Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,770 posts)
17. half wrong, half right, both of youse
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 03:03 PM
Jul 2016

jmg: Per the FBI background checks, the number of guns has been steadily climbing since at least 1999, while gun violence has been steadily decreasing since the 90s

National gunstock has been 'steadily increasing' since the early 1960's; I'd even wager since 1776 excepting wartimes perhaps.

National gunstock 1960's ~75 millions.
......" ....... mid 70's ...... 150 millions (guns & murder rate both doubled since 1960's)
.............. early 1990's .. 225 millions
............ now ~2015 ..... 300 millions

That's a 300% increase in 50 years, in national gunstock.
More importantly, author Tim Johnson isn't technically wrong, tho he's not technically right either:

What OP said: .. and gun violence tends to increase as the number of guns in the country goes up,...

............. pop... total crime... violcrime ... propcrime... murder
1960 ..179,323,175 ..1,887.2 ..160.9 .. 1,726.3 ..5.1
1962 ..185,771,000 ..2,019.8 ..162.3 ...1,857.5 ..4.6

2012..313,873,685..3,255.8..387.8...2,868.0...4.7
2014 ..318,857,056..2,971.8..375.7 ..2,596.1.. 4.5
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

As you see above, violent crime rate circa 2015 is well over twice what it was in 1960's, and total crime rate circa 2015 is approx 50% higher than it was in the 60's, supporting Johnson's claim that gun violence TENDS to rise as gunstock goes up, as gunstock did from 75 millions to 300 millions (gun violence generally linearly related to violent crime).
But Johnson is wrong for the time period early 90's to present 2015. He is spot on for time period early 60's to early 90's, as violent crime increased 5 times to over 750.

You, jmg, are wrong when you wrote this, partially wrong, since what johnson said isn't 'totally' wrong:

How does ANYONE answer a question which is based on a premise that is totally false, and has been for 20+ years??

National gunstock increased by 200% from 1960's to early 1990's, while violent crime rate increased 400% and total crime tripled, increasing 200%, during same time period. Johnson was right.
Since early 1990's, as you noted, violent crime has indeed fallen by about 50% as well as total crime falling by about 50%, while national gunstock increased by 33%. Johnson wrong.
The greater the proportional increase in national gunstock, the greater has been the rise of violent crime & total crime rates.
With a lower proportional increase in national gunstock, a decrease in crime rates has occurred, but at a slower rate of decline, and with a concomitant decrease in gun ownership rates. (demonstrated next post)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

From what I can see it's axiomatic: FEELINGS > facts jonno99 Jul 2016 #1
Here is a snapshot of gun associated shootings. angstlessk Jul 2016 #2
If we REALLY care about seeing less death & injury, it seems we should be addressing the BIGGER jonno99 Jul 2016 #3
besides being a non sequitur, it's a biased source. angstlessk Jul 2016 #5
Please don't "miss the forest for the trees": jonno99 Jul 2016 #6
I don't see gun deaths, just suicide, homicide and accidental deaths angstlessk Jul 2016 #10
Here's a link to the CDC's WISQARS apps discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #16
Unfortunately they only go back a couple years. nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #4
Huh maybe they AREN'T clueless - they just change the argument! jmg257 Jul 2016 #7
Mudmatters through grinding teeth has to admit the data isn't all NRAtalkingPoint!© Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #9
I think controllers have given up on science and good argument. It is... Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #8
technically you should only need 5 SD firearms per person. ileus Jul 2016 #11
So they think our President is lying? DonP Jul 2016 #12
Maybe they put more stock in Hemenway then the President. jmg257 Jul 2016 #13
If we weren't all banned .... DonP Jul 2016 #14
Better to have questions answered the way YOU want them answered. jmg257 Jul 2016 #15
half wrong, half right, both of youse jimmy the one Jul 2016 #17
Nt a lot of time now, but considering the number of background checks lately jmg257 Jul 2016 #20
gun ownership rates fell dramatically 1992 - 2000 jimmy the one Jul 2016 #18
Thanks jimmy - addressed this in another post about ownership rates vs gunstock#s. jmg257 Jul 2016 #19
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»How are they so clueless?...»Reply #17