Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013

[Rams]

Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013
http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

The chart above was inspired by a similar one featured by Max Ehrenfreund in his recent Wonkblog post titled “We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

Major SNIP based on advice given below:

BUT, my bottom line is that this article and the charts show that what I believe to be true is in fact true, the greater the chances are that a perpetrator has of being on the receiving end of gun violence, the less chance that perpetrator is going to get stupid and start something.

[JimmyG]

Ron, the sad thing about all of this is that no matter what the facts are, what the statistics tell us, anti's are going to argue against it dreaming up reasons why this cannot be true.  It is like trying to reason with someone about hunting deer. Why would anyone want to kill a poor innocent Bambi deer? They don't hurt anyone or cause any problems.  No matter the truth or proof, it's what they ,"feel", that is driving their reasoning.    I really try to look at both sides, but sometimes you just cannot convince  people even with the truth. 

[Rams]

Ron, the sad thing about all of this is that no matter what the facts are, what the statistics tell us, anti's are going to argue against it dreaming up reasons why this cannot be true.  It is like trying to reason with someone about hunting deer. Why would anyone want to kill a poor innocent Bambi deer? They don't hurt anyone or cause any problems.  No matter the truth or proof, it's what they ,"feel", that is driving their reasoning.    I really try to look at both sides, but sometimes you just cannot convince  people even with the truth. 

We all possess the capability to be predator or prey.   Situational awareness and preparedness to take appropriate action or response may be the difference.   Having a significant amount of military experience, I know that advisories are not normally stupid, they weigh the risks of their actions in most cases.   I can not explain the actions of crazy people but, I do believe that the greater the risk to the predator means less risk to those of us who could be the prey.

[Gryphon Rider]

I think the writer is looking at the wrong data for cause and effect.  I think the data supports that cell phone use is really the cause of the downward trend in violent crime in the USA.  As you can see, violent crime was trending upward until the early 1990's, when cell phone use started to really take hold.  As more people got cell phones, and they got more and more distracted from the triggers of their violence, and they were more able to call their friends and therapists to either vent their frustrations in a non-violent way, or to acquire tools to deal with the sources of their frustrations in a healthy way.




Cell phones, not guns, prevent crime! 

[Rams]

Well, I'd agree that cell phones are useful tools for reporting crimes and throwing at predators.   

[G-Man]

The Left doesn't respond to the individual murders that happen everyday, unless it's an individual person of color at the hands of police regardless of facts and/or outcome.  The only other time the Left responds to murder is when it's a mass murder.  We never have these discussions before, only after.  The Left blames the Right and the NRA.  The Left rails that something has to be done.  The Right declares that no law would have prevented it, names are called, and it goes away until next time.

If the Left really did care, the cities would be the safest places on earth, instead it's just the opposite. 

[Willow]

It's an interesting chart and a good write up.

Incidentally, Rams, cut and paste and subsequent posting elsewhere of large portions of a published article is technically usually illegal.  Publishers own copyright on their publications.  It's usually best to simply post a link so others can go to where it came from.

As to G Rider's claim that the reduction of violent criminal deaths was due to cell phone use, I would be interested somewhere else in hearing how that was thought out.  The lines may seem to correlate but there is no logical thinking that could reasonably tie them together.    

[Rams]

It's an interesting chart and a good write up.

Incidentally, Rams, cut and paste and subsequent posting elsewhere of large portions of a published article is technically usually illegal.  Publishers own copyright on their publications.  It's usually best to simply post a link so others can go to where it came from.

Precisely why I always try to remember to post the link, giving credit where credit is due.  
But, consider it done.    

Edited:  As far a G Rider's claim, my gut feeling is, the bigger/heavier the cell phone is, the greater fear it will strike in the predator's heart.   So, there may in fact be a correlation.  

But (unfortunately) I don't have a chart to back me up on that.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

It's an interesting chart and a good write up.

Incidentally, Rams, cut and paste and subsequent posting elsewhere of large portions of a published article is technically usually illegal.  Publishers own copyright on their publications.  It's usually best to simply post a link so others can go to where it came from.

As to G Rider's claim that the reduction of violent criminal deaths was due to cell phone use, I would be interested somewhere else in hearing how that was thought out.  The lines may seem to correlate but there is no logical thinking that could reasonably tie them together.    

I took GR's post to mean the statistics could be slanted in several ways.  Could have been the Seinfeld Show kept people laughing and happy.

[Gryphon Rider]

As to G Rider's claim that the reduction of violent criminal deaths was due to cell phone use, I would be interested somewhere else in hearing how that was thought out.  The lines may seem to correlate but there is no logical thinking that could reasonably tie them together.    

Why do you want to hear somewhere else?  What do you mean no logical thinking?  I put several seconds of deep and logical thought into the data before coming up with the undeniable cause.  Then I found a couple of charts that irrefutably proved my case.  What more could one possibly need to be convinced?

[Jess from VA]

Ron (or anyone), post the link to an article, and if there are say one or a few key sentences that are the big bullet points of the article, copy paste those few sentences as a teaser why the link should be opened and read.  And put those few sentences in quotes, italics, or change the color, so it's clear they are quotes.

It's my experience that long multiple paragraphs of copy paste to a post tend to cause people to skip them entirely, and not open the link either.  As well as be a possible copyright violation.

If an article is worth putting in a post you think people will find newsworthy or interesting, there should be just a few key sentences in that article to copy/paste, to draw people in.

For example: Woman with largest breasts on planet discovered at nudist colony would be all that is necessary to lead people to open a posted link.  

And really, if the poster opened the link himself to read the article on a trustworthy website, and got no virus/malware/adware warning on his own computer, then it should be safe to post, and to open by anybody.

[Rams]

Woman with largest breasts on planet discovered at nudist colony

OK, where's the darn link?  

Or, we could get back on topic......................

[Gryphon Rider]

Ron (or anyone), post the link to an article, and if there are say one or a few key sentences that are the big bullet points of the article, copy paste those few sentences as a teaser why the link should be opened and read.  And put those few sentences in quotes, italics, or change the color, so it's clear they are quotes.

It's my experience that long multiple paragraphs of copy paste to a post tend to cause people to skip them entirely, and not open the link either.  As well as be a possible copyright violation.

If an article is worth putting in a post you think people will find newsworthy or interesting, there should be just a few key sentences in that article to copy/paste, to draw people in.

For example: Woman with largest breasts on planet discovered at nudist colony would be all that is necessary to lead people to open a posted link.  

And really, if the poster opened the link himself to read the article on a trustworthy website, and got no virus/malware/adware warning on his own computer, then it should be safe to post, and to open by anybody.

I know what you mean.  If all there is to a new post is, "cool video", or "interesting article", then a link with no further description, I tend to move on without clicking the link.  Same goes for an undescriptive subject line on the Tech board, e.g., "tires".

HD: You're not cool enough to ride me (sorry, not gun related):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ulc0iDIhlE

[Rams]

I know what you mean.  If all there is to a new post is, "cool video", or "interesting article", then a link with no further description, I tend to move on without clicking the link.  Same goes for an undescriptive subject line on the Tech board, e.g., "tires".

Can't quite make it back to the topic huh?

[Willow]

Thank you, Ron and Jess.

I didn't mean that to sound as official VRCC policy.  There is no VRCC policy regarding cut and paste.  No one is likely to pursue a copyright infringement case but if they did it would be the VRCC that would be the target moreso than the poster.  If someone were to go after the violation it would more be related to an ax that someone had to grind.  Some years ago the VRCC was receiving a fair monthly income from google ads but the content of the boards did not match up to what google wanted to support.  They did a search and found where one of our members had posted a picture that exposed a part of the body that many would consider over the line.  The google ads were ceased as their policy prohibits doing business with "those kind of sites."

We must be careful to stay within reasonable boundaries.

[Rams]

I give up..............   

[Gryphon Rider]

I know what you mean.  If all there is to a new post is, "cool video", or "interesting article", then a link with no further description, I tend to move on without clicking the link.  Same goes for an undescriptive subject line on the Tech board, e.g., "tires".

Can't quite make it back to the topic huh?

Sorry, I'm easily distracted.  Back to the topic at hand.



It seems that the largest decline in firearm homicides occurred when Hillary Clinton resided in the White House.  Coincidence?

[RGM]

I know what you mean.  If all there is to a new post is, "cool video", or "interesting article", then a link with no further description, I tend to move on without clicking the link.  Same goes for an undescriptive subject line on the Tech board, e.g., "tires".

Can't quite make it back to the topic huh?

Sorry, I'm easily distracted.  Back to the topic at hand.



It seems that the largest decline in firearm homicides occurred when Hillary Clinton resided in the White House.  Coincidence?

Pretty poor compared to other first world countries that have much stricter gun control. That graph is nothing to be proud of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[fudgie]

How can phones prevent crime? Don't people usually only call when a crime is committed? Why call if there is no crime? 

[Jess from VA]

For accuracy and looking at criminal behavior trends, you always want to be sure any stats on gun deaths (or homicides) exclude suicide.  (Attempted) suicide may still be a crime on the books many places, but it is virtually never prosecuted, and frankly is it unrelated to violent crime.  Lots of suicides still happen with firearms though, because people rarely want to do themselves in by slow strangulation, drinking bleach or pesticide, jumping into a chipper, or using a paring knife.... for obvious reasons.  Suicide is not gun crime (even if it remains on the books). 

But you can generally count on suicide being added to gun death statistics by lefties... but then, they misrepresent, deflect, and lie for a living. 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I'm still looking for the link Jess mentioned...

[The emperor has no clothes]

For accuracy and looking at criminal behavior trends, you always want to be sure any stats on gun deaths (or homicides) exclude suicide.  (Attempted) suicide may still be a crime on the books many places, but it is virtually never prosecuted, and frankly is it unrelated to violent crime.  Lots of suicides still happen with firearms though, because people rarely want to do themselves in by slow strangulation, drinking bleach or pesticide, jumping into a chipper, or using a paring knife.... for obvious reasons.  Suicide is not gun crime (even if it remains on the books). 

But you can generally count on suicide being added to gun death statistics by lefties... but then, they misrepresent, deflect, and lie for a living. 

Even though it may not be considered a violent crime, wouldn't it still be considered a gun death ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Thank you, Ron and Jess.

I didn't mean that to sound as official VRCC policy.  There is no VRCC policy regarding cut and paste.  No one is likely to pursue a copyright infringement case but if they did it would be the VRCC that would be the target moreso than the poster.  If someone were to go after the violation it would more be related to an ax that someone had to grind.  Some years ago the VRCC was receiving a fair monthly income from google ads but the content of the boards did not match up to what google wanted to support.  They did a search and found where one of our members had posted a picture that exposed a part of the body that many would consider over the line.  The google ads were ceased as their policy prohibits doing business with "those kind of sites."

We must be careful to stay within reasonable boundaries.

Aren't those little buttons above the general and 1500 tech tabs google ads ?

[Alpha Dog]

For accuracy and looking at criminal behavior trends, you always want to be sure any stats on gun deaths (or homicides) exclude suicide.  (Attempted) suicide may still be a crime on the books many places, but it is virtually never prosecuted, and frankly is it unrelated to violent crime.  Lots of suicides still happen with firearms though, because people rarely want to do themselves in by slow strangulation, drinking bleach or pesticide, jumping into a chipper, or using a paring knife.... for obvious reasons.  Suicide is not gun crime (even if it remains on the books). 

But you can generally count on suicide being added to gun death statistics by lefties... but then, they misrepresent, deflect, and lie for a living. 

I have heard that about 2/3 of gun deaths are by suicide.  If this is the case then it can really skew any statistics.

[Willow]

Aren't those little buttons above the general and 1500 tech tabs google ads ?

Yes.  The Homepage is on a different address and not very heavily visited.  There is very little, almost none, money made there.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Aren't those little buttons above the general and 1500 tech tabs google ads ?

Yes.  The Homepage is on a different address and not very heavily visited.  There is very little, almost none, money made there.

Oh, I figured it was all one gig. I've never really understood why Google or anybody else does those to begin with. Only time I ever click on those things is by accident. But there is much about this internet thingy I don't get.