Violent Crime Declined As Gun Sales Climbed in 2009

Violent Crime Declined As Gun Sales Climbed in 2009

Matt Cover
CNSNews.com
Thursday, September 16, 2010

Violent crime continued to fall in 2009, even as gun sales reached an all-time high, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This is “proof positive that gun prohibitionists have been consistently and undeniably wrong,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a statement.

Released Tuesday, the violent crime statistics are part of the FBI’s yearly Uniform Crime Report, which collects crime statistics from localities all across the country and is the most comprehensive report on crime in America.

According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes of all types declined in 2009 by 5.3 percent and property crimes declined 4.6 percent. In fact, the rate of violent crime declined 6.1 percent below 2008 figures.

In total, the FBI estimated that 1.3 million violent crimes were committed in 2009.

“Each of the four violent crime offenses decreased when compared with the 2008 estimates. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter and robbery had the largest decreases: 7.3 percent and 8.0 percent, respectively,” the FBI said in a press release summarizing the report. “In addition, aggravated assault decreased 4.2 percent, and forcible rape declined 2.6 percent.”

In fact, the types of crime most likely to be committed with a firearm, murders and manslaughters, experienced one of the greatest rates of decline in 2009 – 7.3 percent.

While violent crime was going down in 2009, guns sales were experiencing a record year. According to data from the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System (NICS), 2009 was the best year on record for gun sales.

According to the NICS figures, 14 million guns were sold in 2009, the biggest year since the system began recording data in 1998. The NICS figures are considered the most accurate measurement of gun sales because federal law requires that a NICS check be done prior to every firearm sale in America.

In fact, there were nearly 2 million more guns sold in the United States in 2009 than in 2008, the next best year for gun sales, when 12.7 million NICS checks were recorded.

The NCIS data do not capture all gun sales, however, as only federally licensed primary dealers are required to conduct them. Firearms sales between private citizens can still be done freely, without having to let the federal government know about it. This normally occurs at one of the nation’s many public gun shows, meaning that the firearms sales figures provided by NICS are actually lower than the true figures.

This means that gun sales likely exceeded the already record figure of 14 million indicated by the NICS.

Taken together, these two sets of statistics seem to undermine the claims of anti-Second Amendment groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that push for strict federal and state gun control laws, including an outright ban on so-called assault weapons.

Such groups have gone to great lengths to make a connection between gun ownership and violent crime, often pointing out that gun ownership “increases the risk” of injury of death.

“Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3,” the Brady Campaign’s Web site states.

Given that as gun sales have increased, violent crime has decreased seems to indicate that firearm ownership and the commission of violent crime is only incidentally, not causally, linked.

“What the data tell us is exactly the opposite of what the gun-ban lobby has predicted for several years,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in a statement. “Their dire predictions that America’s streets would run red have been shown up as a fraudulent sales pitch for public disarmament.”

“No matter how gun prohibitionists try to spin this,” said Gottlieb, “the bottom line is that they have been consistently and demonstrably wrong, and they know it. On the other hand, gun rights organizations have been consistently right when we argued that increased gun ownership would not lead to higher crime rates, and might even have a deterrent effect.”

Now, lets see how the U.K.'s ban on guns is going...

The U.K. Daily Mail

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
By James Slack
Last updated at 8:42 AM on 27th October 2009

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.

Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.

The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.

Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.

'We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.'

He added: 'These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital'.

The gun crime figures, which were obtained by the Tories from official Parliamentary answers, do not include air weapons.

But they provide the first regional breakdown of the increasing use of firearms.

Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent.

Only four police forces - Cleveland-Humberside, Cambridgeshire and Sussex - recorded falls in gun crime.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .

The figures follow a warning by Mr Grayling that U.S.-style gang culture has reached some parts of the UK.

In August, he made a controversial speech warning that a collapse of 'civilised life' had allowed a brutal drug and gun crime culture - like that of the U.S. TV show The Wire - to flourish in Britain.

The hit TV series tracks the nightmare of gangs and organised crime in inner city West Baltimore and the futile efforts of police to deal with them.

The Met's decision to employ armed officers on the streets has attracted criticism.

But the force, which has already begun the scheme, insists that the unprecedented tactic is a proportionate and temporary response to prevent armed gangs from controlling estates.

Last month, police warned that teenage girls were now being dragged into the gun culture by hiding weapons for their boyfriends.

Police are targeting girls between 15 and 19 with an advertising blitz warning them that they can expect a five-year prison sentence if they are caught.

The number of women charged with firearms offences in London has increased six-fold in the past year - 12 have been charged since January.

Seven of them were teenagers, including a 16-year-old arrested after a 9mm Browning self-loading pistol was found in her bedroom.

It would seem that the old saw, "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is as predictably true as I have always said.

And you know who else agreed with me? 18th century Italian philosopher and politician Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, who wrote: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

If one but thinks about it for just a moment, the simple logic and truth of this statement is irrefutable.

Well, Matt? What's the word there in the UK on this?

I'm going to refer to the old chestnut that correlation does not imply causation. Look at it this way, poverty is also rising in the US - maybe the reason violent crime has fallen is actually because people people don't have the money to buy bullets? :p

With regards to the Daily Fail article - yes, gun crime has risen a bit in the UK - but compared to the gun crime in the US it is negligible. Would things be made better by legalising carrying guns in the UK? Err, no. They would be made categorically, horrifically worse. This way, if someone is even caught carrying a gun, they're breaking the law and can be prosecuted. Stupid kids are running around with guns, giving other stupid kids and scared people access to guns is not the answer to the problem. Let the armed police confront them and work on keeping illegal firearms out of the country. Innocent people will die in the crossfire, but having more scared or angry people able to arm themselves in the first place will only make the situation far, far worse. Don't think for a moment that the Daily Mail is advocating private ownership of guns - they aren't, their criticism is entirely with the way the police and the Labour party have dealt with the issue of gang culture.

BecMacFeegle wrote:I'm going to refer to the old chestnut that correlation does not imply causation. Look at it this way, poverty is also rising in the US - maybe the reason violent crime has fallen is actually because people people don't have the money to buy bullets? :p

Normally it's the opposite. When economic times are tough, there's usually more crime. There's been more drive-offs at the gas pumps since the recession began than under normal times. That's just an example.

BecMacFeegle wrote:With regards to the Daily Fail article - yes, gun crime has risen a bit in the UK - but compared to the gun crime in the US it is negligible. Would things be made better by legalising carrying guns in the UK? Err, no. They would be made categorically, horrifically worse. This way, if someone is even caught carrying a gun, they're breaking the law and can be prosecuted. Stupid kids are running around with guns, giving other stupid kids and scared people access to guns is not the answer to the problem. Let the armed police confront them and work on keeping illegal firearms out of the country. Innocent people will die in the crossfire, but having more scared or angry people able to arm themselves in the first place will only make the situation far, far worse. Don't think for a moment that the Daily Mail is advocating private ownership of guns - they aren't, their criticism is entirely with the way the police and the Labour party have dealt with the issue of gang culture.

Of course, i disagree and have heard these arguments time and again. In Minnesota here, they have a conceal carry law. Crime dropped in Minneapolis after that law was passed. Same goes for Texas when they did theirs. I use those cities/states because i live/lived n both.

Another point... a lot of crime is in some of the worst areas of big cities.

You call an 89% increase "a bit" of a rise??? Honestly?

And what do you have to say about Cesare Beccaria's observation?

Do you really think there are enough police to protect every single one of you? What would you do if you were confronted in your own home by a criminal with a firearm intent to do harm? How quickly do you think the police could get there (assuming you even had a chance to ring them)?

Your entire country is one big gun-free target zone.

And so what if even carrying a gun is a crime and if caught, one is prosecuted. Do you think that matters to the criminal? Criminals are labeled thus because they do not give a rat's ass about the law, including gun laws.

So in the U.K., 2 classes of persons possess firearms, police/military and criminals. The police are vastly outnumbered by the citizens. And I suspect that it operates there, very much like it does here. The actual job of the police here is to enforce the law where they see it being broken, and to apprehend and bring to the justice system those who have broken the law. But it is NOT to PROTECT citizens. It cannot be because the police cannot be everywhere at once. If their legal job were to protect citizens, then any citizen harmed by a criminal would have a legal cause of action against the police for failing to do their job of protecting citizens from crime. I would bet that this is also the case in the UK.

I would say you are putting way more faith in your police than I would ever be comfortable with when it came to my personal safety. But that is, of course, entirely you prerogative.

Normally it's the opposite. When economic times are tough, there's usually more crime. There's been more drive-offs at the gas pumps since the recession began than under normal times. That's just an example.

Tex, that was a joke. The point was that just because two things correlate, it doesn't necessarily mean that one is the cause of the other.

Of course, i disagree and have heard these arguments time and again. In Minnesota here, they have a conceal carry law. Crime dropped in Minneapolis after that law was passed. Same goes for Texas when they did theirs. I use those cities/states because i live/lived n both.

Another point... a lot of crime is in some of the worst areas of big cities.

I'm not offering arguments as though I think you should change your culture - I'm explaining how things work here. We don't want guns. You need to appreciate that our culture is very different from yours, people here do not want the ownership of guns to be legalised. Gun crime has dropped since the gun ownership laws were introduced - the reason that gun crime is rising right now is because inner city kids in this country are emulating the gun culture of gangs in America. The answer to that problem is not to allow everyone to carry guns, thanks - we don't want them. Carrying guns here is viewed as barbaric, uncivilised and dangerous. Guns are not a part of the average Brits culture, and we don't want them. The answer is to get these illegal weapons away off the streets and away from these stupid kids, not to give them to everyone else. By that argument the answer to the problem of the spread of illegal drugs would be simply to legalise them. No thanks, we'll just try our hardest to stop the supply of illegal weapons.

I usually don't criticize a country's decision to outlaw guns. In fact, i don't think I've actually done do. I'm always reminded of our problem of gun crime here in the US and there's a mitigating favor behind it and it centers mostly on the inner city people. Doesn't matter what race they are. It's a fact that the high percentage of the crime is from those areas.

You call an 89% increase "a bit" of a rise??? Honestly?

Lies, damned lies and statistics, hey? I'm always very suspicious of statistics - especially those printed in the Daily Flail.

Check these out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20-year low.[40] However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective Policing and an out of control gang culture.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

I phrased that poorly. Yes there is an increase, but when you consider that - supposed - 89% is an increase from 5200 to 9800 - with no indication of the severity of these instances, nor any indication of how the impact of the change in the manner in which gun crime is recorded could have impacted on these statistics.

What do I think of Cesare Beccaria?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Well, staying on topic - it does not apply to my country. Am I disarmed by not carrying a gun in this culture? No. People carry guns around here - shot guns. They're farmers. And quite a few people in the country have air rifles too. I'm quite happy for it to stay that way. I don't want a gun - I don't need a gun. Let the people who need them have them.

And as you asked about the gun laws in this country, I shall refrain from commenting on how I feel about that comment more generally.

Do you really think there are enough police to protect every single one of you? What would you do if you were confronted in your own home by a criminal with a firearm intent to do harm? How quickly do you think the police could get there (assuming you even had a chance to ring them)?

People who don't live in gang areas in inner cities have no real threat of ever being confronted by someone with a gun. If a criminal confronted me with a firearm in my home my chances of survival would be massively increased if I did not have a gun. Without a gun I'm not a threat, the criminal is in control - let him take what he wants and get out. Then let the police catch him. As we have a security system, the police would be alerted the second he tried to force the door so good luck to him. But he doesn't need a gun to be a threat - he could have a knife, a bat - or even no weapon at all and still be a threat. Would having a gun make me feel safer? No. And if I had one and shot him, in this country it's likely that I would be the one who ended up in prison.

Your entire country is one big gun-free target zone.

Yes. And we like it that way. So long as we can keep the guns out - and for the most part we do (as gun crime accounts for 0.5% of the total crime in this country) then it works, thanks.

And so what if even carrying a gun is a crime and if caught, one is prosecuted. Do you think that matters to the criminal? Criminals are labeled thus because they do not give a rat's ass about the law, including gun laws.

No. But then they go to prison. It makes it harder for people to get hold of guns and it ensures that people who are utterly unsuitable to carry a gun (most people, imo) do not do so.

So in the U.K., 2 classes of persons possess firearms, police/military and criminals. The police are vastly outnumbered by the citizens.

Thankfully 'citizens' and 'criminals' are not the same thing, and as firearms are illegal the police - who for the most part don't carry firearms - aren't outnumbered by those criminals who do.

And I suspect that it operates there, very much like it does here. The actual job of the police here is to enforce the law where they see it being broken, and to apprehend and bring to the justice system those who have broken the law. But it is NOT to PROTECT citizens.

Well, the police are a visible and constant presence. The law is there to protect people, the police are the long arm of the law. Part of their job is indeed to protect - they don't just sit in a little office all day waiting for a telephone call to say a crime has happened. The walk a beat. Then there are all the security systems and alarm buttons which alert the police if a crime is taking place. So yes, I would say that protection is part of what they do. People complain that they don't do it enough, but then that's the system being broken and needing fixing - it doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely.

It cannot be because the police cannot be everywhere at once. If their legal job were to protect citizens, then any citizen harmed by a criminal would have a legal cause of action against the police for failing to do their job of protecting citizens from crime. I would bet that this is also the case in the UK.

Well, that sounds considerably more like a compensation culture gone mad than a good example of the police failing to do their duty. Of course they cannot be everywhere all the time - so it's fantastic then that dangerous weapons in order to reduce the threat. You want guns in your culture? Fine. We don't. If there were no weapons, no one would be injured at all - and for the most part that works incredibly well because the numbers of people killed in the country are TINY - and they certainly didn't increase after the ban was introduced. Gun crime goes up, so the answer is to introduce more guns??!! That's crazy talk. Let's get rid of the illegal weapons. They'll always sneak a few in but generally the people who get injured by guns are part of the gun culture.

I would say you are putting way more faith in your police than I would ever be comfortable with when it came to my personal safety. But that is, of course, entirely you prerogative.

Yes it is. And I will continue to abide by the law and to believe that a country where the citizens are protected by the law is far more civilised than one where people feel they can take the law into their own hands, where vigilantism and violence rule.

dblboggie wrote:Now, lets see how the U.K.'s ban on guns is going...

What makes you think we have a gun ban?

dblboggie wrote:So in the U.K., 2 classes of persons possess firearms, police/military and criminals.

Nope. You forgot farmers (and farmer's mums ), clay pigeon club members (hobbyists and competitive sports), huntsmen (hunting foxes now means they have to be shot when caught).

We have a ban on handguns, not all firearms.

It is all very well saying that gun crime is all the fault of illegal owners, but Michael Ryan owned most of his guns legally.

Look at the statistics on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country

% homicides with firearms
UK 8
USA 65

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
UK 0.12
USA 2.97

Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
UK 1.33
USA 1.58

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
UK 1.45
USA 4.55

I'm not against guns, but I am against such free and easy access to such deadly weapons. I feel we have the balance right. Ownership is subject to security checks and psychological testing. And your insistence that you need one to "protect you from the government" rather bizarre in 2010 when your constitutional right to bear arms was granted over 200 years ago in a very different world.