FBI Crime Stats Firearms Edited 12/3/2015

Hi /k/.

Oftentimes, in the gun ownership debate, I'm confronted by people who pull out sources from their asses on either side.
Sometimes they're just poorly informed, and don't really care enough to look up their own data.  This is by far
the most common issue, so I decided to put together data to save myself time arguing.  Here I will provide you all with an
in-depth look at the FBI's data pertaining to violent crime in the United States, especially pertaining to firearms.
This isn't necessarily about gun control, but rather, the effect that it has on violent crime rates in the
United States.  As such, this is very relevant to weapons, as we're observing the effects of firearm ownership
on a large scale.  In this thread, I will provide data that very effectively demonstrates that gun ownership has very
little, if any, correlation with violent crime, and that variables such as population density and poverty are far
better predictors of violent crime.  When incorporated with the very basic argument that one should have the right to
defend oneself, however, the data supports an opinion heavily in favor of private firearm ownership of all types, and
all sorts of carry laws.  If providing this data to someone turns them to shifting the goalposts, you probably can't
reason with them, but try to remain reasonable yourself nevertheless.  This is very compelling, transparent data from
a very reputable source (the FBI) that does not actually benefit or suffer from policy pertaining to firearms.

First we have the following link to the FBI's analysis of violent crime rates between 1992 and 2011:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Viewing this table, one may observe a very steady decline in violent crime between the years 1992 and 2011
at the national level.  While many people would have you believe that violent crime is "on the rise", violent
crimes of all types have actually been on a dramatic decline.  The only reason they would argue otherwise is for
supporting their agendas without realistic roots.  In 1992, the violent crime rate was ~757 per 100,000 people; in
2011, it was ~386.  Even with the introduction of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the mid-1990s and its expiration
in the early 2000s, the decline has remained fairly steady.  Things are going very well, to be blunt, and will likely
continue to continue in such a fashion.

Note: It is extremely important to point out that anyone using data on "gun deaths" is cherry-picking.  Even if we
work off of the assumption that higher availability of firearms will increase their usage in the commission of violent
crime, that still does not explain whether higher availability of firearms actually has anything to do with the NUMBER
of overall violent crimes.  We must look at overall violent crime rates per 100,000 people rather than "gun deaths" in
order to discuss violent crime in a meaningful context.  People do not die harder when they are killed with firearms,
compared to when they are stabbed, bludgeoned, and/or beaten to death.

Next we have the FBI's analysis of the implements used in homicides:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Please keep in mind that there are firearms used in crimes of which the types are not stated; however, the analysis
in general is very reliable by scientific standards.  In this analysis, we see that by far pistols make up the vast
majority of firearms used in the commission of a homicide.  This is contrary to the common narrative that ownership
of "assault rifles" is a growing crisis in the realm of violent crime.  "Assault rifles" by most states' definitions
are semi-automatic rifles meeting certain cosmetic traits which have little impact on the rifle's function; the AR-15
is a commonly-cited example.  They are not automatic- in fact, automatic firearm ownership and acquisition is
heavily-regulated by the BATFE.

According to the analysis performed by the FBI for 2011, rifles were used in 323 commissions of homicide whereas
pistols were used in 6,220 commissions of homicide in the same year.  Shotguns were used in 356 commissions
of homicide.  Keep in mind that the AR-15 model of rifle, which is often toted as an "evil scary assault rifle",
is only a *subset* of the rifle category.  Also, the rate of homicides committed with any firearm has been on a
steady decline despite numerous complaints about "mass shootings".  To put things in perspective, knives/cutting
instruments consisted the weapons used in 1,694 commissions of homicide in 2011: this means that knives/cutting
instruments were used in more than twice the number of homicides as both rifles of all types and shotguns
of all types combined.  Rifles and shotguns of all kinds are thus, according to this analysis, a non-issue:
hands, fists, feet, and other "personal weapons" were used more in 2011 in homicides (728) than the sum of both all
types of rifles and all types of shotguns combined.

But what about handguns?  To understand the issue of crimes committed with handguns, we must understand why
they are so often used: they are often cheap in certain models, and most importantly they are very easy to
conceal.  Numerous territories such as New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois, and the District of
Columbia have made obtaining and legally carrying them very difficult for law-abiding citizens.  In New Jersey,
one must acquire a pistol purchase permit for each pistol one desires to purchase, all requested and signed for
by a local police department or in some districts even the NJ State Police.  If you need to read up about the
handgun laws in various states, you can just Google them: after all, the data I will provide is from 2014, and the
data is very recent and in-line with laws existing now.  The main thing to keep in mind is that there are many
states that have heavy restrictions on handgun purchases, acquisitions, and carrying.

So let's view the figures for each territory regarding violent crime rates per 100,000 people.  The FBI source
pertaining to violent crime rates by state/region is found here:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5

In any case, let us look at the aforementioned "anti-gun" states:

New Jersey: ~261
New York: ~381
California: ~396
Illinois: ~370
District of Columbia: ~1244 (yes, 1,244)

We see wide variation.  New Jersey has what would be considered a relatively-low rate of violent crime, whereas
the other states have 2x-5x as much violent crime.  Let us view, now, violent crime rates in states having far fewer
regulations on handgun purchasing and ownership.  For argument's sake, I will include states spread out throughout
the United States, just as I did in the last example.  Let's use Mississippi, Idaho, Oregon, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Maine:

Mississippi: ~278
Idaho: ~212
Oregon: ~232
Louisiana: ~514
Michigan: ~427
Pennsylvania (all parts, including Philadelphia): ~314
Maine: ~127

We see here that there are some states with greater rates of violent crime, some with lower.  You can always
find states with higher rates of violent crime in the opposite category from the one you're viewing.
New Jersey, which has very strict gun laws, has 2x the violent crime of Maine (a gun-friendly state), 1/2
the violent crime of Louisiana (another gun-friendly state), and 1/4 the crime of D.C. (a very gun-unfriendly
state).  Trying to compare violent crime by gun laws is fallacious: there is no reasonable correlation whatsoever
in the United States that demonstrates that gun laws are affiliated with rises or declines in violent crime.
Anyone who argues otherwise after seeing the data, again, cannot be reasoned with.  These data show that we must
look at other factors in order to reduce violent crime.  Any policies that restrict human rights on the basis of
reducing violent crime via restricting access to firearms are passed for another agenda, as they clearly do not
help or hurt the presence of violent crime in any way, shape, or form.

Finally, here is the last FBI table we will be viewing:


https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-

2011/tables/table_16_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_by_population_group_2011.xls


Here we see that population density is strongly correlated with violent crime rates.  As one enters metropolitan
areas, or cities >250,000 people in size, the rate (not number of crimes, but the rate per 100,000) of violent
crime dramatically increases.  From rural to suburban to metropolitan settings, there is still a very steady
increase in violent crime as population size increases.  So while there isn't a correlation between strictness
of gun laws and violent crime, there is a very strong correlation between population density and violent crime.

Where does violent crime come from, then?  How can we combat it?  A right to self-defense is certainly a very
valid option for individuals and one which should not be prohibited, but on the large scale, we must look at
the factors in big cities which affect violent crime.  Namely, the presence of poverty.  Anyone who has
visited any large metropolitan area knows of "slums" or "ghettos", which are the areas one avoids.  In New York City,
one avoids certain neighborhoods in the Bronx district; in San Francisco, there are pockets of very violent areas
where one avoids walking through at all costs.  And how often does one find wealthy citizens performing forcible
rapes, burglaries, homicides, and aggravated assaults when compared to those in poverty with nothing to lose?

I, and likely many others believe that poverty itself is generally responsible for most violent crime; by reducing it, we can
improve the quality of life for everyone and make the United States a more peaceful place to be.  When considering that
the standard of living has improved dramatically since the 1990s (very few people starve anymore, almost everyone has
access to the same Internet with free social networking and information available on Google, food has become much cheaper
thanks to advancements in agricultural technology) it's no surprise that violent crime has been on a decline.  While the
means of reducing poverty are a discussion of economics experts (and are a controversial topic of discussion), it is
clear that the task of reducing general violent crime lies in the hands of those seeking to increase the quality of life.
Any effort to reduce human rights by disarmament or restriction of arms in the name of reducing violent crime is ill-aimed, uninformed, and pointless save for those lying in order to reduce the power of the common people.  Disarmament does not
reduce violent crime, but only leads to an imbalance between law-abiding citizens and their corrupt governments.  Virtually
all gun control legislation can be linked towards socioeconomic marginalization, including police-run background checks,
police-approved purchase permits, police-approved carry permits, and restrictions on what firearms are allowed for
importation due to lower price and availability to the lower classes (see: Saturday Night Special restrictions, USA).

I'll end this on a final note:

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

-Karl Marx, as part of an address about arming the working class against crackdowns and oppression.  Even in the context
of his time period, the Father of Socialism railed the idea of the government having more martial power than the common
majority that consisted the citizenry.