• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years

Homicide Rates USA, 1900 - 1998
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/uscentury.gif

Homicide rate in the US have decreased at roughly the same rate as that in the low gun having EU, now how did that happen? maybe it has nothing to do with guns but how the majority of the population in the western world has generally become less violent..
 
The Libs have been ignoring this fact for years.

and conservatives has completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of crime is a function of economics. the lowest homicide rates in the US the past century were seen at the height of the progressive era.

the states and county's in the US with the highest per capita and household incomes have the lowest crime rates

high income country's in the western world with the lowest rates of inequality and highest rates of social justice have the lowest crime rates and homicide rates...now imagine that?
 
and conservatives has completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of crime is a function of economics. the lowest homicide rates in the US the past century were seen at the height of the progressive era.

the states and county's in the US with the highest per capita and household incomes have the lowest crime rates

high income country's in the western world with the lowest rates of inequality and highest rates of social justice have the lowest crime rates and homicide rates...now imagine that?

The lowest homicide rate was in 1962-1963 at 4.6, in 2011 it was 4.7. So since that's basically the same rate, we also have the lowest homicide rates right now.

Statistical analysis has pointed toward the implementation of concealed carry lowering most types of crime, particularly violent crime, even though some crime, like property crime, increased slightly. The AWB clearly is insignificant since the legislation is nonsensical to begin with and only eliminates weapons that are rarely used in crimes(its max potential is low). My point is that the AWB and banning concealed carry definitely have not led to the blood bath liberals claimed it would or think it has caused.

[h=1]Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study[/h]Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - latimes.com
 
Statistical analysis has pointed toward the implementation of concealed carry lowering most types of crime, particularly violent crime, even though some crime, like property crime, increased slightly. The AWB clearly is insignificant since the legislation is nonsensical to begin with and only eliminates weapons that are rarely used in crimes(its max potential is low). My point is that the AWB and banning concealed carry definitely have not led to the blood bath liberals claimed it would or think it has caused.

statistical analysis performed by whom? and you are referring to liberal politicians and not liberal scholars why exactly do people keep listening to politicians as an credible source of information?

how does a CCW prevent murders between people that are associated when they comprise almost 70% of homicides? friend vs friend, ex bf/husband vs ex gf/wife?

there are plenty of US states with low numbers of firearms registered, CCW holders with low violent crime and homicide rates but they are also high income states.

and as I stated why do the stats in the EU show the same decrease in violent crime and homicides when they have a fraction of the number of firearms as there is in the US?

the pareto principle clearly shows that a small percentage of criminals commits the vast majority of crimes. with stiffer penalties for violent and crimes were firearms are used, 3 strikes laws, etc. would it not be expected to see a decrease in violent crimes with the rise of the prison industrial complex in the US since the 80's?
 
statistical analysis performed by whom? and you are referring to liberal politicians and not liberal scholars why exactly do people keep listening to politicians as an credible source of information?

Economist Dr. John Lott. I'm referring to a talking point commonly spouted by democrat voters and politicians. I don't think those politicians are credible...kinda the point.

how does a CCW prevent murders between people that are associated when they comprise almost 70% of homicides? friend vs friend, ex bf/husband vs ex gf/wife?

There have been multiple women who defended themselves against stalkers. Knowing the breakdown of that figure explains things a bit better. That figure doesn't mean they were buddies.

In 2010, where the victim-offender relationship was known, 37.4 percent of homicide victims were killed by an acquain*tance; 22.2 percent were killed by a stranger; 18.4 percent were killed by an intimate partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend); 15 percent were killed by a family member; and 5.5 percent were killed by a friend.[SUP]11[/SUP]Crime Victim Services (CVS)


and as I stated why do the stats in the EU show the same decrease in violent crime and homicides when they have a fraction of the number of firearms as there is in the US?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you have a link?

the pareto principle clearly shows that a small percentage of criminals commits the vast majority of crimes. with stiffer penalties for violent and crimes were firearms are used, 3 strikes laws, etc. would it not be expected to see a decrease in violent crimes with the rise of the prison industrial complex in the US since the 80's?
Not enough information. Perhaps that has helped.
 
and conservatives has completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of crime is a function of economics. the lowest homicide rates in the US the past century were seen at the height of the progressive era.

the states and county's in the US with the highest per capita and household incomes have the lowest crime rates

high income country's in the western world with the lowest rates of inequality and highest rates of social justice have the lowest crime rates and homicide rates...now imagine that?

Low crime rates are also in many countries with very low diversity, and homogeneous populations.
 
and conservatives has completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of crime is a function of economics. the lowest homicide rates in the US the past century were seen at the height of the progressive era.

the states and county's in the US with the highest per capita and household incomes have the lowest crime rates

high income country's in the western world with the lowest rates of inequality and highest rates of social justice have the lowest crime rates and homicide rates...now imagine that?

So what your saying is get rid of everyone with out a job that freeloads off the working tax payer?...good idea!!
 
Keep in mind these reported " rates" are worded by Uncle Sam to appear or sound less shocking...yes the "rate" from 1960 something post is one base point less then the current release...so that sounds very encouraging..BUT..what if it was worded in numerical value?...people would shit a brick...cause 4.6..50 yrs ago is a whole bunch of killings less then 4.7 now..

Its a tactic to make things appear safer and that there are no more or less murders in the US..it is intended to make the average citizen feel safer in which they may not elect to purchase or carry a firearm..clearly the liberal media is ruining that plan with there 365 coverage of the arm pit of the country..

I will keep my AK baby...:)
 
IML Gear Cream!
Low crime rates are also in many countries with very low diversity, and homogeneous populations.

has nothing to do with diversity and all to do with economics and policy. those country's have high labor union density rates, high taxes, high social spending as a percentage of GDP, small financial sectors, treat drug addicts vs incarcerating them and do not have for profit prisons...

basically once you peel away the layers they function much different as a society then in the "winner take all" US economy. which is why the economies of wealthy EU nations are not imploding and the US economy is in a death spiral.
 
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you have a link?

you would have to do some research on Norbert Elias and his theory of a "civilizing process" in Europe.

but in the US you can see the drastic decrease in homicide rates during the decades that the US was highly industrialized (1930s to 1960's) and productivity gains where seen across all 5 of the income quintiles. then as the US moved from a manufacturing based economy to the consumption based low wage service sector economy we have now those positive trends reversed themselves.
 
Still not sure what EU stats you're referring to but England and Wales has not paralleled the U.S. Their peak was ten years after ours. Their homicide rate is double what theirs was in the sixties. Their homicide rate never recovered after they passed the handgun ban. It has decreased the last ten years but still not to pre-ban levels, and certainly not the levels they saw in the sixties and earlier. Our decrease has been much more impressive... We're talking basically equal to the lowest it has been over the last 100 years.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screen+Shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+5.45+PM.png


Are these changes due solely to gun legislation? No and I don't know to what degree but one thing is indisputable, that gun control is anything but a magic bullet(pun intended). It appears that gun bans are detrimental but we don't even have to show that. The fact that a prohibition is ineffective is more than enough to not have it, especially when the prohibition is an infringement on an inherent right.
 
you would have to do some research on Norbert Elias and his theory of a "civilizing process" in Europe.

but in the US you can see the drastic decrease in homicide rates during the decades that the US was highly industrialized (1930s to 1960's) and productivity gains where seen across all 5 of the income quintiles. then as the US moved from a manufacturing based economy to the consumption based low wage service sector economy we have now those positive trends reversed themselves.

I'm sure that repealing prohibition in '33 had little to do with lowering homicide rates. This is an extremely complicated subject, and trying to pin it on one thing while ignoring many other factors seems like an exercise in the absurd. Could it not be a factor of many different levers being pulled?
 
Still not sure what EU stats you're referring to but England and Wales has not paralleled the U.S. Their peak was ten years after ours. Their homicide rate is double what theirs was in the sixties. Their homicide rate never recovered after they passed the handgun ban. It has decreased the last ten years but still not to pre-ban levels, and certainly not the levels they saw in the sixties and earlier. Our decrease has been much more impressive... We're talking basically equal to the lowest it has been over the last 100 years.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screen+Shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+5.45+PM.png


Are these changes due solely to gun legislation? No and I don't know to what degree but one thing is indisputable, that gun control is anything but a magic bullet(pun intended). It appears that gun bans are detrimental but we don't even have to show that. The fact that a prohibition is ineffective is more than enough to not have it, especially when the prohibition is an infringement on an inherent right.

Dude, I wish I could rep you again. Extremely well put. What a solid argument well laid out, and with supporting evidence.
 
Still not sure what EU stats you're referring to but England and Wales has not paralleled the U.S. Their peak was ten years after ours. Their homicide rate is double what theirs was in the sixties. Their homicide rate never recovered after they passed the handgun ban. It has decreased the last ten years but still not to pre-ban levels, and certainly not the levels they saw in the sixties and earlier. Our decrease has been much more impressive... We're talking basically equal to the lowest it has been over the last 100 years.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screen+Shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+5.45+PM.png


Are these changes due solely to gun legislation? No and I don't know to what degree but one thing is indisputable, that gun control is anything but a magic bullet(pun intended). It appears that gun bans are detrimental but we don't even have to show that. The fact that a prohibition is ineffective is more than enough to not have it, especially when the prohibition is an infringement on an inherent right.

very nice info...i'm very curious to hear the rebuttal against this peaking flow chart of facts..
 
I'm sure that repealing prohibition in '33 had little to do with lowering homicide rates. This is an extremely complicated subject, and trying to pin it on one thing while ignoring many other factors seems like an exercise in the absurd. Could it not be a factor of many different levers being pulled?

it's definitely the end result of many factors and the social scientists just can't agree on what the causes are is there is no "smoking gun". but when you compare say the homicides rates across the OECD it's easy to see why some nations have historically had far lower homicide rates then the US and will always as they are generally more civil societies and far less violent.

you can look at the homicide rates across the OECD below and the US ranks at the bottom with the Scandinavian country's at the top of the list with the lowest homicides.

OECD- Better Life Index - Safety
Safety

and again here the US ranks at the bottom across the OECD in terms of social justice on Page #8
Social Justice in the OECD ? How Do the Member States Compare?
http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf
 
has nothing to do with diversity and all to do with economics and policy. those country's have high labor union density rates, high taxes, high social spending as a percentage of GDP, small financial sectors, treat drug addicts vs incarcerating them and do not have for profit prisons...

basically once you peel away the layers they function much different as a society then in the "winner take all" US economy. which is why the economies of wealthy EU nations are not imploding and the US economy is in a death spiral.

Too much of a coincidence not to be relevant. Scandinavian countries, which have low crime, are very homogeneous. Same with Japan, Korea etc, all of which are high on the list.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Too much of a coincidence not to be relevant. Scandinavian countries, which have low crime, are very homogeneous. Same with Japan, Korea etc, all of which are high on the list.

that's the problem it's not a coincidence. people have to stop looking at the US like "every" other country when it's not. It's a nation of immigrants and to the capitalists that really run it this country nothing more than a business opportunity. the words being an "American" have no value to them it's all about wealth accumulation.

the US has discarded its superfluous population because they are a different race than the owners of capital. why do you think no other country in the OECD has embraced neo-liberalism like the US? why has no other country destroyed it's working class like in the US? why has no other country criminalized drugs and built a for profit prison system to make a profit off that superfluous population?

your use of race is misguided. those country's did not "become better" because they are less diversified. the US was intentionally made worst because it is.. .everything that is happening in the US has happened before in world history none of this is new. the healthy "middle class" in the US is and was always going to be temporary. the US will return to it's roots there will be the bourgeoisie, the petite bourgeoisie and a HUGE underclass.

no economic system in world history has lasted more than a couple hundred years. capitalism has run it's course in the advanced economy's. it began in Britain in the early 1800's right around 1825-1830. so how many years is that, 188?
 
that's the problem it's not a coincidence. people have to stop looking at the US like "every" other country when it's not. It's a nation of immigrants and to the capitalists that really run it this country nothing more than a business opportunity. the words being an "American" have no value to them it's all about wealth accumulation.

the US has discarded its superfluous population because they are a different race than the owners of capital. why do you think no other country in the OECD has embraced neo-liberalism like the US? why has no other country destroyed it's working class like in the US? why has no other country criminalized drugs and built a for profit prison system to make a profit off that superfluous population?

your use of race is misguided. those country's did not "become better" because they are less diversified. the US was intentionally made worst because it is.. .everything that is happening in the US has happened before in world history none of this is new. the healthy "middle class" in the US is and was always going to be temporary. the US will return to it's roots there will be the bourgeoisie, the petite bourgeoisie and a HUGE underclass.

no economic system in world history has lasted more than a couple hundred years. capitalism has run it's course in the advanced economy's. it began in Britain in the early 1800's right around 1825-1830. so how many years is that, 188?

So let me get this right. In a thread about DECREASING gun violence in the United States you are arguing that Capitalism is dead? WTF?
 
So let me get this right. In a thread about DECREASING gun violence in the United States you are arguing that Capitalism is dead? WTF?

That's every thread he posts in because he's a troll.
 
That's every thread he posts in because he's a troll.

I just don't understand how anyone can justify in their minds posting such ridiculous shit. even online.
 
Still not sure what EU stats you're referring to but England and Wales has not paralleled the U.S. Their peak was ten years after ours. Their homicide rate is double what theirs was in the sixties. Their homicide rate never recovered after they passed the handgun ban. It has decreased the last ten years but still not to pre-ban levels, and certainly not the levels they saw in the sixties and earlier. Our decrease has been much more impressive... We're talking basically equal to the lowest it has been over the last 100 years.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screen+Shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+5.45+PM.png


Are these changes due solely to gun legislation? No and I don't know to what degree but one thing is indisputable, that gun control is anything but a magic bullet(pun intended). It appears that gun bans are detrimental but we don't even have to show that. The fact that a prohibition is ineffective is more than enough to not have it, especially when the prohibition is an infringement on an inherent right.

And still no rebuttal to this...
 
Having an opinion different than yours doesn't make him a troll.

There are lot's of people here with different opinions who aren't trolls. That's not why he's a troll. He's a troll because he continually posts off topic inflammatory messages. No matter the original topic his posts are about how capitalism sucks. He may not even realize he's a troll.
 
Having an opinion different than yours doesn't make him a troll. You guys don't know what trolling is.

I'm fine with differing opinions. I come here because of them. You and I often disagree on things, but i enjoy your perspective and beliefs.

Please explain to me the leap of relevance in posting about how capitalism sucks in a thread showing decreasing gun violence in the United States? This is not a discussion on the economics of capitalism, or it's future outlook on the world stage. It doesn't appear it was ever intended to be, or that anyone here other than LAM wants to pull the discussion in that direction. So how is that not a troll? continually using unrelated topics to push ones own personal agenda seems trollish to me. If it's not, please explain to me the proper definition of troll? i'm listening
 
And still no rebuttal to this...

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
 
Back
Top