Two new studies: Gun crime has dropped dramatically over last 20 years — and most Americans have no idea

posted at 4:41 pm on May 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Behold the power of this fully armed and operational propaganda machine. First, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s…

In 2004 (the most recent year of data available), among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, fewer than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

Bear that two percent figure in mind the next time Obama or Biden starts wheezing about the gun-show loophole. Now, from Pew, the kicker:

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades…

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

You can’t appreciate the magnitude of the decline without seeing it in graph form. Click here and make your way through Pew’s interactive table. In virtually every demographic, gun homicides and violent firearm crime are either lower or way, way lower than they were 20 years ago — and this despite the fact that, as Charles Cooke notes, gun laws were liberalized during that period. I remember stern warnings from the media in 2004 that if the assault-weapons ban were allowed to lapse, all the gains that had been made in reducing gun violence in the late 90s and early 00s would disappear. Like I say: Have a look at Pew’s table. In fact, per the BJS numbers above, gun homicides actually rose during the second half of the AWB’s 10-year tenure before declining again a few years after the ban lapsed. After wading through the BJS data, J.D. Tuccille of Reason dug up another interesting data point:

“[M]ilitary-style semiautomatic or fully automatic” firearms, of the sort targeted by Sen. Feinstein at the federal level, and by new laws in Colorado, Connecticut and New York, make up a whopping 3.2 percent of the weapons possessed by federal inmates, and 2 percent of the weapons possessed by state inmates, at the time of their offense.

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue about the dramatic decline in gun crime. On the contrary, a clear majority thinks it’s gone up — despite dutiful news reports whenever the FBI releases its crime data, despite endless (and justified) coverage of the “broken windows” theory and NYC’s celebrated turnaround in crime under Giuliani and Bill Bratton. Partly that might be due to a general default assumption among the public that social problems tend to get worse, not better. Society seems to get coarser all the time, ergo there must be more violence. Wrong, although you can understand how that conclusion is drawn. It’s probably also partly due to the saturation coverage of horrendous mass shootings. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown — it feels like gun violence is exploding, especially at schools, even though it’s much reduced nationwide. (Per Tuccille, the BJS data shows fewer homicides at schools annually now than 20 years ago.) And of course, partly the false perception is owing to the sense of crisis/opportunity inculcated by Obama and his media allies after Sandy Hook to push their broader gun-control agenda even though the measures they proposed would have done zip to stop Adam Lanza. If you’re a low-information voter watching Obama’s various pressers over the last five months, why wouldn’t you assume that gun crime is spiralling ever upward? Rhetorically, at least, he’s spent more time on gun control than he has on any other issue — more than unemployment, North Korea and Syria, immigration, you name it. The problem must be getting worse to justify making it his tippy top public priority; otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms. And that can’t be true. Can it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s a mystery indeed.

squint on May 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Bishopalooza!

Marcola on May 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Coburn Proposes Common Sense Universal Background Check System, Gun Controllers Hate It
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

Make no mistake: a universal gun registry is what they really want. “Universal” background checks are just the means to the end for them, the stepping stone in that direction. And Coburn’s proposal gives the public what they want while denying the gun control advocates their registry. And it’s pissing them off.

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Facts, who knew?

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

But how much did gun crime go UP … in Chicago ?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Okay, as someone wise once wrote…the baby boomers, it’s a lot harder to climb through a window and rob a house when you are sixty years old than when you are under 40…

We can’t run as fast, talk as fast, fight as hard…we just want to finish off our life in quiet…

All of our lives we have driven the economy…now we are driving retirement…

right2bright on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

The problem must be getting worse to justify making it his tippy top public priority; otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms.

He needs an enemy to progress against the US. Guns is a handy one. Notice how the “War on Women” has been non-existent since the start of the Gosnell trial. Whenever a verdict is reached, it’ll be back.

BobMbx on May 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM

These facts hurt the libs ajenda and don’t play well their their “story”. Libs=lies. This truth won’t stand with them.

Cadian on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry. Before then, there were defenses from prosecution, not carry laws.

Made it much easier for those of us with a need to carry. And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue about the dramatic decline in gun crime.

Just shows how much we all have been victimized by the gun grabbing propagandists with the fully automatic talking points.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

and most Americans have no idea

None whatsoever. Sadly, thanks to school idoctrinators, abetted by our media and entertainment industries, that’s pretty much the case in so many important matters.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM

well thats what happens, when the media is in the tank for the left.

Raquel Pinkbullet on May 7, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Coburn Proposes Common Sense Universal Background Check System, Gun Controllers Hate It
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

This system infringes on my privacy and is an offense. the idea that it somehow precludes the feral government amassing a database is ridiculous.

F-Off Coburn. No universal background checks, period. What we already have is an offense to the Constitution.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

According to Frekonmics it’s inner city abortion. Also we have been buying lots of guns and CC laws have become commonplace except in peaceful Chicago, Detroit, NC, ATL, LA and other democrat dominated hell holes.

jukin3 on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

On a different post today I linked to an Executive Order signed by Obama on Jan. 1, 2013 that gave these agencies access to NICS.

Membership. In addition to the Chair, the Working Group shall consist of representatives of the following agencies:

(i) the Department of Defense;

(ii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iii) the Department of Transportation;

(iv) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(v) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vi) the Social Security Administration;

(vii) the Office of Personnel Management;

(viii) the Office of Management and Budget; and

(ix) such other agencies or offices as the Chair may designate.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM

That screen shot is so grating. Makes me wanna give him a smack upside that smirk.

tru2tx on May 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

and most Americans have no idea

Well, we did learn about how much having sex at Georgetown costs over 4 years instead.

BobMbx on May 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Television and movies have gotten much, much more violent over the years which gives the impression that there is more violence. And the news media can’t wait to sensationalize each child abduction or shooting. But that had always happened, really. People today think that the wild west was one big gun battle. The reality is that the fight out at the OK Corral was a big deal at the time because those things just didn’t happen all that much.

It did in the movies. And it’s still does… in the movies.

Lily on May 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Let’s face it, a majority of the American public has their head up their ass. They’re too busy watching Dancing with Stars and Honey Boo-boo.

GarandFan on May 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Thats why when DEMOCRATS and the left wing libtards talk about gun laws, they are full of $HIT every time, and are liars.

TX-96 on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

It’s not PC but if Black gun violence were taken out of the equation the numbers would drop to near insignificance.

Mason on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

(v) the Department of Homeland Security;

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I constantly see their “police SUVs” all over Philadelphia. It offends me. Truly. And the fact that they say “POLICE” in big letters on the SUV and have that idiotic “federal protective police” label on the sides make me sick. The US has never had any federal police force and should never have one. It is insane. I cannot believe that this cr@p is allowed to go on. I feel like I stepped into some sh!thole Eurotrash joke of a nation – though I guess living in the American Socialist Superstate is supposed to give that exact sort of sick feeling to any sane person.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue

Putting a positive spin on it, this is at least a decrease from the 52% who had no clue about anything last November.

Erich66 on May 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

This is why the media, education and entertainment does matter.

Just because we know about this do not assumes other should naturally know this as well. Conservatives and libertarians must crush the leftest in the MSM (buy them out or ruin them), the public education system (with vouchers and charter schools), and the entertainment industry (Hollywood and the music industry).

This is a informational war and right now we are losing because we don’t communicate our views well at all.

William Eaton on May 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

This system infringes on my privacy and is an offense. the idea that it somehow precludes the feral government amassing a database is ridiculous.

F-Off Coburn. No universal background checks, period. What we already have is an offense to the Constitution.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Such things are very illustrative in showing the gun grabber’s true intentions in wanting Universal Registration.

On the one hand they will claim it does no such thing, but on the other – their “universal Registration” scam can Only work with registration.

Galt2009 on May 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe DOJ used prosecutions/convictions whereas the other data may include unsolved/unprosecuted cases?

weaselyone on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms. And that can’t be true. Can it?


Or
the SCOAMF is using it as a distraction from the Most Corrupt Administration EVER bankrolling the Too Big Too Fail banks with $ 83 billion/year in government subsidies (i.e. their profits and his camaign contributors billions of dollars and bonuses) while unemployment numbers, the GDP number and Obamacare disaster are completely ignored by the Pavlovian response of the Kneepad Media to the “gun control bell”?

PolAgnostic on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe DOJ used prosecutions/convictions whereas the other data may include unsolved/unprosecuted cases?

weaselyone on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Could it possibly be because DOJ for the past 4 1/2 years has been unethically run by someone who hates guns?

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Coburn Proposes Common Sense Universal Background Check System, Gun Controllers Hate It
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

Make no mistake: a universal gun registry is what they really want. “Universal” background checks are just the means to the end for them, the stepping stone in that direction. And Coburn’s proposal gives the public what they want while denying the gun control advocates their registry. And it’s pissing them off.

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I’ve never seen a writeup of what exactly is wrong with our present system of background checks for gun purchases. I’ve done it many times, the first time about eighteen years ago and it seemed to work just fine. Why is it the existing system not ‘universal’?

Has the public ever been polled with the question: “are you aware we already have a system for background checks for the purchase of guns, and have for X years?”

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

It’s not PC but if Black gun violence were taken out of the equation the numbers would drop to near insignificance.

Mason on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Didn’t look at the breakdowns by race, but didn’t other minorities also have a lot of gun violence, like the Hispanics?

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

It’s not PC but if Black gun violence were taken out of the equation the numbers would drop to near insignificance.

Mason on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Yeah, but that’s really the fault of you white people, because,

because…

Shutup!

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

But how much did gun crime go UP … in Chicago ?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

This.

And I would bet that the bulk of the decrease in national gun violence occurred in states that passed concealed carry laws. Thugs don’t like a level playing field, and gun-free zones are still victim-rich zones.

iurockhead on May 7, 2013 at 5:26 PM

But how much did gun crime go UP … in Chicago ?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

http://www.heyjackass.com/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

and most Americans have no idea

Facts are hard.

itsspideyman on May 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Close the burglary background check loophole!!!!!111!!

Ward Cleaver on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

because…

Shutup!

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

This will never get old. Ever.

Just like “pull my finger”, it will live forever.

hey, let’s do a Reese’s cup thing here…

“Pull my finger”

“Why”

“because….shutup!”

BobMbx on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Gun ownership up, gun crime down.

It’s only puzzling if you’re a gun-grabbing lib.

Missy on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

According to data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

But…Piers Morgan.

d1carter on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

You are so right on in your opinion and analysis of DHS, I can’t even imagine a more bureaucratic, militaristic, disdainful organization than DHS.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry….And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

excellent catch cozmo. October 1991 was the Luby’s massacre in Killeen. Spring of 1995 we passed the must issue CCL law. Removed the barriers to carry.

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM

From the Pew Chart – Percentage decrease by ethnicity from 1994 – 2010

……………….% Decr.
White……….-42%
Hispanic…..-69%
Black………..-50%
Nat Amer….-28%
Asn/P Isl….-79%

PolAgnostic on May 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Not so excellent catch.

I was very familiar with the carry laws before Texas changed them. I met two of the three requirements to be able to carry, and was angry that it was a defense from prosecution instead of a true ability to carry.

There is such a thing as jerk cops, and I had to deal with a few of them during that period.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM

My friends and I used to set off stink bombs at school. Think that would classify as chemical weapons today?

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Ooops. Wrong thread.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Crap….nonpartisan still doesn’t know.

CW on May 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Nonpartisan still doesn’t know crap.

CW on May 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Preview your sentence structure.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

[Charlie Rangel] went on: “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/21/dem-rep-makes-wildly-inaccurate-claim-about-children-killed-with-so-called-assault-weapons/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

What’s the carbon footprint of this?: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020936072_apwaseattlegunbuyback.html

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

There is such a thing as jerk cops, and I had to deal with a few of them during that period.

must still be around too, wasn’t that vet on the Scout camping trip that had the rude gun detained right around Killeen recently?

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

[Charlie Rangel] went on: “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/21/dem-rep-makes-wildly-inaccurate-claim-about-children-killed-with-so-called-assault-weapons/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Millions of kids dying? Did he get ‘gun crime’ mixed up with the abortion industry?

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Coincidently enough – gun crime has gone down as the LEGAL sales of gun have skyrocketed.
Couldn’t possibly be a link between those stats, could there?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Many watch the alphabet media and parrot what they hear and see, never for a moment checking back at the sources of their statements. There are those that talk about magazines holding illegal amounts of ammo for revolvers, chem trails with internet sites showing the spraying over seven miles up. Google (list of government agencies) read’em all, it’s so bad that you will think it’s fake. And while you’re at it google (number of staff for Congress) this too is beyond belief.

mixplix on May 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry. Before then, there were defenses from prosecution, not carry laws.

Made it much easier for those of us with a need to carry. And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

My girl has that covered, but you might want to see Coulter’s recent, too:

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2013/05/americas-most-feared-economist.html

Axe on May 7, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You said it right Alla:

It “feels” that things are worse, which means we must pass new laws.

It “feels” that you are gonna get shot for stepping out of your house thus we must pass laws that will help criminals retain the power and make law abiding citizens victims.

It “feels” that the health care system is bad, thus we need to pass a whole new entitlement to make that bad system happen.

It “feels” that hot summer weather is hot thus we must pass new laws to cut our standard of living making everyone poorer.

It “feels” that gays and women are horribly oppressed and have no special rights nowhere found in the Constitution thus we need to pass laws that curtail someone else’s rights to not “feel” guilty anymore.

….

It “feels” that we are getting screwed…

ptcamn on May 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM

It “feels” that we are getting screwed…

ptcamn on May 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Yes. WE are.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:02 PM

While I don’t actually object to a national registry of all guns, it sure is fun seeing the Democrats get beat up over it.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM

While I don’t actually object to a national registry of all guns, it sure is fun seeing the Democrats get beat up over it.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM

And I don’t object to a national registry of your political leanings. Hello Obama.care

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM

And I don’t object to a national registry of your political leanings. Hello Obama.care

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Non sequitor?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Get over it, libtards!!!!

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM

While I don’t actually object to a national registry of all guns, it sure is fun seeing the Democrats get beat up over it.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Oh good lord…if you are in favor of a national registry of all guns, you are as liberal as all Democrats. Give it up.

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Non sequitor?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Nahhh. I’m as stiff as Victor Von Doom after a fire hydrant.

You get what you pay for.

Econ. 101.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Troll free thread. Go figure…

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Oh good lord…if you are in favor of a national registry of all guns, you are as liberal as all Democrats. Give it up.

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

???
So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Troll free thread. Go figure…

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

hardly.

eat more kale!!!!!!

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Nahhh. I’m as stiff as Victor Von Doom after a fire hydrant.

You get what you pay for.

Econ. 101.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Wait, what?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM

So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

so, it’s ok if the gubmint appoints someone to vote for you too…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM

So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

OK – try putting on the old thinking cap for a minute.
With the registry they know who has what guns – except for the criminals of course.
Without the registry, they don’t know who to go after.
That’s why every fascist or communist dictatorship in human history started with a national gun registry, THEN went for the total confiscation – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and more.
Also the UK. They implemented a registry first, and that was followd by a total confiscation a few years ago.
Do you see a connection yet?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Troll free thread. Go figure…

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Not quite…..

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

so, it’s ok if the gubmint appoints someone to vote for you too…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM

I think that may have already been done in the last 2 major elections.

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Not quite…..

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

more like, not even close

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:24 PM

OK – try putting on the old thinking cap for a minute.
With the registry they know who has what guns – except for the criminals of course.
Without the registry, they don’t know who to go after.
That’s why every fascist or communist dictatorship in human history started with a national gun registry, THEN went for the total confiscation – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and more.
Also the UK. They implemented a registry first, and that was followd by a total confiscation a few years ago.
Do you see a connection yet?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

so, it’s ok if the gubmint appoints someone to vote for you too…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM


Are you just pulling my leg, or do you really see any kind of logical connection between your comments and mine?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

EXACTLY!! The harder they crack down, the faster they lose.

Bank on it.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

How do they know who to go after? How would they know if I have guns to consfiscate?
Without a registry, they would have to search every house in the country with no probable cause, in violation of the 4th amendment as well as the 2nd, and that would attract far too much attention – and resistance.

Now, if you’re trying to tap dance around the idea of the Dems declaring martial law, as they nearly / essentially did in Watertown, MA, then perhaps you have a point. But if they tried that in a red state (vs very blue Taxachusetts), people would be putting up a fight.

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Are you just pulling my leg, or do you really see any kind of logical connection between your comments and mine?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

what difference does that data make at this point?

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

That’s why I said “not quite”.
I’m not really sure whether Count to 10 is a troll or not.
So far just seems to have a misguided or non-thinking opinion on gun registry – so I’m trying to stay calm and logical so far.

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM

So Ricardo says to Shattner…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Stats can be stats for many reason…ownership is up because their is more discretionary income to spend on our hobbies.
That’s what the baby boomers have done their whole life…drive the economy. Also an increase in RV sales coincides with a decrease in crime, so criminals are taking a vacation now?
No, it’s because an aging population commits fewer crimes…like I stated above, an over weight, aging criminal can’t crawl through a window of a house…the “drive” is gone, they just want to retire.
For the next 20 years, crime will drop, and hospital/medical costs will rise.
Larger homes will go on the market as we downsize, guns, scrap booking, etc, will increase in popularity.

We have driven the economy, and have driven marketing of products since we were born…and driven the social scene, you think the “60′s” were people over 30? You think the sexual revolution was people over 40?

And now we are “tired” finishing up our work, and yes, that includes criminals.

And yes, that means more conservative ideas…and higher medical costs.

Reading that an increase in guns have caused a drop in crime…means that an increase in RV sales has decreased crime also, increase in retirement, increase in medical care, increase in the number of grandchildren…

right2bright on May 7, 2013 at 10:16 PM

One word: lofo.

Axeman on May 8, 2013 at 8:54 AM

According to Frekonmics it’s inner city abortion. Also we have been buying lots of guns and CC laws have become commonplace except in peaceful Chicago, Detroit, NC, ATL, LA and other democrat dominated hell holes.

jukin3 on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I think you are right on point one, and point two.

Dasher on May 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Allapundit should educate himself with this article from the Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith on why it is important to intervene in Syria.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/our-strategic-allys-strategic-clarity_721924.html

philrat on May 8, 2013 at 11:22 PM