Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See

[Clementine]

The stats don't lie. Gun control does not reduce the number of murders. It increases them. For those scum who seek to break into homes to rob, murder or rape, the gun control laws are good news for them. What would-be rapist, robber or murderer wants to face an armed home owner? They'd prefer that people are helpless and easy targets for armed criminals. That is exactly the result that gun control gives us. So, why do the liberals really want excessive gun control? They should focus on catching criminals, who are the real problem. Instead they seek to restrict guns for the majority of citizens, who are law abiding. What are they afraid of? What governments in the past have feared an armed populace? We know why many have disarmed people in the past and it's never a happy ending for the people. They are outright lying about why they want this. The claim that it will make us safer is a myth and they know that.

In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures — which lasted more than three decades — didn’t have the desired effect.

Journalist and attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro explains the not-so-surprising result in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 15, 2013:
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.
Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994.

Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

So, do the numbers indicate that gun control is the answer to gun violence? You decide.

The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don?t Want to See | TheBlaze.com

 

[tinydancer]

Did you see this today? I had it up in another thread. You just know the Dems are shitting bricks over this. I had a fun day today.

Reports show gun homicides down since 1990s

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their 1993 peak, a pair of reports released Tuesday showed, adding fuel to Congress' battle over whether to tighten restrictions on firearms.

A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's growing population.

It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found that non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by roughly 70 percent over that period. The Justice report said the number of such crimes diminished from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

But perhaps because of the intense publicity generated by recent mass shootings such as the December massacre of 20 school children and six educators in Newtown, Conn., the public seems to have barely noticed the reductions in gun violence, the Pew study shows.



Reports show gun homicides down since 1990s - WBAY

 

[auditor0007]

The stats don't lie. Gun control does not reduce the number of murders. It increases them. For those scum who seek to break into homes to rob, murder or rape, the gun control laws are good news for them. What would-be rapist, robber or murderer wants to face an armed home owner? They'd prefer that people are helpless and easy targets for armed criminals. That is exactly the result that gun control gives us. So, why do the liberals really want excessive gun control? They should focus on catching criminals, who are the real problem. Instead they seek to restrict guns for the majority of citizens, who are law abiding. What are they afraid of? What governments in the past have feared an armed populace? We know why many have disarmed people in the past and it's never a happy ending for the people. They are outright lying about why they want this. The claim that it will make us safer is a myth and they know that.

In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures — which lasted more than three decades — didn’t have the desired effect.

Journalist and attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro explains the not-so-surprising result in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 15, 2013:
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.
Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994.

Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

So, do the numbers indicate that gun control is the answer to gun violence? You decide.

The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don?t Want to See | TheBlaze.com

It's a bullshit statistic. You can't have gun control in one city or state and not another. Gun control does reduce the murder rate if it is put in place at the national level. If you want to make a fair comparison. compare the murder rate of Great Britain to that of the US. GB actually has 100% gun control nationwide. The homicide rate in the US is over three times that of GB.

These are simple facts that cannot be argued. Arguing that we have a right to own firearms is a different argument, and if you support that right, then you do so with the knowledge that it leads to an increase in the homicide rate as well as more accidental deaths due to gunshot wounds.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The stats don't lie. Gun control does not reduce the number of murders. It increases them. For those scum who seek to break into homes to rob, murder or rape, the gun control laws are good news for them. What would-be rapist, robber or murderer wants to face an armed home owner? They'd prefer that people are helpless and easy targets for armed criminals. That is exactly the result that gun control gives us. So, why do the liberals really want excessive gun control? They should focus on catching criminals, who are the real problem. Instead they seek to restrict guns for the majority of citizens, who are law abiding. What are they afraid of? What governments in the past have feared an armed populace? We know why many have disarmed people in the past and it's never a happy ending for the people. They are outright lying about why they want this. The claim that it will make us safer is a myth and they know that.

In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures — which lasted more than three decades — didn’t have the desired effect.

Journalist and attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro explains the not-so-surprising result in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 15, 2013:
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.
Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994.

Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

So, do the numbers indicate that gun control is the answer to gun violence? You decide.

The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don?t Want to See | TheBlaze.com

It's a bullshit statistic. You can't have gun control in one city or state and not another. Gun control does reduce the murder rate if it is put in place at the national level. If you want to make a fair comparison. compare the murder rate of Great Britain to that of the US. GB actually has 100% gun control nationwide. The homicide rate in the US is over three times that of GB.

These are simple facts that cannot be argued. Arguing that we have a right to own firearms is a different argument, and if you support that right, then you do so with the knowledge that it leads to an increase in the homicide rate as well as more accidental deaths due to gunshot wounds.

Auditor, that may be true, but you also cant live in a vaccum. So it's not bullshit...guns do not kill people....people kill people....what is so hard to understand?

Quit taking away tools...PUNISH the people who do wrong