Don’t Believe the Media — Gun Homicide Rates Dropped by 40% as Ownership Skyrocketed

[abiG]

Now that the numbers are in, maybe, just maybe, the anti-constitution crew can realize how wrong they have been. And maybe we can start focusing on some real issues that plague this nation and our world.



Much to the chagrin of anti-Second Amendment liberals, two changes occurred right in the middle of that dramatic decline in gun homicides: “Assault rifles” became popular, and concealed carry became commonplace.


After being largely illegal during the Clinton era, so-called “assault weapons,” of course just semi-automatic sport rifles, once again became legal. The ban on those firearms expired in 2004, and gun owners rushed to their local stores to purchase the rifles.


One look at the gun homicide chart tells the story. Firearm murders continued to decline steadily after 2004, when AR-15s became legal and popular with civilians.


There was no spike in gun murders. In fact the opposite happened: America became safer.


It’s the same situation with concealed carry permits. There was a surge in the number of “shall-issue” states in the mid 1990s, as this animated map illustrates:

The increase in civilians legally carrying concealed handguns for self-defense almost perfectly correlates with the drop in firearm homicides during the same time period. Amazing....
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/d...rates-dropped-by-40-as-ownership-skyrocketed/

 

[Falsedawn]

 

[BudKing8806]

Very on topic you are...

 

[Falsedawn]

Very on topic you are...

It absolutely 100% is, not my fault it went over your head.

 

[Zazen]

Very on topic you are...

Did that really go over your head? He made a great point

 

[nac386]

Very on topic you are...

He's making a point about cause and effect, vs correlation. His point is that simply showing that more people owned AR-15s when gun violence was at a lower rate, does not mean that more AR-15s caused gun violence to decline.

You would need to dig a whole lot deeper than that to draw any meaningful conclusions.

 

[SaiWa]

He's making a point about cause and effect, vs correlation. His point is that simply showing that more people owned AR-15s when gun violence was at a lower rate, does not mean that more AR-15s caused gun violence to decline.

You would need to dig a whole lot deeper than that to draw any meaningful conclusions.

psssh... why didn't you let @BudKing8806 think for a min.. or a year... I am sure he woulda figured it out eventually...

 

[nac386]

psssh... why didn't you let @BudKing8806 think for a min.. or a year... I am sure he woulda figured it out eventually...

These things need to be explained as quickly as possible, before it becomes a "meme" and makes millions of people more uninformed.

 

[BudKing8806]

Sorry, I forgot this is the WR. No serious discussion to see here. I'll go back to trolling all of you now.

 

[Greoric]

He's making a point about cause and effect, vs correlation. His point is that simply showing that more people owned AR-15s when gun violence was at a lower rate, does not mean that more AR-15s caused gun violence to decline.

You would need to dig a whole lot deeper than that to draw any meaningful conclusions.

However, It does indicate that there is NOT a causal link between the number of firearms and even the number of firearm homicides. @Falsedawn is smart, but just a hair too stupid to get the extrapolation.

As it is the conclusion is still out among all the literature on whether there's even a correlation between homicide rates (not just firearm homicide rates) and gun ownership... nevermind any causal linkage.... The bottom tier standard of proof a non-sociopath should advocate for prior to stripping people of their rights.

 

[Rygu]

The highest rates are usually in DNC states. Because muh diversity.

 

[Teppodama]

Now that the numbers are in, maybe, just maybe, the anti-constitution crew can realize how wrong they have been. And maybe we can start focusing on some real issues that plague this nation and our world.

Good luck with that though. No really, good luck with that

 

[nac386]

Sorry, I forgot this is the WR. No serious discussion to see here. I'll go back to trolling all of you now.

No hard feelings, I was just letting you know what he was getting at. There's various versions of what he said that have been used for many years to draw the distinction between cause and correlation. When I was in school the example was, "More ice cream sales leads to more muggings." With the point being that they are correlated by a third factor, which is summertime. The weather is nice, the days are long, people are out at night drinking, and people buy more ice cream and put themselves in more situations to be robbed. Something like that, I don't remember it exactly.

 

[BudKing8806]

These things need to be explained as quickly as possible, before it becomes a "meme" and makes millions of people more uninformed.

So you're saying that homicide rates did not go down during the same time gun ownership was increasing?

 

[nac386]

So you're saying that homicide rates did not go down during the same time gun ownership was increasing?

I am saying that presenting those things as cause and effect is misleading and dishonest without further evaluation. The dishonesty would come along with the caption, which would likely make the claim that one thing directly caused the other.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Very on topic you are...

The thing is murder rates violent crime in the US and Western World in general have been in decline since the late 80s early 90s when they peaked. They steadily rose from the 60s to the 90s I think.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis

 

[Greoric]

So you're saying that homicide rates did not go down during the same time gun ownership was increasing?

Not just general homicide rate, but specifically firearm homicide rates! That's pretty incredible when you consider firearms to be the typical weapon of choice.

 

[Greoric]

The thing is murder rates violent crime in the US and Western World in general have been in decline since the late 80s early 90s when they peaked. They steadily rose from the 60s to the 90s I think.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis

This is correct, and a leading hypothesis is by virtue of the internet.

 

[BudKing8806]

I am saying that presenting those things as cause and effect is misleading and dishonest without further evaluation. The dishonesty would come along with the caption, which would likely make the claim that one thing directly caused the other.

Well of course. There are too many variables to be able to make that sort of assumption. That goes for almost everything. I guess I didn't read the op well enough.

 

[BudKing8806]

But to everyone else busting my balls other than nac, you're on my list.