Guns Because

[Hermit]

How do you explain tens of millions more handguns in the US in the last 40 years and a 49% decrease in violent crime during that period?

Ahem.

Violent crimes in the USA per 100,000 of population in 1971: 396.0
Violent crimes in the USA per 100,000 of population in 2011: 386.3

Oh and a favourite scare-bear of yours.

Rapes in the USA per 100,000 of population in 1971: 20.5
Rapes in the USA per 100,000 of population in 2011: 26.8

Your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

Whut?

Let's recapitulate: You asked: "How do you explain tens of millions more handguns in the US in the last 40 years and a 49% decrease in violent crime during that period?" I quoted facts from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program that there was not even near the drop of violent crime during that 40 year period, and in the case of rape, the rate has actually gone up.

None of the articles you quoted support your contention. They merely report a decrease in crime over a period of 20 years, and they certainly don't attribute that trend to "tens of millions more handguns in the last 40 years."

So, yes, your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

I'll stick with the Bureau of Justice Statistics over your unidentified datoid.

More guns, less crime.

More guns, less gun crime.

More guns, less crime.

Fact.

I guess a lie repeated sufficiently often becomes regarded as the truth. Isn't that what the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said? At any rate, the blips you quoted from the Bureau of Justice do not even remotely claim anything in support of what you are asserting. Until you provide data that do that, I stand by my opinion that your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

[Seth]

I guess a lie repeated sufficiently often becomes regarded as the truth. Isn't that what the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said? At any rate, the blips you quoted from the Bureau of Justice do not even remotely claim anything in support of what you are asserting. Until you provide data that do that, I stand by my opinion that your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

What part of the following is unclear?

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.

You can read and you do understand the meaning of the word "declined" don't you?

More guns, less crime.

[Hermit]

I guess a lie repeated sufficiently often becomes regarded as the truth. Isn't that what the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said? At any rate, the blips you quoted from the Bureau of Justice do not even remotely claim anything in support of what you are asserting. Until you provide data that do that, I stand by my opinion that your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

What part of the following is unclear?

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.

You can read and you do understand the meaning of the word "declined" don't you?

More guns, less crime.

Yes, firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011 and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimisations in 1993 to 467,300 victimisations in 2011, but that is over a period of 18 years, rather than the 40 year period you have mentioned. Fact is - and you steadfastly ignore it - that over that 40 year period, the incidence of violent crime per 100,000 of population has not decreased by 49%. It has decreased by less than 2.5%. Furthermore, nowhere in the articles you quoted has an increased private ownership of firearms even been mentioned as a possible reason for this vastly smaller decline in violent crime. That is why I regard your outpourings as the result of you living in a fact-free zone.

[Blind groper]

To those living in a fantasy world who think more guns means less crime.

If you think gun ownership in the USA is reducing crime, then why is it that the same reduction is happening world wide, where there are almost no guns and no gun ownership change?

What do I see? No answer? Then you are talking bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

To those living in a fantasy world who think more guns means less crime.

If you think gun ownership in the USA is reducing crime, then why is it that the same reduction is happening world wide, where there are almost no guns and no gun ownership change?

What do I see? No answer? Then you are talking bullshit.

"world-wide, where there are almost no guns..."

[Seth]

I guess a lie repeated sufficiently often becomes regarded as the truth. Isn't that what the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said? At any rate, the blips you quoted from the Bureau of Justice do not even remotely claim anything in support of what you are asserting. Until you provide data that do that, I stand by my opinion that your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

What part of the following is unclear?

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.

You can read and you do understand the meaning of the word "declined" don't you?

More guns, less crime.

Yes, firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011 and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimisations in 1993 to 467,300 victimisations in 2011, but that is over a period of 18 years, rather than the 40 year period you have mentioned. Fact is - and you steadfastly ignore it - that over that 40 year period, the incidence of violent crime per 100,000 of population has not decreased by 49%. It has decreased by less than 2.5%. Furthermore, nowhere in the articles you quoted has an increased private ownership of firearms even been mentioned as a possible reason for this vastly smaller decline in violent crime. That is why I regard your outpourings as the result of you living in a fact-free zone.

Is that 18 year span to be found within a 40 year span? I didn't say it dropped uniformly each year. Crime is down. That's a fact.

I didn't post anything about gun ownership because it's an obvious fact.

But here you go:

Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2010 - Statistical Tables

Allina D. Lee, BJS, Ronald J. Frandsen, Gene A. Lauver, Dave Naglich, REJIS

February 12, 2013 NCJ 238226

Describes background checks for firearm transfers conducted in 2010. These statistical tables provide the estimated number of firearm applications and denials since the inception of the Brady Act in 1994 through 2010. The tables include estimates of applications and denials conducted by each type of approval system from 1999 to 2010. The tables also provide data on reasons for denial, appeals of denied applications, arrests for falsified applications and outstanding warrants, and counts of records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index of persons prohibited under federal law from receiving or possessing a firearm. The Bureau of Justice Statistics' Firearm Inquiry Statistics program annually surveys state and local checking agencies to collect information on firearm background check activity and combines this information with FBI NICS transaction data.

Highlights:

Since the inception of the Brady Act, over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000).
Among the 21 state agencies that reported reasons for denial, a felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason to deny an application in 2010 (31%). A state law prohibition (16%) was the second most common reason (excluding other prohibitions).

Publication Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2003: Trends for the Permanent Brady Period, 1999-2003

Devon B. Adams, Michael Bowling, Ph.D., Matthew J. Hickman, Ph.D., Gene Lauver

September 23, 2004 NCJ 204428

Describes background checks for firearm transfers conducted in 2003, and presents trends during the Permanent Brady Period (1999-2003). This annual report provides the number of applications checked by State points of contact, estimates of the number of applications checked by local agencies, the number of applications rejected, the reasons for rejection, and estimates of applications and rejections conducted by each type of approval system. It also provides information about appeals of rejected applications and arrests for falsified applications. The Firearm Inquiry Statistics Program, managed under the National Criminal History Improvement Program, is an ongoing data collection effort focusing on the procedures and statistics related to background checks in selected States.

Highlights:

State and local agencies conducted background checks on about half of the applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2003, while the FBI was responsible for the remainder.
In 2003, 126,000 (1.6%) of approximately 7,831,000 applications for firearms transfers or permits were rejected by the FBI or State and local agencies.
An estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to ATF and checking agencies reporting arrests to FIST.

Gun Sales In 2012 Set Record, FBI Data Indicates

Posted: 12/14/2012 6:45 pm EST | Updated: 12/18/2012 12:08 pm EST
Share on Google+
Gun Industry America
1,155
224
7
153
7213
Get Business Alerts:
Sign Up
Follow:
Video, Business News, Gun Industry, Gun Industry America, Gun Industry Boom, Gun Industry Obama, Gun Industry Sales, Gun Industry Stocks, Newton Shooting, Business News

The gun business in the United States is thriving and the tragic events on Friday in Newtown, Conn. may likely do little to quell Americans' spending on munitions.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded more than 16.8 million background checks for gun purchases in 2012, the highest number since the FBI began publishing the data in 1998. A record number of requests for background checks for gun buyers went through on Black Friday in November, the FBI reported at the time, in part because of fears that President Barack Obama and other lawmakers would tighten gun control laws.

The FBI does not track actual firearms purchases, and the number of weapons sold could be even higher than the number of background-check calls because customers can purchase multiple guns, USA Today reports.

If the past is any indication, Friday's mass shooting will do little to slow the pace of sales. It’s not uncommon for gun sales to see a boost following a mass shooting, as buyers head to stores mostly motivated by self-defense, according to the Christian Science Monitor. In the first four days following the July mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., gun sales increased 41 percent, the CSM reported.

On Friday some pro-gun groups took to Twitter urging people to buy guns: Conservative pundit Ann Coulter tweeted "more guns, less mass shootings" in the wake of the event.

Gun control proponents outraged by Friday's events called for action. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Obama to take "immediate action" to tighten gun laws.

Though the industry is doing well, overall gun ownership is actually on the decline, according to political scientist Patrick Egan. Firearm ownership is at near all-time lows.

Still, the firearms industry had a $31.8 billion impact on the economy last year, up from $27.8 billion in 2009, due to job creation, sales and taxes levied on guns, according to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The firearms industry didn't see much dropoff in the recession that hit so many other U.S. businesses. Gun industry-related jobs grew by more than 30 percent between 2008 and 2011, according to NSSF data cited by Forbes.

Demand for firearms was “robust” in 2008 and through the downturn, according to National Shooting Sports Foundation statements cited by MarketWatch. In addition, the Foundation noted in 2011 that many indicators showed that the industry “continues to thrive in a down economy,” according to Marketwatch.

Guns in America, a Statistical Look
Email 31 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

By ABC News
Aug 25, 2012 2:04pm
gty guns on rack jt 120825 wblog Guns in America, a Statistical Look

(Getty Images)

There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1) . Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

For comparison, here are some numbers of other ubiquitous elements of American life:

Gas Stations in the U.S. (2011): 143,839 (source TD LINX/Nielsen via National Associations of Convenience Stores, Association for Convenience for Convenience and Fuel Retailing)
Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source: Food Marketing Institute)
McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. (2011): 14,098 (Source: McDonald’s Corporation Annual Report 2011)

But unlike burgers, gas and groceries, firearms are not a perishable or consumable product. They don’t go away. A rifle used in the 2009 Holocaust Museum shooting was nearly 100 years old, but was still an effective murder weapon.

According to ATF reports, in 2010 there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95 percent) for the U.S. market. An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United States.

Right now if you don’t have a criminal record and you have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, you can buy guns. In 2010 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran 16,454,951 background checks for firearms purchases. Only a small number of these purchases (78,211 or 0.48 percent) were denied.

Since 1998 there have been more than 151 million NICS checks. Each check doesn’t necessarily represent a single gun, just a single transaction. If one were to purchase two guns at one time, there would only be one check.

Violent crime rates have been falling in recent years, but the number of people killed by firearms in the United States remains high. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.

More guns, less crime.

[Collector1337]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... -laws?lite

"Majority of Colorado sheriffs file suit against new gun laws"

[Blind groper]

Seth

Why is it that you keep repeating the same irrelevant points when I have shown you why they are irrelevant?

Certainly the number of background checks have increased. That means more new guns are being sold. But at the same time, there have been two separate surveys, nationwide, that show the number of gun owners is reducing. At the same time, there are a lot of reports that gun nutters are getting more anxious about possible increases in gun control and are buying more guns. You have admitted doing so yourself.

So, in short, there are more guns, but in fewer hands. Fewer gun owners, but those gun enthusiasts on average own more guns.

Since one gun nutter will likely ever only commit one murder (mass killings are rare - about 20 per year compared to nearly 10,000 individual gun murders per year), the number of guns that gun nut case owns is irrelevant in terms of how many murders are committed. If there are more gun owners, there will be more murders. Fewer gun owners means fewer murders.

Guess what? Surveys show fewer gun owners, and statistics show fewer gun murders.

[Collector1337]

Seth

Why is it that you keep repeating the same irrelevant points when I have shown you why they are irrelevant?

Certainly the number of background checks have increased. That means more new guns are being sold. But at the same time, there have been two separate surveys, nationwide, that show the number of gun owners is reducing. At the same time, there are a lot of reports that gun nutters are getting more anxious about possible increases in gun control and are buying more guns. You have admitted doing so yourself.

So, in short, there are more guns, but in fewer hands. Fewer gun owners, but those gun enthusiasts on average own more guns.

Since one gun nutter will likely ever only commit one murder (mass killings are rare - about 20 per year compared to nearly 10,000 individual gun murders per year), the number of guns that gun nut case owns is irrelevant in terms of how many murders are committed. If there are more gun owners, there will be more murders. Fewer gun owners means fewer murders.

Guess what? Surveys show fewer gun owners, and statistics show fewer gun murders.

You are so full of shit.

Reports show gun homicides down steeply since 1993 peak, further fueling Congress’ gun debate

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their 1993 peak, a pair of reports released Tuesday showed, adding fuel to Congress’ battle over whether to tighten restrictions on firearms.

A study released Tuesday by the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That’s a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country’s growing population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found that non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by roughly 70 percent over that period. The Justice report said the number of such crimes diminished from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

But perhaps because of the intense publicity generated by recent mass shootings such as the December massacre of 20 school children and six educators in Newtown, Conn., the public seems to have barely noticed the reductions in gun violence, the Pew study shows.

The non-partisan group said a poll it conducted in March showed that 56 percent of people believe the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago. Only 12 percent said they think the number of gun crimes is lower, while the rest said they think it remained the same or didn’t know.

The data was released three weeks after the Senate rejected an effort by gun control supporters to broaden the requirement for federal background checks for more firearms purchases. Senate Democratic leaders have pledged to hold that vote again, perhaps by early summer, and gun control advocates have been raising public pressure on senators who voted “no” in hopes they will change their minds.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Senate Republican leadership, said the figures show that gun control groups have emphasized the wrong approach to controlling firearms violence.

“That’s what many of us have argued all along, is that focusing just exclusively on the guns is not the correct approach to this,” he said. Thune said lawmakers should aim instead at preventing future mass killings by improving mental health programs and increasing the records that state governments send the federal background check system so the checks can do a better job of keeping guns from people who shouldn’t have them.

Gun control supporters said the numbers have declined but remain too high, with U.S. rates of gun killings remaining far greater than most other nations.

“None of these studies change the impact of Newtown and other recent mass slayings, showing the need for common sense measures” restricting guns, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.

The Justice study said that in 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides were committed with firearms, mainly handguns.

The trend in firearm-related homicides is part of a broad nationwide decline in violent crime over past two decades, including incidents not involving firearms.

Both studies concluded that most of the decline in gun homicide rates occurred in the 1990s. The Justice report found that since 1999, the number of firearm homicides increased from 10,828 to 12,791 in 2006 before declining to 11,101 in 2011.

Though researchers differ over all the reasons why gun violence has declined, many attribute it to the aging of the baby boomers. The crime rate was higher in the 1960s and 1970s when many in that large generation were teenagers, an age when higher proportions of people commit crimes.

Crime rates dropped in the early 1980s as that generation aged, rose in the latter part of that decade as the use of crack cocaine grew, then dropped again in the 1990s as the nation’s economy improved, analysts say.

The Pew report also said:

—The gun suicide rate is 6.3 per 100,000 people, and there were 19,392 suicides by firearms in 2010. That rate has declined more slowly than the firearms homicide rate, with 6 in 10 gun deaths now suicides, the highest proportion since at least 1981.

—More than 8 in 10 victims of gun homicides are men and boys.

—Fifty-five percent of gun homicide victims in 2010 were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.

The Pew study chiefly used federal data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey, a household survey conducted by the Census Bureau.

[Blind groper]

Collector

Your reference shows a decline in the USA in murder rate.
Certainly. If you look at my last posts, you will see I have always agreed with this. However, it is a world wide phenomenon. It is not caused by more guns as Seth would try to say, because in all the other nations where murder rates have dropped, there is no increase in guns. As your reference suggests, it may be due to an aging population (which, unlike guns, is a worldwide trend, matching the worldwide drop in murders), though there may be other factors also.

However, your reference states clearly just how bad the gun violence problem is in the USA, with most murders and most suicides by hand guns. Other nations with only tiny numbers of hand guns in civilian hands have tiny numbers of hand gun murders.

Fewer hand guns means fewer hand gun murders.

[Jason]

Blah blah blah bluster...

<extraneous quote>

<extraneous quote>

Blah

<extraneous quote>

<extraneous quote>


Blah blah blah..

[Hermit]

I guess a lie repeated sufficiently often becomes regarded as the truth. Isn't that what the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said? At any rate, the blips you quoted from the Bureau of Justice do not even remotely claim anything in support of what you are asserting. Until you provide data that do that, I stand by my opinion that your ideology is plainly immune to any influence by facts.

What part of the following is unclear?

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.

You can read and you do understand the meaning of the word "declined" don't you?

More guns, less crime.

Yes, firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011 and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimisations in 1993 to 467,300 victimisations in 2011, but that is over a period of 18 years, rather than the 40 year period you have mentioned. Fact is - and you steadfastly ignore it - that over that 40 year period, the incidence of violent crime per 100,000 of population has not decreased by 49%. It has decreased by less than 2.5%. Furthermore, nowhere in the articles you quoted has an increased private ownership of firearms even been mentioned as a possible reason for this vastly smaller decline in violent crime. That is why I regard your outpourings as the result of you living in a fact-free zone.

Is that 18 year span to be found within a 40 year span? I didn't say it dropped uniformly each year. Crime is down. That's a fact.

Yes, that 18 year span is to be found within a 40 year span. What is the relevance of that observation to your assertion that tens of millions more handguns in the US in the last 40 years lead to a 49% decrease in violent crime during that period? There is no factual support for it, Seth. Despite the tens of millions more handguns in the US in the last 40 years, violent crime has not dropped by 49% in that time span. In fact, it has not even decreased by 2.5%, and the rate of rapes has actually increased.

Come back when you have credible evidence that demolish those facts.

[Seth]

Seth

Why is it that you keep repeating the same irrelevant points when I have shown you why they are irrelevant?

Because they aren't irrelevant and you haven't shown me anything but your abysmal ignorance of course.

Certainly the number of background checks have increased. That means more new guns are being sold. But at the same time, there have been two separate surveys, nationwide, that show the number of gun owners is reducing. At the same time, there are a lot of reports that gun nutters are getting more anxious about possible increases in gun control and are buying more guns. You have admitted doing so yourself.

So, in short, there are more guns, but in fewer hands. Fewer gun owners, but those gun enthusiasts on average own more guns.

Now THAT'S irrelevant. More guns, less crime. And you have no credible evidence whether the number of persons owning guns is greater or smaller than it was because NOBODY knows the definitive answer to this...because we've set things up precisely so that the government CANNOT keep track of that. But I find the notion that the 8 million or so guns manufactured or imported last year all went to previous gun owners to be laughable.

I accounted for your factoid "reports" by explaining that in recent years, gun owners have become much more savvy and much less willing to be open and truthful with such surveys because they see how the results are abused and they rightfully fear telling some pollster who has their phone number (from which their name and address can be easily deduced by the government) how many guns they have. I lie like a rug when I get a call like that. I don't want ANYBODY to know exactly how many guns I have or where I keep them, for perfectly good and valid reasons.

This makes the factoids you cited somewhat less than reliable and/or convincing I'm afraid, which is why I reject them as both inaccurate (as the studies themselves mention as confounders) and biased. At least one such study was done (quite deliberately) only in a few low-income urban areas dominated by gang activity and isn't representative of the general population, much less analytical of the differences between urban and rural areas and even the differences within urban and suburban areas.

But none of that matters anyway.

Your claim is "more handguns, more murders."

My counter claim is "more guns, less crime."

As it happens, my statement is accurate both as applied to crime in general, violent crime in particular, and includes handgun murders, which are going DOWN, not up.

More guns, less crime.

Fact.

You lose

[Seth]

Collector

Your reference shows a decline in the USA in murder rate.
Certainly. If you look at my last posts, you will see I have always agreed with this. However, it is a world wide phenomenon. It is not caused by more guns as Seth would try to say, because in all the other nations where murder rates have dropped, there is no increase in guns. As your reference suggests, it may be due to an aging population (which, unlike guns, is a worldwide trend, matching the worldwide drop in murders), though there may be other factors also.

However, your reference states clearly just how bad the gun violence problem is in the USA, with most murders and most suicides by hand guns. Other nations with only tiny numbers of hand guns in civilian hands have tiny numbers of hand gun murders.

Fewer hand guns means fewer hand gun murders.

You are so full of shit. We produce direct evidence that your claim is false and you continue to deny it.

And the only pertinent fact is that as more and more guns enter our society, we see fewer and fewer crimes, including handgun murders. That means the overall rate of crime is trending downwards rather than upwards, which completely disproves your thesis of "fewer handguns means fewer handgun murders." It's just so obviously not true. Whatever the absolute number of handgun murders is is not really relevant to the question. Only the TREND in handgun murders with the ADDITION or SUBTRACTION of handguns is pertinent.

Now it wouldn't surprise me if there is a tipping point for the absolute number of guns in a society and who they are held by and their effect, direct or indirect, on handgun murder rates.

I think it's probably true that if you added 8 million handguns per year into the UK at this point, handgun murders would jump dramatically, but that's most likely because UK residents have been trained OUT of the practice of armed self defense, and therefore the rise in the number of guns in criminal hands would not be suppressed by the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens as it is here in the US, at least until Brits started taking up those arms for lawful self defense in substantial numbers. There's probably a critical mass of lawful handgun possession that must be reached before the deterrent effects of ubiquitous concealed carry start to have a measurable effect.

In the US, Florida started the experiment and it took a few years for society to begin exercising the new CCW right, but very little time indeed for violent crime to start dropping substantially, which speaks to the deterrent effect of the POLICY, even if few people (typical between 5 and 8 percent of the public) actually get CCW permits and carry.

This experiment has been repeated in 40 (or is it 42 now) states and each and every time shall issue CCW is enacted, very quickly after people begin getting permits the violent crime rates begin to drop substantially. Usually within a year.

Most notably and of prime importance is the fact that in NONE of those 40 states has the handgun murder rate JUMPED dramatically, and in most cases it hasn't jumped AT ALL, but has dropped after the passage of Shall Issue CCW. This proves unequivocally that the issuing of CCW permits and the carrying of concealed handguns by permitees absolutely does NOT cause an increase in handgun murders. It either radically reduces such crimes, and other violent crime, or it has NO EFFECT on handgun murders.

Therefore, once again you are proven wrong. More guns does NOT equal more handgun murders. At worst it has NO EFFECT on handgun murders and therefore, having no negative social effects, there is no need to ban the lawful carrying of concealed handguns.

In other words, you're full of shit and you lose again.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Why do you persist with bullshit?

You just said yourself that you do not know if the number of gun owners has increased or dropped. Yet, in spite of your self admitted ignorance, you are jumping to unsupported conclusions.

There is a world wide drop in violent crime. That drop is happening in the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Britain, Europe and more. All those nations (except the USA) with falling crime rates have close to zero civilian hand gun ownership. It is clear that hand gun ownership, increasing or falling, has nothing to do with the global drop in violent crime.

It is equally clear that the high level of hand gun ownership in the USA is the main reason (along with the sick gun culture) why America is the murder capital of the western world.

More hand guns means more murders.