fbi crime stats firearms

Hi /k/.

Oftentimes, in the gun ownership debate, I'm confronted by people who pull out sources from their asses on either side.  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 this 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.  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 1990 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 on the federal 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.  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 do so.  IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ANYONE USING DATA ON "GUN VIOLENCE" IS CHERRYPICKING, AS ANY

COMMON SENSE WOULD INDICATE THAT HIGHER AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS WOULD INCREASE THEIR USAGE IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME.  We must look at violent crime as a

holistic concept to understand where correlations actually lie.  We will dispel the idea that firearm possession increases violent crime rates soon in this

analysis.


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

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, this is very scientifically-valid and well-done

analysis.  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 people's 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.  According to the analysis performed by the FBI, rifles actually consist a much smaller proportion of firearms used in the commission of homicides

than pistols- in 2011, rifles were used in 356 commissions of homicide whereas pistols were used in 8,583 commissions of homicide.  Keep in mind that an AR-

15 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

is more than twice the number of homicides committed with cutting instruments than with both rifles of all types and shotguns of all types combined.  Rifles

and shotguns of all kinds are essentially a non-issue: hands, fists, feet, and other "personal weapons" were used more in 2011 than both all types of

shotguns and all types of rifles.


But what about handguns?  To understand the issue of crimes committed with handguns, we must understand why they are so often used: they are cheap when

available, and more importantly 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.  In New Jersey, one must acquire a pistol purchase permit for each pistol one desires

to purchase.  If they request the laws, you can just Google them: the overall idea is that many regions have strict laws regarding handgun ownership 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, 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 inhibited, 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?  Poverty itself is responsible for 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

reduce poverty.  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 people.