectively choose which crime stats to promote For example, FBI homicide stats last year show 350 killed by rifles of any kind, assault or otherwise, while 750 killed by hammers. I keep waiting for the groundswell of public support for hammer control.
Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0 Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote. Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support. That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.
> selectively choose which crime stats to promote For example, FBI homicide stats last year show 350 killed by rifles of any kind, assault or otherwise, while 750 killed by hammers. I keep waiting for the groundswell of public support for hammer control.
So that's the first gross misrepresentation that you've made.
The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control". Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year (whether homicide, suicide, or accidental).
I'm a hunter (albeit here in Canada), but just as I despise misrepresentation of facts one way, it doesn't justify gross misrepresentation the other way.