Posted on 03/29/2010 10:07:24 AM PDT by Zakeet
What's the likelihood of an EXTREMELY liberal media outlet publishing an article about firearm related homicides declining while permits to carry concealed weapons increase?
About as likely as Keith Olbermann saying something nice about Sarah Palin, right?
Well, on Wednesday, MSNBC.com actually published a piece with the following shocking headline:
Shhh. Wait. It got better (h/t CNSNews via Weasel Zippers):
Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.
The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years.
It must be noted that all of these vital statistics appeared on the third and final page of this article where likely few readers would see them.
Regardless, the data were supported by charts specifically showing how gun-related deaths have declined as the number of states opting for "shall issue" permits increased:
CNSNews's Joe Schoffstall elaborated:
In this decade, the gun-homicide rate has fallen to 4.07 per 100,000, which equates to a 28 percent reduction in homicides with the use of firearms. This decline in homicides follows a five-fold increase in a “shall-issue” (requirement of a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of the permit is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law) and unrestricted concealed-carry laws in states from 1986 to 2006, reported MSNBC.com.According to federal background checks conducted on the sale of most firearms, the decline in homicides comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing. [...]
The nation's highest gun homicide rates are in Washington, D.C., with 20.50 deaths per 100,000 people, five times the general rate. Yet the District of Columbia has the strictest gun-control laws in the nation. The lowest rate of gun-related homicides is in Utah: 1.12 deaths per 100,000 people. Utah’s gun-control policy is very unrestricted.
All in all a very surprising piece from one of the nation's most liberal news outlets that would have been far better if the vital statistics hadn't been buried near the end.
You $*@($#@ Freepers won't need your $*@($#@ guns after I finish turning the United States into a Marxist utopia.
People can defend themselves. Oh the humanities...
They say “correlation is not causation”, but if I saw a correlation like that when pondering a trade in the stock market, I’d buy it with my last dollar.
LOL check the name of the website as one of the sources for that first graph, I like to imagine Mika coughing up her coffee as she announced that.
bttt
bump
Shouldn’t that read: Oh! The hugh manatees?
bttt - I’m shocked!
;o)
;-)
But the investigators have failed to establish a connection between the two things, heh?
Wow, it must be that the out-of-work global warming scientists are looking into this...
A correlation does not prove the case. There are many such suggestive correlations: a study in Ontario showed that by township, the higher the gun possession, the lower the crime rate. But this could also be due to other factors: rural people tend to own more guns, and they also tend to be more peaceful. There is definitely also a cultural-ethnic difference.
In the USA, it is also true that counties which went Republican in the last election have lower crime rates than those which went for Gore. It is a very strong correlation. It again may show the deleterious effect of urbanism; the effect of minority groups who tend to have higher crime rates; and (perhaps) the different philosophies of the electorate.
A politician who appeals to wealth-redistribution is favored by people who act out wealth-redistribution themselves by committing crimes.
It is perhaps no accident that the Democrats want convicted felons to be able to vote: that class trends Democratic by a heavy majority everywhere in the country.
To make a correlation convincing, one must have a believable explanatory theory. I do think that the idea of gun ownership as a deterrent is very reasonable, because criminals are actually like other predators: they seek out easy prey. They often go after obviously defenseless people, and preferentially take the easy path by selecting local targets.
In my small town in NJ we have a moderate to low crime rate. Not even ten minutes away is the county seat, where property crimes are ten times as frequent per capita. I have been told that our town has a high number of pistol permits (but no carry permits here in NJ). That might be partly a cause,; but even more is the nature of the people in the two localities. Criminals find cheap quarters in many cities, and they like the conditions there: relative anonymity, easy targets, and a “night life” which favors the predator.
It’s a paradox: for as crime goes, relatively speaking, the city is a jungle, and the “hick” rural areas are civilized.
You and I agree on this. On the other hand...
After years of the left, the media, and the politicians making the case that more guns equals more violence, I say let them stew in this, what must be a very gut wrenching revolting development for them.
We shouldn’t go out of our way to air the same common sense we did while they ignored us and demagogued every act of gun violence over the last few decades.
For now, I think it’s reasonable to throw their argument right back in their face.
More guns doesn’t equal more gun violence after all lefties.
Your and my agreement on the intellectual component of this aside, I’m relishing the left having to eat their mantra, long long overdue.
In spite of the fact that the same phenomena happens in state after state, at different times of enactment, and no other significant changes in public policy, law enforcement policy or societal mindset can be cited as possible factors.
I think the meaning of 'cause and effect' is something they don't really understand.
Well, we can rule out global warming since last week they announced that it caused increasing violence.
Correlation isn't causation, that's true, but you can bet your last dollar that if the correlation went the *other* way the liberal drumbeat for gun control would be deafening. They would sure say it was causal.
You give the dang libs guns and they'll be shooting everybody! :) Some people can handle guns and some can't and raving lunatics should not be given guns.
My beeber is stuned.
You mean Obama was wrong? Again?!
Why? You think one cogent article is going to change their mind that has been made up and conditioned for decades? They'll just ignore it and continue with their propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
