Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Plot of all the various crime categories. Since the various crime categories have huge differences on a per 100,000 rate value I plotted the change in the rate for each category relative to 1975. Thus all are 0 in 1975. This shows very minor changes in the few years after the ban, then some big upticks in some categories like Vehicle-theft and Assault and drops in things like Rape Robbery.

zephyp wrote:

dems4guns wrote:Fat Andy,
Their view is that liberalizing guns will just lead to more guns in the streets and more bloodshed. This is not an unreasonable position, and while I understand their position and empathize with it...

Indeed and the very reason there is no bloodshed on the streets of Virginia towns and cities...thank God that guns are very strictly controlled in the good ole Commonwealth....

Please present a cogent argument and/or position regarding the thesis "...liberalizing guns will just lead to more guns in the streets and more bloodshed..." and why you agree with that thesis...

Inquiring minds want to know...

Not trying to be facetious either....the fact that VA gun crime is almost non-existent compared to places like Chicago, NYC, and DC is certainly no mystery to those us that truly understand the facts...

Oh, and my apologies if you lump me in the same category as gunderwood but statements like yours are the reason we shudder when people start talking about "reasonable gun control."

***********************************************************************************
Mr Z: I hate to take exception, however let's take a look at a few FBI Stats

Murder rates per 100,000: NY-4.0 VA-4.4 TX-5.4 FL 5.5

Rape rates per 100, 000: NY-13.2 VA-19.2 TX-33 FL-29.7

The 25 Most dangerous cities population under 500,000
Richmond VA: 15th most dangerous
D.C.: 17th most dangerous

NYC is the safest really big city in the nation
VA Beach is near the top of safest small cities, in some reports they are the safest
The FBI warns about comparing crime rates but people do it anyway.

What's the point here? looking at gun laws tell you very little about crime rates. Gun laws in Richmond and VA Beach are the same but crime rates are different. Gun laws are restrictive in both NYC and Chicago, but Chicago has a higher crime rate than NYC. But Miami a lax gun law state has a higher rate than both.

Since 100s of thousands firearms are stolen every year, it's obvious that criminals steal them from places with a high density of guns. However, it's impossible to know exactly which states have the most guns stolen because approx 6 require reporting stolen guns. There are some estimates that upwards of 300,000 to 500,000 guns may be stolen.

I'm out

Gat6

gatlingun6 wrote: What's the point here? looking at gun laws tell you very little about crime rates. Gun laws in Richmond and VA Beach are the same but crime rates are different. Gun laws are restrictive in both NYC and Chicago, but Chicago has a higher crime rate than NYC. But Miami a lax gun law state has a higher rate than both.
Gat6

Crimes will be committed whether guns are present or not, legal or illegal. People commit crimes because of their unique condition: Rapists have a need to control, Burglars, Thieves, Robbers, Car Thieves are just trying to get the money, Drug addicts need drugs, murderers have a violent impulse, etc. These crimes don't depend on firearms.

The only way to determine if firearms contribute to crime is to look at gun-related crimes. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are armed robbery and murder (high profile cases like Virginia Tech tend to exaggerate the idea that guns are used in all murders.) According to the 2009 crime data on the FBI web site, 67% of all murders were from firearms.

For armed robbery, Virginia had a robbery rate of 79 per 100,000. Florida's rate is 178 which is almost the same as California at 173, which are both higher than New Jersey which is 144 per 100K. Massachusetts sits in the middle at 113 per 100K for armed robbery. For murder, California has a rate of 5.3 per 100K, Florida is 5.5, Virginia is 4.4, Massachusetts is 2.6, and New Jersey is 3.7. DC's murder rate is a whopping 24 per 100K, and armed robbery is whopping 732 per 100K. Reference http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html

California and Massachusetts and New Jersey are considered states with the most restrictive gun polilcies and Florida and Virginia two of the least. But the data doesn't really show a trend. From statistics class, we were always taught to eliminate the data at the extreme ends to ensure you can analyze trends, because they can skew the trends. DC and Virginia actually seem at the extemes for armed robbery. And, DC is clearlly at the extreme for murder and robbery.

The more I look at this data, the less I am convinced that firearms restrictions contribute to increased crime OR decreased crime. I don't see a case made either way. The factors that cause crime rates to be lower or higher in any state or city appear to be unrelated to firearm laws and instead related to other factors, such as prosecution rates, culture, economic, mental health services, jail time, drug abuse, etc.

I now know this: If I go into DC, I would rather carry a firearm on me than out here in the suburbs.

And, I am sure glad to be living in Virginia.

I can change based on the facts. Can anyone else?
Dems4guns

Hey no sweat Gat6 and I know that you have no trouble taking exception. High densities of anything almost always yield anomalies, discrepancies, and deviations. The more pennies in a jar the more likely one will be a slug. And, the more people you have in one place the more likely it is that at least one will be a criminal. Simple statistics except in the case of people the criminal element always gravitates toward densities of population.

Sort of off subject here but just thought this might be an interesting read for dems4guns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia

I don't agree with much of what has been posted here from either side but it's hard to deny that you as an individual are responsible for your own safety. Whatever any lawmakers intentions may be, do not presume that just because they are willing to sign away my right to defend my family's or my own life that I will be complicit.

DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

This is true, that it is why it is vitally important that as an individual you are properly prepared for situations which might arise.

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away!

gatlingun6 wrote:

zephyp wrote:

dems4guns wrote:Fat Andy,
Their view is that liberalizing guns will just lead to more guns in the streets and more bloodshed. This is not an unreasonable position, and while I understand their position and empathize with it...

Indeed and the very reason there is no bloodshed on the streets of Virginia towns and cities...thank God that guns are very strictly controlled in the good ole Commonwealth....

Please present a cogent argument and/or position regarding the thesis "...liberalizing guns will just lead to more guns in the streets and more bloodshed..." and why you agree with that thesis...

Inquiring minds want to know...

Not trying to be facetious either....the fact that VA gun crime is almost non-existent compared to places like Chicago, NYC, and DC is certainly no mystery to those us that truly understand the facts...

Oh, and my apologies if you lump me in the same category as gunderwood but statements like yours are the reason we shudder when people start talking about "reasonable gun control."

***********************************************************************************
Mr Z: I hate to take exception, however let's take a look at a few FBI Stats

Murder rates per 100,000: NY-4.0 VA-4.4 TX-5.4 FL 5.5

Rape rates per 100, 000: NY-13.2 VA-19.2 TX-33 FL-29.7

The 25 Most dangerous cities population under 500,000
Richmond VA: 15th most dangerous
D.C.: 17th most dangerous

NYC is the safest really big city in the nation
VA Beach is near the top of safest small cities, in some reports they are the safest
The FBI warns about comparing crime rates but people do it anyway.

What's the point here? looking at gun laws tell you very little about crime rates. Gun laws in Richmond and VA Beach are the same but crime rates are different. Gun laws are restrictive in both NYC and Chicago, but Chicago has a higher crime rate than NYC. But Miami a lax gun law state has a higher rate than both.

Since 100s of thousands firearms are stolen every year, it's obvious that criminals steal them from places with a high density of guns. However, it's impossible to know exactly which states have the most guns stolen because approx 6 require reporting stolen guns. There are some estimates that upwards of 300,000 to 500,000 guns may be stolen.

I'm out

Gat6

The problem is you can cherry pick a state/city to prove you points. More often than not states/cities with liberal gun laws have lower crime. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large they can be explained with other observations. For example, border states like TX have a lot of crime because of illegal immigration. FL/Miami are because of drugs being run into them. You can argue what the correct way to correct for such special situations is, but the generally it dramatically lowers the crime rates.

In short, I think liberal gun laws help stop average crimes/criminals, but CC isn't going to do much stop a drug cartel from doing their thing.

caps85 wrote:Sort of off subject here but just thought this might be an interesting read for dems4guns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia

I don't agree with much of what has been posted here from either side but it's hard to deny that you as an individual are responsible for your own safety. Whatever any lawmakers intentions may be, do not presume that just because they are willing to sign away my right to defend my family's or my own life that I will be complicit.

Well, this did happen in 1975, so I am not sure it has contemporary applicability. However, I agree that we all have responsibility for our own safety, in spite of the public relations from the police department that they should be the ones to deal with any violent suspects and we should stay out of it. The other problem here is that police are trying to protect themselves in any situation. If they enter a situation where both victim and criminal are armed or in a gunfight or standoff, it puts the police at more risk of death or serious injury. It certainly complicates the violent situation at their risk.

But in the end, everyone has the right to self defense, and the police should work with the public to help them develop their own self defense methods including the proper use of firearms.

I empathize with law enforcement, but they wanted the job and it comes with risk. Thanks for the posting.
Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:

caps85 wrote:Sort of off subject here but just thought this might be an interesting read for dems4guns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia

I don't agree with much of what has been posted here from either side but it's hard to deny that you as an individual are responsible for your own safety. Whatever any lawmakers intentions may be, do not presume that just because they are willing to sign away my right to defend my family's or my own life that I will be complicit.

Well, this did happen in 1975, so I am not sure it has contemporary applicability. However, I agree that we all have responsibility for our own safety, in spite of the public relations from the police department that they should be the ones to deal with any violent suspects and we should stay out of it. The other problem here is that police are trying to protect themselves in any situation. If they enter a situation where both victim and criminal are armed or in a gunfight or standoff, it puts the police at more risk of death or serious injury. It certainly complicates the violent situation at their risk.

But in the end, everyone has the right to self defense, and the police should work with the public to help them develop their own self defense methods including the proper use of firearms.

I empathize with law enforcement, but they wanted the job and it comes with risk. Thanks for the posting.
Dems4Guns

I understand where you're coming from but my point is regarding the situations where they don't enter at all. I don't want to ever entrust my life or my family's to someone who has no legal obligation to me and is morally OK with throwing guys in wheelchairs down to the street, at least in DC :-/

caps85 wrote:

dems4guns wrote:

caps85 wrote:Sort of off subject here but just thought this might be an interesting read for dems4guns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia

I don't agree with much of what has been posted here from either side but it's hard to deny that you as an individual are responsible for your own safety. Whatever any lawmakers intentions may be, do not presume that just because they are willing to sign away my right to defend my family's or my own life that I will be complicit.

Well, this did happen in 1975, so I am not sure it has contemporary applicability. However, I agree that we all have responsibility for our own safety, in spite of the public relations from the police department that they should be the ones to deal with any violent suspects and we should stay out of it. The other problem here is that police are trying to protect themselves in any situation. If they enter a situation where both victim and criminal are armed or in a gunfight or standoff, it puts the police at more risk of death or serious injury. It certainly complicates the violent situation at their risk.

But in the end, everyone has the right to self defense, and the police should work with the public to help them develop their own self defense methods including the proper use of firearms.

I empathize with law enforcement, but they wanted the job and it comes with risk. Thanks for the posting.
Dems4Guns

I understand where you're coming from but my point is regarding the situations where they don't enter at all. I don't want to ever entrust my life or my family's to someone who has no legal obligation to me and is morally OK with throwing guys in wheelchairs down to the street, at least in DC :-/

You know, the DC police department has really changed. The crime rate is down and the misconduct is also down. The female Police Chief has really made huge improvements in the professionalism of the DC police department. Crime is drastically down. I am still disappointed in the number of unsolved murders and rapes, but overall it is a dramatic improvement. Mayor Fenty was really great for the city and he appointed her. Unfortunately, Fenty lost the last election and it looks like the old-school politics are back at work. But the Police Chief is staying and as long as she is there, I think they are going to behave and respond quickly.
Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:You know, the DC police department has really changed. The crime rate is down and the misconduct is also down. The female Police Chief has really made huge improvements in the professionalism of the DC police department. Crime is drastically down. I am still disappointed in the number of unsolved murders and rapes, but overall it is a dramatic improvement. Mayor Fenty was really great for the city and he appointed her. Unfortunately, Fenty lost the last election and it looks like the old-school politics are back at work. But the Police Chief is staying and as long as she is there, I think they are going to behave and respond quickly.

You keep saying that, but you already ignored the half a dozen posts, with sources, showing you that the DC polices behavior has not in fact improved. The wheelchair incident is new as is the snowball as is...on and on.

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it true. If you want to argue this point, please respond to the previous posts with valid arguments. There's no reason people should have to re-post simply because you ignored them.

My point is something totally different all together, I don't care if the department has improved, as I alone am responsible for my safety. The SCOTUS has already absolved any police from responsibility for the safety of your person, and even if they had not, I do not trust them to be there when seconds count.

gunderwood wrote: Their view is that liberalizing guns will just lead to more guns in the streets and more bloodshed. This is not an unreasonable position, and while I understand their position and empathize with it...

Indeed and the very reason there is no bloodshed on the streets of Virginia towns and cities...thank God that guns are very strictly controlled in the good ole Commonwealth....

Please present a cogent argument and/or position regarding the thesis "...liberalizing guns will just lead to more guns in the streets and more bloodshed..." and why you agree with that thesis...

Inquiring minds want to know...

Not trying to be facetious either....the fact that VA gun crime is almost non-existent compared to places like Chicago, NYC, and DC is certainly no mystery to those us that truly understand the facts...

Oh, and my apologies if you lump me in the same category as gunderwood but statements like yours are the reason we shudder when people start talking about "reasonable gun control."[/quote]
***********************************************************************************
Mr Z: I hate to take exception, however let's take a look at a few FBI Stats

Murder rates per 100,000: NY-4.0 VA-4.4 TX-5.4 FL 5.5

Rape rates per 100, 000: NY-13.2 VA-19.2 TX-33 FL-29.7

The 25 Most dangerous cities population under 500,000
Richmond VA: 15th most dangerous
D.C.: 17th most dangerous

NYC is the safest really big city in the nation
VA Beach is near the top of safest small cities, in some reports they are the safest
The FBI warns about comparing crime rates but people do it anyway.

What's the point here? looking at gun laws tell you very little about crime rates. Gun laws in Richmond and VA Beach are the same but crime rates are different. Gun laws are restrictive in both NYC and Chicago, but Chicago has a higher crime rate than NYC. But Miami a lax gun law state has a higher rate than both.

Since 100s of thousands firearms are stolen every year, it's obvious that criminals steal them from places with a high density of guns. However, it's impossible to know exactly which states have the most guns stolen because approx 6 require reporting stolen guns. There are some estimates that upwards of 300,000 to 500,000 guns may be stolen.

I'm out

Gat6[/quote]
The problem is you can cherry pick a state/city to prove you points. More often than not states/cities with liberal gun laws have lower crime. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large they can be explained with other observations. For example, border states like TX have a lot of crime because of illegal immigration. FL/Miami are because of drugs being run into them. You can argue what the correct way to correct for such special situations is, but the generally it dramatically lowers the crime rates.

In short, I think liberal gun laws help stop average crimes/criminals, but CC isn't going to do much stop a drug cartel from doing their thing.[/quote]
***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mr Z there was no cherry picking, I was responding to specific statements that crime is lower in states with liberal gun laws. Clearly that's not the case because crime statistics are all over the place between states and intra-state regardless of gun laws. Look at Richmond and Virginia Beach. Same gun laws vastly different crime statistics. New York City and Buffalo same state gun laws but different crime rates. NYC is the safest major city in the country, Buffalo isn't. The same is true in a State like Texas. The crime rate for El Paso is lower than the rate for Houston. So no you can't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that would be just making it up regardless of the facts.

We really don't know if gun control laws work because with few exceptions it has never been tried nation wide. One of the reasons is gun advocacy groups have been very successful at watering down most national gun laws, and hampering execution and enforcement. It's analogous to what would have happened to automobiles if the horse and buggy industry had been allowed to influence what cars looked like, and how they operated. How can we claim that background checks don't work, when 40% of all gun sales are not subject to background checks, and sufficient funds were never appropriated to insure that the national data base was up to date.

I'm beginning to see that we know very little about guns in the U.S. A lot of what we know are estimates, or self reported, and we know how notoriously inaccurate the latter data is. Here's some things we really don't know.
How many gun are stolen annually: Only 6 states require reporting stolen guns, so we really don't know.
Of home invasion robberies how many of those homes had guns in the house.
In armed robberies how many victims were armed
Of people prosecuted who also used a gun in the crime, how many were first time offenders.
For every felony investigated by police how often did the victim have a gun in their possession.
How many permit holders carry daily
How many open carry daily
How many attempted felonies investigated by police were prevented by a gun, fired or not fired.

I'm sure I could come up with others. I think we can say that federal gun laws concerning automatic weapons, individual rocket launchers, and grenade launchers have been pretty effective. Go to any evidence lockup and you won't find such weapons. No doubt that would not be true if these weapons were offered for sale on the same basis as any hand or long gun is today.

Gat6

@Gat6 - actually Mr. Gunderwood accused you of cherry picking data...I was busy doing something useful....

If you live in a high density area why dont you practice what you preach...turn your guns in or better yet give them to me. Eat your own dog food and be the first...convince all you leftists friends to do the same...wont bother me a bit...