Well, that's an intellectually dishonest graph, showing cumulative guns to market rather than how many were sold each year, whereas it shows crime by the year not cumulative crimes. When something is shown cumulative, it's always going to be going up.

The graph needs rates per capita for both gun ownership and crimes.

Isn't the point of the graph that many people, Americans and otherwise, think that gun violence (crime and accident) is RISING when in fact it's FALLING?

Yay! Now they only have several massacres rather than many a year!

It's not a secret that gun violence has an inverse relationship with legal gun ownership.

"Isn't the point of the graph that many people, Americans and otherwise, think that gun violence (crime and accident) is RISING when in fact it's FALLING? "

That's 50% of your point, sure.

The rate of gun violence per capita is rising in Britain where the civilian population is virtually unarmed.

@Gunfighter,

I think it is to some/many people (especially in here) who assume that if nobody owned guns, nobody would ever die from guns.

I'm mainly disappointed that the research isn't from the Pew Pew Research Centre.

(I would also like to point out that any comparison between the UK and the US in terms of gun deaths should recognise that our firearms-related death rate is rising to 0.25 per 100,000, while the US rate is falling to 10.3 per 100,000, aka over 40 times more. That's what unregulated gun ownership means.)

Now if Florida would just pass an open carry law, we'd be set. I would love to see the Europeans get off the planes and see us all walking around with weapons in the open.

I nominate the Czech for post of the year.

You don't need a law to allow open carry. It's the natural order of things. Many states have laws prohibiting open carry. If fla is one of those, then you need them to repeal it.

The chart may appear disingenuous, but it is really a reasonably valid chart. A gun sold consists year after year. So gun ownership is increasing each year with more and more gun sales. A gun purchase isn't a single year thing that gets replaced every year. Yet despite more guns being on the street, gun crime is dropping. Now, the second crime chart should have reflected all gun related crimes, not *other*. But considering the homicides area very small fraction of the total gun related crimes (thousands versus millions or at least 2 orders of magnitude), including those homicides in the second chart really wouldn't have visually altered it significantly.

I doubt many of the guns purchased at the early ends of the chart are still around at the tail end of the chart. They may not break down immediately, but they do break down eventually. It would be a lot more valid if it tracked, say, registered guns, with each year's number. Which I'm sure has gone up, I'm not disputing that at all. I just think the way it's been graphed is intentionally designed to make it look like a strong increase in gun sales, as "gun sales surge" (listed in the graphic) would indicate.

Bear in mind, I'm not really a big gun control kind of guy. If we had a scale of 1 to 10 with "ban all guns" at 1 and "let a dude buy a nuclear missile if he can afford it" at 10, I'd be somewhere around a 7. I just feel misleading graphs even for stances I believe in are bad, because I believe wholeheartedly that if you resort to chicanery to make a point that could be made logically, you undercut the point.

I agree SD. But all statistics are always presented to make an argument. One of the things I hate about statistics used on the internet and in the media. Predisposition...

lol @ philcore applying the Air Bud rule to the gun debate

Unless we can breakdown 'who' are buying the guns these states are meaningless. If all the current gun owners buy an additional gun then one wouldn't expect any more or less crime.

Crime has been falling across the Western world for many years now, irrespective of gun laws, increasing police number, police cutbacks, government colour, drug laws or anything else. It is something of a mystery.

Oestrogen in the water!

Maniac makes a reasonable argument. The question should be about licensed gun owners... How many are there each year? If that figure is rising while gun violence is falling (and I seriously doubt all the new guns are being bought by existing license holders) then the case is made that more guns =/= more gun violence.

So what do y'all make of the two graphs on this website:

http://guncontrol.org.au/

Hoddle st, Queen st, Strathfield, Port Arthur, and Monash University were all massacres in Australia. Unlike the US, our politicians have the balls to enact gun laws in response to events.

There is a question when it comes to the crime side of things, not just the gun statistics.

As Oct mentions, crime has been falling in the west. I believe Stephen Pinker showed data that violence in general was falling (whether criminal, state-vs-state wars, intra-state civil conflict, or domestic violence within a home) So instead of just comparing gun homicide, or gun crime; work out the annual gun homocide rate as a percentage of the total homocide rate, and then see if that is changing. Work out the total violent crime rate and then the percentage of gun related incidents.

And yes, i'm guessing the violent crime rate in the UK is dropping aswell - evidence that you don't need open carry laws or a big gun culture to get a decrease in the crime rate? Not to say that it hurts, just saying that it isn't necessary.

It isn't about firearms being necessary. That's what the rest of the world doesn't get. It's about our freedom - one enshrined in our *written* Constitution - to carry should we choose. The gun banning activists would have you believe banning.guns will reduce crime. It clearly makes no difference either way and *our* cointry has a legal precedent set that if a law isn't going to improve a situation, we won't pass it and.further restrict our citizenry.

Nobody says Europe or GAP has to follow our society, but stop trying to force your society on us.

Actual violent crime is higher.in many western nations compared to the us......what gun control freaks look at is gun deaths.only I believe the uk has a much higher viokent.crime rate.that.the us

Draugnar - I kinda get the pro-gun argument about civil liberties and even the one about it not being possible to wind the clock back. But I don't get their take on statistics. If I were to say that England added floride to drinking water and had 3.21 deaths per 100,000 from floride poisoning and the US only had 0.07/100000 deaths from floride poisoning and didn't add floride, you would see a cause and effect. The fact that the English death rate varies by a few parts every so often would be frankly irrelevant.

I think the gun - lobby accepting that stats are against them and concentrate on their strengths would progress the debate. Seeing pro-gun argue stats just seems like stubbornness rather than conviction.

If anyone has played sim-city they will know that the obvious solution to crime rates is just putting in another police station in the affected area!

The humanist socialist solution (or at least the anarchist & anti-authoritarian position) is to abolish prisons; and (perhaps) build an open reform system to support community justice.

Ok, that's a fairly extreme position in the UK. I'm sure the US has it's share of extremist thought - though i would imagine it is not seen or heard, at least i haven't seen it...

Stressed - quick google shows US 4.75/100000 pop overall homocide rate UK is 1.06/100000.

@Draug - the arguement above is not about freedom, it is about crime statistics; and anyone making the claim the America is free of crime BECAUSE of high gun ownership (i want to say should be shot...) is being disingenious, or delusional.

I'm not arguing that the US constitution exists, as ever i'm arguing that it is deprecated.

Oh, and regardless of statistics, there is no solution involving banning guns in the US (even a new constitution) the solution has to be cultural, the massive difference in crime rates between the US and UK, for example, can't be reduced to a simple number (gun owners) it is far more complex.

It think the position of hero-worship of violence is a problem for the US, but i don't live there, how am i supposed to affect the culture?

Well you don't live here and, thank God, don't have any say. We made certain of that 235+ years ago. And I never claimed gun ownership lowers crime rates. My only claims.is that it hasn't been shwon to significantly increase them at that those committing gun crime are doing so.with illegal/stolen weapons therefore a ban (which would jusy increase the black market demand and therfore supply) would result in more illegal guns and less legal ones. There is way more to our crime rates than simple gun.ownership and, in fact, gun ownership does not contribute to crime. Drug wars and gang violence are what we should be looking at.

Draugnar the Aussie stats are pretty convincing, nonetheless if you would like to suggest that the reduction in gun deaths correlating to the gun laws is purely coincidental, and that other factors are at play, I keep an open mind to anything you may suggest.

It has already been.shown that violent crime is dropping all over the "free world" in countries both with strong and minimal gun control and some even require gin ownership. So yes, I am suggesting the drop is attributable to other factors and you are seeing correlation and calling it causation.

As far as Australia... What is the total.population and what is the population of its largest city? Now.look at the population of LA, NYC, Atlanta, or Chicago. Wherever you have a higher concentration of population per sq mile and wherever the class division is so extreme and obvious, the poorer class' need to survive drives them to crime. Desperate men take desperate action to change their situation, whether that be robbing a liquor store, joining a gang to be protected, or getting into the drug business and pimping out prostitutes.

Solving our poverty problem and reducing the income disparity will go much farther to reducing violent crime.

@Draug, i entirely agree with you on the poverty point.

Though i see empowerment as going beyond income; as you point out the biggest problems are in dense urban areas. I suspect it is more than just income disparity - migration to cites also breaks traditional 'rural' community links, neighbours tend to stick around for less time (particularily where renting) and commuters tend to spend less time in their local area.

Regardless of income a community could be empowered on a local level if there was a mechanism to build these links, and local governance allowed/encouraged community volunteer groups to control their environment (whether that means roads&parks, community gardens, community art ~ possibly seen as graffiti in some places... Or whatever the community wants/needs) This kind of empowerment would give people a stake in what they have built and an interest in preserving it.

Unfortunately such volunteering doesn't contribute directly to GDP (infact spending time volunteering in your community takes away either from your productivity or your leasuire time, so you're either making less or spending less - thus the free market is not incentivised to promote this kind of thing) but i think we're talking about the marginalized poor who are time rich and money poor - this is a great way for locals to empower themselves without needing to invest huge amount of money in re-education/training, job creation / tax investment...

You point about crime is about needs, i think there is more to be said about involvement - people who are involved in their community, who have something to lose; they are less likely to commit crimes. People who feel the have earned their place in a community, do not want to lose that.

Of course basic needs must be met, but i'm almost assuming a level of social welfare which may not exist in the US.

well I guess you can get research to justify whatever the person(s)
paying for the research wants justified

Unfortunately for the gun nuts the evidence here in Australia
is becoming quite clear, we had one of those gun massacre tragedies
about 10-15 years ago & a Conservative Prime Minister got all the States together
and introduced major gun control reforms, defying the "right wing" of his own party
we haven't got rid of crime, but it's becoming very evident that gun related crime is
much reduced. We need to do more to stop the illegal entry of guns to Australia.

Another reason things are going well here is that we have had 21-22 years of continuous economic growth & increasing prosperity after we had a lot of economic reform during 12 years of Labour Government in the 1980's- reduction of Tariff barriers, controlled deregulation of Banking & Finance, floating our Dollar, Industrial Relations reform-- Union amalgamations, Award simplification, Wage rise trade offs for Industry based Superannuation, that led to Productivity improvements and an economy better suited to "globalisation"
Unfortunately the Conservatives dropped the ball on reform, productivity improvement
and infrastructure investment so productivity improvement started to slide /reduce about half way through their 11 year run in charge from the mid 1990's to approx 2005 /06
& since then we've had 6 years of slightly chaotic Labour Government

Right now we're about to have another Federal election & the Conservatives should
romp back into power, so they can stuff things up properly again

back to guns, in my opinion, in the vast majority of "domestic rural shooting" situations, (ie non military use ) automatic weapons are required by clowns who are incapable of shooting well
eg if you can't drop a Kangaroo with your first shot with a .303 bolt action rifle
and need to use half a clip or more from a M16 to hit the crittur then you shouldn't be allowed to join the shooting party
My Dad learnt to shoot in the Depression, Grandad would send him out with a .22 rifle with 2 bullets & Dad was expected to bring home 2 rabbits for the pot, if he failed to bring home 2 rabbits then Dad wasn't allowed to shoot for a minimum of a week and had to rely on traps-which is a lot more work & until he got "back into surplus" with the traps, no more bullets. So Dad and his older brother Ian learnt to shoot well & not waste ammunition, something Ian found useful in WW2.

I assure you it *doesn't* exist in the US. And yes, community involvement and pride would help greatly and many smaller cities are working towarss rejuvenating some.of the tougher neighborhoods by proviDing the financial support to those worse off so the not quite as bad off but still not great communities see the progress and say "no way are we gonna let skid row be nicer than us!" turning it into a positive competition to get better rather than a negative one to be able to say "well at least we aren't skid row".

Cincinnati is rejuvenating Over-the-Rhine: once the higheat violent crime.community. Now other communities like Avondale and the west side are seeing.it amd saying "Hey! We can do that too!" and crime.ia dropping and more kids are staying in school and the schools and neighborhoods are getting safer. They still have a long way to go but it is getting back on track.

" They may not break down immediately, but they do break down eventually. It would be a lot more valid if it tracked, say, registered guns, with each year's number. "

Dude, the chart starts in 1993. What piece of shit gun are you buying in 1993 that doesn't work in 2013? Give me a break, man. My Dad's pistol that he bought after the '68 riots is in perfect working order....if you want to try to debunk the study, at least be rational.

How about this for silly reasons gun violence is going down -- new technology has given the criminals better aim and they are wiping each other out? lol (We only wish...)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I think Mr. Franklin captured the essence of this debate. If a People give up their Essential Liberty of self-defense (which a gun provides) to purchase a temporary sense of safety (temporary because there will be a time of need at some point), they deserve neither Liberty nor safety.

Lawful gun owners in the US are realists, not naive people who believe that the government can (and should) protect them. Lawful gun owners know the increased risks, but feel that it is far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Seems people in other nations want to give up that right, and HOPE if such a scenario does arise in their lives that the government will come to the rescue. To many Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, that is antithetical to our nature.

As I've said either above in this thread or the other, I don't own a firearm and haven't carried or fired a weapon since I ceased active duty. But I have many neighbors who do and I support their right to have them. And if the shit hit the fan, I'd carry one of their spares in defending our neighborhood. Every household should have at least one person who knows how to handle a firearm in case the call arises. I don't feel every household has an obligation to own one, but to be able to pick up a neighbor's spare to defend your collective "home" along side him or her... Absolutely!

But but but, just call 911 and wait for the cops to come...that's what CIVILIZED people do.

Sure and the cops arrive when you are already dead, or maybe these are the cops who break down the mayor of a towns door and raid his house when he was an innocent victim and kill his dogs. Thanks, I trust the cops in general about as far as I can throw them. I trust my neighbors much more (although one of them *is* a county sheriff and him I trust along with the air marshal who lives at the end of the cul-de-sac).

But CIVILIZED people would rather be killed than lower themselves to the point where they *gasp* actually own a weapon to defend their family.

Remember this, if not for American guns, all you Euros and Aussies would be speaking German or Japanese right now!

I wouldn't go so far as the last part. We were part of an allied team and the Russians lost a hell of a lot of soldiers on that front as did the British. Without us, it would have gone to shit. But without Britain or Australia or Russia, it also would've gone to shit. It was a collective thing to push back the Nazi war engine and the Japanese war would have continued had we not dropped Fat Man and Little Boy. which were actually a product of German engineering/scientists (particularly Oppenheimer).

Yeah, i'm so glad this becomes about Nazis, and not crime stats.

And no, i don't believe in escalating a situation. I feel lucky to live in a culture where you don't need a gun to rob someone - the fact is it is harder to kill someone with a knife, so i can easily work out that all other things being equal (and they aren't) i'm less likely to die at the hands of criminals in this country than i would be in the US. And i do advocate for self-defence.

Running away from a conflict is a great form of self-defence. But in the US there is some great fear of criminals AND the government, i'm not sure what would be worse. Feeling the need to be armed and live in an armed society, or the in actual higher crime rates...

Ok, enough ragging on the idiotic and insulting characterisation of Mitchell, (are you even a real Major?) we've already agreed to live in different cultures and accept these differences. Freedom and diversit is a good thing, right? So let's talk about what we agree on, crime reduction.

Here is some extreme positions on the issue : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement

Here is a choice quote: " They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish"

@draug Oppenheimer wasn't German, he was American. Although your point about it being a largely non-American effort is still valid, the most important players were Hungarian and Italian, not German. Szilard and Fermi were the two biggest contributors to the project. Oppenheimer was more of a coordinator and manager than a contributor to the actual science.