Guns Because

[Hermit]

On the Hemenway finding. Yes, it is valid. He reported, in the peer reviewed journal his research findings were published in, that he used 5 judges to review the individual cases of claimed DGU's and those judges decided on the claims of "defense" that were illegal, and not true self defense.

Liar. He couldn't have done so because the vast majority of such DGUs are not recorded and therefore nobody would be able to "review" them.

That doesn't seem to have stopped you from claiming 2 million+ DGU events in the US per annum. No, I am not overly curious about what you have to say about that. I am just amused by the repeated logical somersaults, evasions and sheer falsifications of circumstance that you cannot help but continuously indulge in in your attempts to promote your primitive ideology.

[Seth]

On the Hemenway finding. Yes, it is valid. He reported, in the peer reviewed journal his research findings were published in, that he used 5 judges to review the individual cases of claimed DGU's and those judges decided on the claims of "defense" that were illegal, and not true self defense.

Liar. He couldn't have done so because the vast majority of such DGUs are not recorded and therefore nobody would be able to "review" them.

That doesn't seem to have stopped you from claiming 2 million+ DGU events in the US per annum.

Keerect! That's where Lott's research comes in. It's an estimate, and could well be a low estimate. But we do know that at least 80,000 times a year on average there are DGUs recorded by the FBI.

No, I am not overly curious about what you have to say about that. I am just amused by the repeated logical somersaults, evasions and sheer falsifications of circumstance that you cannot help but continuously indulge in in your attempts to promote your primitive ideology.

It's merely a refutation of the notion that DGUs are exceedingly rare. They aren't. As I've said, I've used my gun at least twice (that I can think of off hand as a civilian) defensively...without pulling the trigger and without reporting the non-crime to the police for obvious reasons.

Even BG is now equivocating by referring to his pet anti-gun "researcher" and his "review" of DGUs by "judges" that have deemed them to be "illegal." To accept that conclusion you first have to admit that the incidents happened, which puts paid to his, and your argument right away.

[Seth]

More hand guns =more murders.

Refuted. Tens of millions more handguns in the last 40 years in private hands, crime rate (including handgun murders) down 49 percent.

More guns, less crime, including murders.

You lose.

[Blind groper]

. As I've said, I've used my gun at least twice (that I can think of off hand as a civilian) defensively...without pulling the trigger and without reporting the non-crime to the police for obvious reasons.

And as I have said several times, I have used my voice at least twice defensively. Without pulling any trigger. Without reporting the crime to the police. Most of the time, a gun is not necessary. And a lot of guns simply means a lot of killings.

How do you explain the fact that my country has a higher level of violent crime (due to the fact that 25% of our people are from recent stone age cultures) but we have one fifth of the murders per capita?

Short answer is fewer guns. More guns, and most especially more hand guns equals more murders.

[Jason]

Of course it's just a coincidence that the USA has ever increasingly become a police state since the 80s and rapidly accelerated the process following September 11th, 2001.

That has nothing to do with reduced crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 55508.html

You gun nutters really are a joke.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course it's just a coincidence that the USA has ever increasingly become a police state since the 80s and rapidly accelerated the process following September 11th, 2001.

That has nothing to do with reduced crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 55508.html

You gun nutters really are a joke.

We've become a police state by bringing our laws more in like with European and Canadian rules of policing. Yes, that has been a problem. We aren't quite as intrusive as the UK yet, in terms of our rules, but much of the complaints people have about the Patriot Act were par for the course for European countries already, even pre-9/11. For example, in most continental European countries police need no reason to stop a person and ask for their identification and verify their citizenship. In the US, the idea of verifying citizenship -- even if the police have some sort of suspicion - is very controversial even today.

But, this is the dualism that we see all the time in relation to criticism of the US -- depending on the argument, the US is an anarcho-libertarian wonderland where anything goes and everyone canjust do as they please and even have gunfights int he streets -- or, we're a fascist regime where there really isn't any freedom at all.

[Seth]

. As I've said, I've used my gun at least twice (that I can think of off hand as a civilian) defensively...without pulling the trigger and without reporting the non-crime to the police for obvious reasons.

And as I have said several times, I have used my voice at least twice defensively. Without pulling any trigger. Without reporting the crime to the police. Most of the time, a gun is not necessary. And a lot of guns simply means a lot of killings.

I felt it was reasonable and necessary at the time to take strong deterrent action short of lethal force and that a voice command alone would not be sufficient to deter the crime I saw brewing. The situations were fluid and quickly evolving and the display of the handgun with a verbal warning prevented any crime from occurring, so there was nothing to report and I didn't want to bother with the paperwork. Been there, done that.

How do you explain the fact that my country has a higher level of violent crime (due to the fact that 25% of our people are from recent stone age cultures) but we have one fifth of the murders per capita?

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 don't care if there is a causal connection or not, what can be said with absolute scientific certainty from those two facts alone is that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does NOT CAUSE more murders or violent crime. So, even if there is no positive correlation between guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and dropping violent crime rates (which there is in my opinion) there is no undesirable NEGATIVE effect of more guns. One of the categories of crimes that has been dropping is GUN CRIMES, and indeed gun accidents, which are down more than 97% since 1904, mostly thanks to NRA education programs.

So, we PRESENTLY have a higher gun murder rate than NZ, but our overall crime rate INCLUDING gun murders, is and has been dropping steadily even with more guns in society. So, we're going in the right direction and working towards a zero murder rate and a zero violent crime rate and we're doing so while INCREASING the prevalence of firearms in our society. Since these FACTS disprove your theory of "more guns, more murders" conclusively, I ask why mess with something that's not broken? We'll get there. And we'll do so while preserving our fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms.

You lose.



Short answer is fewer guns. More guns, and most especially more hand guns equals more murders.[/quote]

[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.

[Blind groper]

As I have pointed out interminably, the drop in crime rate is international. It is happening in most countries world wide. It is happening in countries with lots of guns and in countries like mine with almost no guns. That trend is independent of rate of gun ownership.

However, what has always been true is that the countries with more hand guns, have more murders. The USA has more hand guns than any other country. Of the 24 richest nations, the USA alone has 85% of all gun murders from the 24 put together. 5 out of 6 of those gun murders are with hand guns. Anyone who refuses to see the connection is a idiot.

[Seth]

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?

Publication Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

Michael Planty, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D.

May 7, 2013 NCJ 241730

Presents trends on the number and rate of fatal and nonfatal firearm violence from 1993 to 2011. The report examines incident and victim demographic characteristics of firearm violence, including the type of firearm used; victim's race, age, and sex; and incident location. The report also examines changes over time in the percentages of nonfatal firearm crimes by injury, reporting to the police, and the use of firearms in self-defense. Information on homicide was obtained primarily from the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Vital Statistics System. Nonfatal firearm violence data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

Highlights:

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.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

Publication Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4557

Publication Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010

Janet L. Lauritsen, Ph.D., Nicole White, Ph.D., University of Missouri

December 20, 2012 NCJ 240106

Presents patterns and trends in violent crime against youth ages 12 to 17 from 1994 to 2010. The report explores overall trends in violent crime against youth and examines patterns in serious violent crime and simple assault by the demographic characteristics of the victim, the location and time of the incident, weapon involvement and injury, the victim-offender relationship, and whether police were notified. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

Highlights:

In 2010, male (14.3 victimizations per 1,000) and female (13.7 per 1,000) youth were equally likely to experience serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. In comparison, male youth (79.4 per 1,000) were nearly twice as likely as female youth (43.6 per 1,000) to experience serious violent crime in 1994.
Among racial and ethnic groups, black youth experienced the highest rates of serious violent crime in 2010. From 2002 to 2010, rates of serious violent crime declined among white (down 26%) and Hispanic (down 65%) youth, but remained the same among black youth.
From 1994 to 2010, youth living with an unmarried head of household were generally more likely than youth living with a married head of household to be victims of violent crime. During this period, the decline in serious violent crime was greater for youth in married households (down 86%) than the decline among youth in unmarried households (down 65%).
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4575

Publication Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010

Marcus Berzofsky, RTI International, Chris Krebs, RTI International, Lynn Langton, BJS Statistician, Hope Smiley-McDonald, RTI International

August 9, 2012 NCJ 238536

Presents findings, for a five-year period from 2006 to 2010, on the characteristics of crime victimizations that went unreported to police, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. The characteristics examined in this report include the type of crime, whether it involved a weapon or injury, the victim-offender relationship, and demographic characteristics of the victim. For each of the characteristics examined, the report also details victims' rationale for not reporting to the police, including beliefs that the police would not or could not help, that the crime was not important enough to report, or fear of reprisal or getting the offender into trouble. The report also examines trends from 1994 to 2010 in the types of crime not reported to the police and the reasons victimizations went unreported.

Highlights:

From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—that was not reported to police declined from 50% to 42%.
From 2006 to 2010, the highest percentages of unreported crime were among household theft (67%) and rape or sexual assault (65%) victimizations, while the lowest percentage was among motor vehicle theft (17%) victimizations.
From 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of victimizations perpetrated by someone the victim knew well (62%) went unreported to police, compared to victimizations committed by a stranger (51%).
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4393

Publication Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010

Lynn Langton

November 8, 2012 NCJ 239436

Presents findings on the theft of firearms during household burglaries and other property crimes from 2005 through 2010. The report examines the number of property crime victimizations involving the theft of one or more firearms, the number of firearms stolen each year, and the characteristics of property crimes involving stolen firearms. It presents data by the amount of loss, the percentage reported to police, the percentage of items recovered, and the characteristics of households experiencing the theft. The report also presents trends from 1994 through 2010 on the number of victimizations involving firearm theft. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

Highlights:

About 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010.
On average, firearms were stolen in an annual average of about 4% of the 2.4 million burglaries occurring each year, in 2% of the 529,200 robberies, and in less than 1% of the 13.6 million other crimes involving theft from 2005 through 2010.
From 2005 through 2010, 86% of burglaries and 75% of other property crimes involving a stolen firearm were reported to police.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4534

THE SATURDAY ESSAY
May 28, 2011

Hard Times, Fewer Crimes
The economic downturn has not led to more crime—contrary to the experts' predictions. So what explains the disconnect? Big changes in American culture, says James Q. Wilson.

Article
Comments (198)

more in Life & Culture »

smaller
Larger

facebook
twitter
google plus
linked in

Email
Print

Save ↓ More

By JAMES Q. WILSON
[CRIME4] Getty Images

A NEW YORK CITY police officer stands outside Grand Central Terminal on May 2. Policing has become more disciplined, focused and data-driven over the past two decades.

When the FBI announced last week that violent crime in the U.S. had reached a 40-year low in 2010, many criminologists were perplexed. It had been a dismal year economically, and the standard view in the field, echoed for decades by the media, is that unemployment and poverty are strongly linked to crime. The argument is straightforward: When less legal work is available, more illegal "work" takes place.

The economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, a Nobel laureate, gave the standard view its classic formulation in the 1960s. He argued that crime is a rational act, committed when the criminal's "expected utility" exceeds that of using his time and other resources in pursuit of alternative activities, such as leisure or legitimate work. Observation may appear to bear this theory out. After all, neighborhoods with elevated crime rates tend to be those where poverty and unemployment are high as well.

But there have long been difficulties with the notion that unemployment causes crime. For one thing, the 1960s, a period of rising crime, had essentially the same unemployment rate as the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period when crime fell. And during the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25%, the crime rate in many cities went down. Among the explanations offered for this puzzle is that unemployment and poverty were so common during the Great Depression that families became closer, devoted themselves to mutual support, and kept young people, who might be more inclined to criminal behavior, under constant adult supervision. These days, because many families are weaker and children are more independent, we would not see the same effect, so certain criminologists continue to suggest that a 1% increase in the unemployment rate should produce as much as a 2% increase in property-crime rates.

Yet when the recent recession struck, that didn't happen. As the national unemployment rate doubled from around 5% to nearly 10%, the property-crime rate, far from spiking, fell significantly. For 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an 8% drop in the nationwide robbery rate and a 17% reduction in the auto-theft rate from the previous year. Big-city reports show the same thing. Between 2008 and 2010, New York City experienced a 4% decline in the robbery rate and a 10% fall in the burglary rate. Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles witnessed similar declines.

Enlarge Image
PRISON
PRISON
ZUMAPRESS.com

AN INMATE in his bunk in Santa Ana, Calif. Some researchers say that higher rates of imprisonment can explain a quarter or more of the drop in crime.

Some scholars argue that the unemployment rate is too crude a measure of economic frustration to prove the connection between unemployment and crime, since it estimates only the percentage of the labor force that is looking for work and hasn't found it. But other economic indicators tell much the same story. The labor-force participation rate lets us determine the percentage of the labor force that is neither working nor looking for work—individuals who are, in effect, detached from the labor force. These people should be especially vulnerable to criminal inclinations, if the bad-economy-leads-to-crime theory holds. In 2008, though, even as crime was falling, only about half of men aged 16 to 24 (who are disproportionately likely to commit crimes) were in the labor force, down from over two-thirds in 1988, and a comparable decline took place among African-American men (who are also disproportionately likely to commit crimes).

The University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index offers another way to assess the link between the economy and crime. This measure rests on thousands of interviews asking people how their financial situations have changed over the last year, how they think the economy will do during the next year, and about their plans for buying durable goods. The index measures the way people feel, rather than the objective conditions they face. It has proved to be a very good predictor of stock-market behavior and, for a while, of the crime rate, which tended to climb when people lost confidence. When the index collapsed in 2009 and 2010, the stock market predictably went down with it—but this time, the crime rate went down, too.

So we have little reason to ascribe the recent crime decline to jobs, the labor market or consumer sentiment. The question remains: Why is the crime rate falling?

Violent Crime Rate Reduction
FBI Statistics Show Major Reduction in Violent Crime Rates


Dear friends,

Did you know that according to official FBI and U.S. Department of Justice reports, the rates of violent crime in the U.S. are now at their lowest level in 40 years? Did you know that violent crime rates of 2010 were 1/3 the rates of 1994? Other countries are experiencing a similar decline. And deaths of law enforcement officers are at their lowest in 50 years according to this Boston Globe article. What inspiring news!!! Yet I'm amazed at how little media attention this is drawing.

About three years ago, I came across a major media article stating violent crime rates were on the decline. Given all of the violence reported in the news every day, I was amazed and somewhat skeptical about this. To verify the claim, I searched for and found the FBI's webpage listing cumulative crime statistics. I was most surprised to find that not only were violent crime rates steadily declining over the last 17 years, the cumulative decline was huge! What great news!!! Yet I was also fascinated that the article I read didn't mention the inspiring extent of this decline.

So for the last few years, I've been following this topic with great interest. And the rates have continued to decline in most impressive ways. Yet as I search the news, though every year I find a few major media articles which state that crime has decreased for the year or for the last few years, I've only found one major media article which talked about violent crime being at the lowest rate in 40 years, and even that article failed to mention that the overall violent crime rate has dropped to 1/3 of what it was 17 years ago.

That one article was from the New York Times on May 23, 2011. Yet this article, too, seemed to downplay the great news with a title that was far from inspiring, "Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts." But at least this one report laid out some of the astounding statistics:

"The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years. In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year."

The author of this article used the words "appeared to be the lowest rate," and "the country appears to be safer." When this information is based on FBI statistics, why does he water down this most inspiring news by using the word "appear"? And the FBI statistics actually show that the odds of being murdered or robbed are not just "less than half," but actually one-third of what they were in the early 1990s. And according to the FBI chart, rape rates have dropped to one-sixth of what they were 20 years ago! How awesome is that!!!

To see the charts of each type of crime, both violent and non-violent, on U.S. Department of Justice websites showing almost all categories at historic lows, click here and here. If you explore these webpages, you will see that it is not just violent crime; almost all types of crime have declined more than half over the past 20 years. Note that on the webpage at the first link, charts are given for 19 categories. All but four of those 19 show dramatic declines over the last 15 to 20 years. Yet how strange that those are the first four charts listed on the page. Hmmmmm.

For statistics going back farther, two charts based on FBI data from 1960 to 2009 are available here. The first chart lists numbers of crimes, while the second gives the rates per 100,000 population. It is possible that some of the FBI statistics provided at all of these links are mistaken. But if anything, we would expect to FBI to inflate the rates in order to justify Congress giving them a bigger budget. It is not likely that they would skew the rates downward.

Here are a few articles I've collected which show the lack of reporting of this most inspiring news:

June 11, 2008: U.S. News and World Report - Crime Rates Shown to Be Falling
June 1, 2009: USA Today - FBI: U.S. crime falls, but small town violence up
May 25, 2010: San Francisco Chronicle - 2009 crime rates drop, defying recession trend
September 14, 2010: Boston Globe - Crime rate decline puzzles theorists
May 24, 2011: CBS News - FBI: Violent crime fell 5.5 percent in 2010

Notice that the USA Today headline even waters down the inspiring news by focusing on where violence is up. And the title of a New York Times article from the year 2000 is further evidence of a negative bias: "Crime Rates Fall Again, but Decline May Slow." Why aren't the media reporting this amazing reduction in crime in top headlines to inspire people?

No one seems to know why crime has been declining so steadily. One reason may be that as the baby boomers are aging, the percentage of young adults has declined. Another is that due to tougher sentencing laws, prison numbers are way up. Nearly 2.3 million Americans are now behind bars. That's about one percent of the adult population and more than any other nation, including China. And it's possible that email and the Internet are helping people to feel more connected and less likely to want to harm others. All of these factors and more may play a role in the decline.

No matter what the reason, let's celebrate this great news! At least in this one very significant way, our world is a safer place to live. Yea!!! Now please help to spread this inspiring news far and wide.

[Seth]

As I have pointed out interminably, the drop in crime rate is international. It is happening in most countries world wide. It is happening in countries with lots of guns and in countries like mine with almost no guns. That trend is independent of rate of gun ownership.

But at the same time, in the US, more and more millions of guns entered society and still the crime rate went down. More guns = less crime.

However, what has always been true is that the countries with more hand guns, have more murders. The USA has more hand guns than any other country. Of the 24 richest nations, the USA alone has 85% of all gun murders from the 24 put together. 5 out of 6 of those gun murders are with hand guns. Anyone who refuses to see the connection is a idiot.

So what? More deaths are caused by automobiles. Shall we ban them? Crime continues to drop, and gun violence continues to drop, with "Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011." Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

More guns = less crime.

You lose.

[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.

[Seth]

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.

[Rum]

Utter bilge in fact.

[Seth]

Utter bilge in fact.

We should believe you over the FBI and BJS why, exactly?