Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

[underpants]

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

A total of 145 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11, or eight fewer than the 153 incidents in fiscal 2009-10. State police track all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including "bars/nightclubs" and "restaurants."

"Most folks obey the law, and that's a good thing," said McEachin, who remains staunchly opposed. "But I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that just like drinking and driving doesn't mix, guns and drinking don't mix."

Tom Lisk, a lobbyist who represents the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, still believes it's a bad idea to mix alcohol and firearms, and he says the crime numbers essentially affirm his initial position on the issue.

"We acknowledged during the legislative debate that the vast majority of individuals that hold concealed-weapons permits are indeed law-abiding citizens, and most would not cause any problem," Lisk said. "But at the same time, we also advocated that they in fact were human beings, and some small number would probably be the source of some problem because you're mixing alcohol and firearms.



Read more: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/aug/14/tdmain01-gun-crime-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/

---

At The Times-Dispatch's request, state police pulled from their computerized database all major crimes at bars and restaurants reported by local law-enforcement agencies across Virginia for two successive fiscal years. The Times-Dispatch then contacted more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all aggravated assaults, homicides and sexual assaults involving firearms at those businesses.

AND a pro-gun group President is the first quote in the article and the last. No one said it would be a blood bath they said that is was a bad idea - including the trade organization and many bar owners. This is the first year and there was no real change - which WAS part of the argument for it.

[X_Digger]

1. One year really isn't enough to establish a trend- in either direction. n/t

[Frisbee]

4. No, but combined with common sense, I think...

the facts pretty much speak for themselves.

[X_Digger]

6. Agreed.. VA bars and restaurants didn't turn into a Hollywood Western

I believe there are only 6 states that prohibit concealed carry entirely in restaurants that serve alcohol, so if the other states are any indication, the end result is likely to be..

:shrug:

[caseymoz]

73. Which version of common sense?

A decline of five or six percent fall in one year isn't significant, not when the general direction of crime has been down for over two decades, especially when you have under 200 incidents, and most especially when you don't know the normal, yearly, variance. Most you could say is: gun crime didn't surge, and it didn't plunge.

All I'm saying is: wait until common sense is actually confirmed by data to feel vindicated, because common sense can't confirm common sense.

[SteveM]

82. So far "more guns + more crime" has not been proven by VA experience?

[caseymoz]

134. You meant the = sign?

No, I said you can't tell anything from that statistic. Nothing. There are too many random factors and too much noise in the system for a one year decline to tell you anything. Ask a statistician, one that isn't a guerrilla marketer for the gun industry, and they'll confirm that for you. Maybe you could tell in other ways, maybe as more data comes in you'll know.

Most you could say is, conceal-carry hasn't created a crisis, and it hasn't wiped out crime. But you already knew that.

If you're already dead certain that guns were going to help prevent crime, you'll still be dead certain when you see this number, and you'd feel more persuasive about it.That's not common sense, though it is common. Eveerybody of any class strives to strengthen what they believe.

There might be an environment where adding more guns won't make things worse. Maybe with an older population, a large proportion of our young adult demographic in prison, the rest in the worst physical shape in history and fed as much violent entertainment as they want, our country would be that environment.

So, I'm conceding to your point.

[hack89]

8. There is a 20 year national trend to consider

violent crime (including gun crime) is at historic lows - you have to go back 50 years to find lower rates. During the same period gun ownership has skyrocketed. Also during that period we have seen a dramatic broadening of civil rights pertaining to guns.

You have never been safer.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[X_Digger]

13. We've added at least 130M+ firearms since 1998..

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/080111_TotalNICSBackgroundChecks.pdf

I'd think it's fair to say that the 'more guns = more crime' canard is kind of busted.

[Hoyt]

28. Just another 130M guns we'll have to deal with at some point. Time to stop proliferation.

Like Bill Maher said the other night, something to the effect -- need to have a law that no more guns can be manufactured, then you guys who want another to add to your cache will literally have to pry them from another guy's cold, dead hands.

[X_Digger]

31. You do realize that Bill was making fun of you, right?

Bill was saying that there should be a 'left' crazy version of the tea baggers in the democratic party for balance.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

57. tea baggers is to republicans as bill's {whatever} group is to democrats..

ie, crazy (right)-- aka tea party nuts v crazy (left)-- aka (damned if I can recall if Bill gave them a name..)

That group would take the most extreme positions of the left, to balance the extreme positions of the right.

[gejohnston]

116. at the same time

He is hugging his bong, contributing more to gun violence than all of us combined though his financial support to the drug gangs. He is a funny comedian, but I don't give a rat's ass about his political opinions.

[rrneck]

131. I guess

now we know who sharesunited was. nt

[hack89]

51. Why do they need to be dealt with?

What horrible things do you think will happen?

[SteveM]

84. Cute, but misses the point: The crime rate is down...

Whatever ills you may assign to "proliferation," you have not shown how thhis affect societal problems. If you can, please show.

[James48]

40. Number of background checks do not equal number of guns sold

nor do they take into account the same people may be buying multiple guns.

Just saying-

(I fully support private gun ownership).

[X_Digger]

44. Yeah, I worded that badly..

I intended the 'at least' to cover multiple sales, but I could have clarified.

[caseymoz]

72. We also have an older population

And a high number of our young adult population in prison, and many others who are in worse shape than any other generation in history. But they do have some of the best entertainment in history.

In other words, there are a lot of factors at work here, and since the right wing eschews science for "common sense" we'll never get it untangled.

But I will admit, infinite access to guns can't make crime worse in every environment.

[Hoyt]

2. If NRA has their way, more and more folks will carry in public -- next guy may be like Loughner or

even worse.

[onehandle]

15. Wait until Obama is re-elected.

Domestic terrorists will come out of their basements with a 'vengeance.'

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. More bad fiction...History and the accepted stats do not support your postion in the least.

[defendandprotect]

34. Agree -- it's insane logic that arming the public will cut down on shootings -- !!!

How many shootings alone do we have of young kids who pick up these weapons

not knowing what they're all about and shooting themselves?

[SteveM]

85. You asked "how many shootings...we have of young kids who pick up weapons:"

If you have data on this, please post.

Note that the National Safety Council reports that childhood deaths due to firearms accidents have been on a steady decline since the mid-'90s. Possibly one reason is better securing of weapons in homes, and better training of kids as to how guns work, and how best to safely handle them. Certainly, if these are factors, then we should redouble efforts at better home safety (clearly these must be working), and better training of kids in safe gun-handling.

[PavePusher]

126. Empirical evidence... not an area you're familiar with I guess.... n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

94. Considering...

...the 20+ years of actual data which disagrees with your fantasies, you'd think you'd give up on the "blood in the streets" mantra.

[high density]

3. Wow, a 6% swing! Case closed.

:eyes:

[hack89]

10. But the results are consistent with other states with similar laws

and also consistent with national trends towards declining gun violence. You have never been safer.

[high density]

17. So let's let guns on planes

We spend all this money trying to keep weapons off of planes. Let's put infinite guns on planes, which will lead to infinite safety from terrorists and evildoers. Best part is that it will cost zero dollars to enact, unlike strip search machines and the armies of brainless drones operating them.

[hack89]

19. Why would anyone do anything stupid like that?

there are certain places where guns should not be allowed. Planes and courts come immediately to mind. But planes and courts have screening and armed guards (air marshals in some planes) so there is some confidence that there are no illegally carried guns present. There have always illegal guns in bars and restaurants so it is not like repealing this law is going to make you safer. We also know from years of experience that there will not be the blood bath people have been predicting.

[boppers]

23. Stupid like.... letting guns in bars?

A bunch of venues I go to have metal detectors you must successfully pass through in order to drink.

[hack89]

27. The facts don't support you

we don't restrict rights based on irrational fear and personal stories.

The facts say you have never been safer.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[boppers]

42. We have never been safer on airplanes, too.

Tiger attacks are at an all time low, as well.

[hack89]

45. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you

You are safer on planes because of more security. You are safer despite increased gun ownership because Americans can in fact exercise their civil rights responsibly. I know you fear your fellow Americans - I am simply telling you that your fears are unfounded and I'll be damned if you can restrict my civil rights because of your personal short comings.

[boppers]

46. I am safer in bars because of more security, as well.

Schools, too. Sports stadiums, courthouses, city halls....

Gun detection increases security more than carrying guns does.

[hack89]

49. But most places don't require screening for guns

yet those places are not getting more dangerous as more and more people carry guns. How is that possible?

[boppers]

54. Because not all places are equally dangerous.

More and more guns in less dangerous places is great for the weapons industry, but it doesn't change much.

So, about the decrease in tiger attacks, has that been because of private gun ownership?

[hack89]

56. I don't believe lower crime is due to more guns

It is much too complex for such a simplistic answer. The only thing anyone can say with any certainty is that more guns does not mean more violence. We have 20 years of hard statistics to back that up.

[boppers]

58. Depends on how one defines violence.

Is suicide violence? Accidental injury?

[hack89]

61. They are all down too

check out the CDC for accident stats.

[boppers]

62. Stat page? eom

[hack89]

65. Here you go

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

[hack89]

64. Self delete

[X_Digger]

69. Accident rates are down, as are suicide by gun..

From CDC's WISQARs-
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
'suicide', 'firearm'

1999...5.96
2000...5.90
2001...5.90
2002...5.91
2003...5.77
2004...5.65
2005...5.66
2006...5.54
2007...5.63

[SteveM]

90. Best thing to happen to densely populated venues: getting rid of "Gun-Free Zone" signs.

[AlbertCat]

59. The facts say you have never been safer.

And assuming that having more people hiding guns on their person and carrying them all over hell's half acre is the reason is not exactly a proven fact, is it? Exactly what aspect of everybody carrying guns around makes us all safe? Is a concealed weapon a magic good luck charm? Has incidences of regular folks stopping crimes with their hidden weapons gone up? Maybe the idea that someone else might have a gun just scares armed criminals so much they just stay home!

It's like the Flying Spaghetti Monster reasoning. Since the decline of pirates, the climate has gotten warmer so, if we all become pirates, the climate will get cooler.


As usual, with gun love.... all logic flies out the window.

[hack89]

60. Not saying it is the reason

All we can say with certainty is that more guns does not mean more gun violence. The facts certainly confirm that - I know you can't prove me wrong.

[AlbertCat]

63. more guns does not mean more gun violence.

No, a cavalier attitude toward guns does.

Carrying them around to bars seems cavalier to me. It's early.... wait.

[hack89]

67. We have been waiting for 15 years - rates still going down

if you were to graph the growth of gun ownership over the past 2 decades and the rates of gun violence in same period, they would make a perfect X.

Give it up - history is against you.

[X_Digger]

70. 25 years for FL (1987), 50 for WA (1961) n/t

[SteveM]

93. You might wish to investigate further the guns/bars connection...

The bulk of restaurants (clearly, public accommodations) also have some form of beer/wine or liquor licenses, and some states heretofore have outlawed guns in places which serve alcohol. This makes a concealed-carry person disarm and "secure" his/her gun in a vehicle (a relatively insecure place), or not bring a firearm to MOST RESTAURANTS. To prevent this herky-jerky -- and potentially more dangerous on/off practice -- the laws pertaining to alcohol/gun prohibition were changed.

[spin]

100. Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987 ...

and while we can't carry our concealed weapons into the bar portion of an establishment such as a restaurant or bowling alley, we can carry in the other portions of the establishment. We have had no major problems.

Other states do allow carry in bars and I haven't read that it has led to a surge of serious shootings.

[SteveM]

91. Straw man...

"...assuming that having more people hiding guns on their person and carrying them all over hell's half acre is the reason is not exactly a proven fact, is it?"

I know of few 2A advocates here who have propped up this straw man, though it is used with religious regularity by controller/banners. Actually, the gun-control meme has been for years: "More guns = more crime." THAT is what has not been proven by these data, Albert. More straw: "Exactly what aspect of everybody carrying guns around makes us all safe?" The problem here is your continuation of straw man arguments. "Everybody carrying guns" is not advocated by ANYONE (including your beloved enemy of choice, the NRA), and further building on this straw, "carrying guns around makes us all safe?" cannot therefore be sustained. An individual carrying a gun is an eminently personal decision designed for self-defense, not social policy.

"Incidences of...stopping crimes with their hidden weapons gone up?" This is what needs further study. The data is sketchy prior to the 1990s, but more is being collected. These must comport in some measure with longitudinal studies, but there is considerable data showing defensive gun use (DGU) occurs anywhere from several hundred thousand to over two million times a year.

When you sift through the mountain of straw you have presented, let us know when you find the spaghetti.

BTW, what do you mean by "gun love?"

[ProDem4]

38. You should find some better people to hang with. n/t

[boppers]

43. I hang with the same people Jesus did.

Whores, beggars, cut-throats, low-life.... good people, as compared to the ones in suits, who aren't anywhere near as honest about their intentions.

Seriously, my main watering hole has weaponry on the walls, all the regulars know where the serious weapons are, and many train in multiple forms of combat for fun. Most of the regulars have been shot, or stabbed, or otherwise been through enough combat to know how to handle themselves.

It's not the people I hang with that concern me, it's the tourists, self-styled "upright citizens" who would escalate a fist-fight into a gun-fight.

[SteveM]

89. You pass through a metal detector to get a beer? Sheesh. Not me.

[gravity556]

115. I try to stay clear of venues that have issues enough to warrant metal detectors

at the entrances before I get a drink.

Also, I know that you anti's revel in your non-existent blood in the streets hysteria, and I hate to spoil your fun, but most of those states which allow carry in establishments that serve alcohol (to include that 5 star french place that is absolutely fantastic, but thanks to the rhetoric from the anti-side, you've denigrated such a fine establishment to a mere "bar". Phillistines!) also have it written into the law that the individual carrying a firearm may NOT consume any alcohol.

That's right, your hysteria about drunks and guns and drunk guns (lord knows that a 1911 gets all wild once you feed it a few white russians, but I digress) is basically much ado about nothing. Now if I want to take my wife out to a nice dinner and the establishment happens to have a nice wine list, my wife can have her wine, I can have an iced tea, and I don't have to disarm to do it. And since my weapon is concealed, you won't have to worry your pretty little heads about it because you'll never see that big scary gun. :)

[defendandprotect]

35. Love it -- !!!

:rofl:

[SteveM]

95. Good chance your next flight has firearms below your seat.

;-)

[SteveM]

87. Guns are now and have ALWAYS been on planes. It's legal:

I've transported a rifle on a domestic flight. You bring the firearm, encased in an FAA-approved hard shell case, present it unarmed at the counter whee it is inspected, they check the gun & case through (sans ammunition), and you pick the gun & case up at your destination.

Same as it ever was.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. Guns used to be allowed on planes in your carry-on luggage

It wasn't until the whole hi-jacking craze of the early 70s that we started having the stupid idea that one should simply give in to the criminal.

[SteveM]

86. Wow, no bloodbath! Leave the mop in the corner.

:7

[Uben]

5. Guns and alcohol don't mix?

I guess that feller there has never been to "Plink the can off her shoulder with a deer rifle" keg party, has he?

[SteveM]

96. I'd leave that to "that feller" Annie Oakley! She could do that. nt

[ladywnch]

7. we should ALL carry as many guns as possible at all times in all

locations. In fact, it should be ILLEGAL to be WITHOUT at least one firearm on your person. History has proven that the only way to achieve peace and harmony is to have lots and lots of guns. I see a day when babies in layettes will no longer have teddy bears placed in their cribs, instead: Uzis.......maybe a nice Glock......let them cut their teeth on the muzzel.....awww isn't that cute!

[hack89]

9. We should all support the expansion of civil rights at all times. nt

[cadaverdog]

14. I have been to a public meeting

where the question of gun laws was the subject. I am usually very vocal in these situations, but after listening to the tenor of the arguments coming from the gun promoters I just sat in stunned silence, afraid of my fellow citizens. A very unpleasant feeling. I left early to avoid these people in the parking lot.

[hack89]

16. And what exactly scared you? You are a little light on the details. nt

[Hoyt]

26. Cracks me up when some guy who can't leave home without a gun or two, calls non-carriers "scared."

[hack89]

50. His exact words: "afraid of my fellow citizens"

I don't think he has any reason for him to be scared - that's why I am curious what triggered his fear.

[SteveM]

99. Well, laughing boy, kinda strange when the "paranoia" argument comes around, no?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

125. Cracks me up when an "author & playwright" who attended "law school" can't read a simple statement.

Hoyt, the guy clearly stated he was "afraid of {his} fellow citizens". How is it in any way amusing when someone making that statement is asked why they were scared??

[SteveM]

98. It's so puzzling, gun controller/banners always accuse 2A defenders of paranoia...

Yet you are the one who sits in "stunned silence, afraid of my fellow citizens. A very unpleasant feeling...avoid these people in the parking lot."

I have in numerous public hearings where I have been outnumbered; on the subject of civil rights in the South; on the subject of discrimination against Iranian students in 1979; on the subject of pot legalization in a meeting of prohibitionists; in demonstrations against the present wars we are in; even on a right-wing talk radio station as a guest.

I never thought once about what, if any, guns these folks were carrying. Funny, but most often when you speak out, you gain the respect of your "fellow citizens," not their enmity.

[iverglas]

118. hahahahahaha

Funny, but most often when you speak out, you gain the respect of your "fellow citizens," not their enmity.

Yes, and aren't your posts just the poster children for that little sermon.

I imagine the poster felt as I do when I read lots of the posts on this board and at internet sites frequented by gun militants: what horrible, selfish, aggressive, unpleasant, hostile, selfish, hostile, selfish people.

Frankly, if I heard things at a public meeting like some I read on this board (and I suspect what was heard was even more horrible, aggressive, selfish, unpleasant ...), whether the people were carrying guns wouldn't even be the first thing on my mind. Just staying away from them on general principle would seem wise.

I've been on panels as a candidate in elections and am well aware of what some people think and say about my party and its members. I've been on panels, been the speaker, and spoken from the audience at countless public meetings, about all sorts of controversial subjects. I've never felt the level of selfishness, aggression, hostility and unpleasantness that I see from gun militants on the internet (and that includes the handful of them in Canada and other countries). Representing Iranian refugees did leave me with some fear ... since we knew that the people following us around one city during a particular incident had guns ...

[iamthebandfanman]

20. yeah, im sure the right to kill

, with as little effort as possible, is very important to a complete well rounded society.

[hack89]

24. My Constitutions doesn't have that civil right.

how about we restrict our conversation to real civil rights?

[Hoyt]

30. Guns in public aren't a "real" civil right, even if you are in a militia.

[hack89]

47. "Keep and bear arms". Bear means carry

are you arguing that public carry of guns was not common when the Constitution was written?

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[SteveM]

102. Defend your position. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

112. *sigh*

You really have a problem with facts don't you?

[SteveM]

101. Sorry, could you point out the "right to kill" in our Constitution? Thanks. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

111. Nobody is arguing for a right to kill

In fact, the only people who use that phrase at all are those who are anti-gun.

You have no right to kill. However, you have an absolute right to defend your own life. If your attacker ends up dead - too bad for him.

[awoke_in_2003]

21. including marriage equality? nt

[hack89]

25. Damn right - society benefits when all civil rights are continuously strengthened. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

29. good, just wanted to check

:hi:

[hack89]

52. Why would you have reason to doubt?

uniform support of all civil rights is a progressive value - does somehow supporting the 2nd Amendment make me less progressive in your eyes?

[awoke_in_2003]

53. no, not at all...

but there is a portion of people here who do not support marriage equality. It is just good to know where people stand (by the way, I support the 2nd, as well as the rest, also)

[iverglas]

119. here?

Gun militancy and gun militants are in bed with the right wing ... are an integral part of it.

If you think they support same-sex marriage rights ...

You could support their "right" to arm their children at nursery school, and they still wouldn't let your same-sex-parents' kids in.

[awoke_in_2003]

127. yes, here...

there are quite a few who oppose marriage equality on DU. Hell, even our president doesn't

on edit: I just realized we were in the gun forum. I hadn't noticed that before.

[iverglas]

128. hee hee

I just realized we were in the gun forum. I hadn't noticed that before.

Many is the innocent who has made that mistake. ;)

The denizens of the dungeon will oft proclaim their allegiance to your marriage rights and my reproductive rights. Why not? No skin off their nose.

What they'll actually do to defend them, well, could be another matter.

And what their fellow travellers in the outer world will do, well, usually another matter.

[awoke_in_2003]

129. I generally don't come down here...

or the 911 forum, even though I have no problems with gun ownership with proper regulations and believe Bush LIHOP. Oh, by the way- I am straight, but fully support marriage equality.

[iverglas]

130. heh

And I'm of a certain age, but will still fight to the death for reproductive rights. ;)

And of course have always been foursquare behind same-sex marriage rights up here in Canada, as are all my siblings, my friends, my acquaintances, my partner ... and my mum, and you can imagine how old she is! Hell, even my once-upon a time church is. I get emails from my uncle's childhood friend, now a retired lesbian clergywoman, denouncing our present government ...

Not a one of us owns a gun, since none of us happens to be interested in hunting or in shooting sports, and all of us support our current firearms control provisions and more, of course.

The left is kinda like that. ;)

[hack89]

133. Are you calling me a liar?

So none of us here support GLBT rights and choice? And you know that because we support the 2nd Amendment?

[hack89]

132. iverglas has a very black and white outlook on life

she finds it impossible to accept that a progressive could support gun rights.

[SteveM]

104. Of course. And it's happening now...

On a side note, I think the political power of the NRA (admittedly expressed in different ways) is matched only by the constellation of LGBT groups and communities. The former will extract anti-2A politicians from office by the score; the latter works for big changes at the local/state level (to push policy back upstream to the national level). Curiously, however, both groups prefer the local level to avoid wasting time with an increasingly moribund Congress.

[AlbertCat]

66. We should all support the expansion of civil rights at all times

Who's forming a well regulated militia?

[hack89]

68. You need to update your Brady talking points

we have moved well past that point - gun ownership is a recognized individual civil right. It is the law of the land. If you want to waste time and effort fighting lost battles you have lost the war.

[SteveM]

105. Militia, formed at the state level, are already there...

And you are a member, unless you are less than 60. And if called, you should report with a weapon suitable for military service.

Please be advised that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not contingent on the formation or not of militia. The federal government is charged with calling forth the militia (see the Articles), and states in the Second its interest in the "people's right," but cannot "infringe" it.

The RKBA is free-standing; the feds must rely upon it. This is how most constitutional scholars, including Laurence Tribe the most notable "popularizer" of the "militia clause," now view the Second.

[cadaverdog]

11. Excellent

A fine satirical look at the gun madness.

[SteveM]

106. You like re-runs? Especially B&W westerns? nt

[defendandprotect]

36. Can't wait for them to arm Congress -- now that might help us odd in an odd sort of way?

[SteveM]

97. One good thing: You'd have to get in better shape to carry all of 'em.nt

[DeSwiss]

12. Statistically this change is not only insignificant, but the conclusions.....

..being drawn here are spurious at best. Not only because of the extremely short period of analysis, but especially so when one considers the fact that overall crime rates have been declining in America since the early 90s:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States">link

Therefore, one cannot say with any certainty how much (if any) impact this singular change in the law has had upon this outcome. Although I realize that gun people most likely won't accept these facts. Of course there's also the reality that one can make statistics support damned-near anything one wants, if you frame the issue(s) properly.

- As the man said: ''lies, damned lies and statistics.'' In that order......

Big AI and the Tuscaloosa sprinkler man

"Life is lived anecdotally, not algorithmically. And anecdotal evidence is not allowed in the new digital corpocracy. As one poster on Democratic Underground put it, “Anecdotal now has this enforced meaning such that no one is supposed to believe what they experience, what they see, hear, taste, smell, etc. The Powers That Be have basically extinguished the notion of inductive reasoning. Everything has to be replicated in a laboratory and since 90% of all the labs in this nation are operated by Corporate Sponsored monies, not much truth comes out of them.”

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/10/algorithms.html">~Joe Bageant, Algorithms and Red Wine

RIP, Joe Bageant - 1946-2011

[underpants]

22. Excellent point

crime has decreased at an (alarming) rate.

[defendandprotect]

37. +1 -- and thanks!

[SteveM]

107. Your data supports the position of most 2A advocates. Thanks! nt

[MyrnaLoy]

32. So was crime

rampant in Chili's before you got to have cheese fries with your glock? Gun people are getting nuttier and nuttier every day.

[defendandprotect]

33. I'd suggest the shootings have only yet to begin ... !!!

[ProDem4]

39. With the Flash Robs Wilding,and Flash Beatings on the rise.

Yes I see CCW shootings will increase and justifiable so.

[boppers]

74. Flash mobs are media BS

You don't think that 60 kids converged on a store in the 20's?

Think again.

[SteveM]

109. Sellin' season tickets? nt

[DonP]

123. You can always hope, right?

Just try not to sound quite so self righteous at the idea of violence increasing to prove your twisted wishes true.

[EC]

41. Was business down at least 5% due to the

economy also?

[underpants]

55. It might have been

My Aunt Mildred started staying in

[SteveM]

110. Who knows? What's the point?

[iverglas]

121. are you serious?

:rofl:

[struggle4progress]

71. Reported crimes fluctuate a lot annually: a difference of 8, from one year to the next, means zip

The number of murders reported in Virginia typically fluctuates by at least 30 to 40 per year; number of forcible rapes reported in Virginia typically fluctuates by at least 30 to 40 per year; the number of aggravated assaults reported in Virginia can fluctuate by hundreds per year; the number of violent crimes reported in Virginia can fluctuates by thousands per year

This report doesn't mean squat

[hack89]

77. But there has been a steady and consistent decline for the past decade

the same for every state in the Union. There is no example at all of a state liberalizing gun laws and seeing a increase in gun violence - not one. And we have plenty of states to look at since Virginia is a late comer to this particular party.

So, since history shows that liberalized gun laws will not create more gun violence - they won't even pause the ongoing decline, what's the big deal?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[struggle4progress]

78. This thread is about gun-related crime in Virginia bars: my point is that a fluctuation, of eight,

from one single year to the next, is meaningless -- one cannot draw any meaningful statistical inferences from it

The habit of triumphantly trotting out a single supposed statistical fact, and attempting to draw policy conclusions from it, is widespread but silly and uninformative -- most people doing that BEGIN with a desired conclusion and then PICK whatever statistics they hope will support their views

The firearm fatal-injury rate is approximately constant 2001-2007, around 10 annual deaths per 100K population, though the number of actual fatalities during that period climbs from around 30K per year to around 31K per year. The firearm nonfatal-injury rate, however, appears to be slowly climbing:
2001-2003: 21 injuries per year per 100K population
2002-2004: 21 injuries per year per 100K population
2003-2005: 22 injuries per year per 100K population
2004-2006: 23 injuries per year per 100K population
2005-2007: 23 injuries per year per 100K population
2006-2008: 24 injuries per year per 100K population
2007-2009: 24 injuries per year per 100K population
These data suggest the following reading: the typical American is 15% more likely to be injured by gunfire today than a decade ago; but today's typical American gunfire-injury victim is 25% more likely to survive than the typical victim a decade ago. That might simply mean emergency medical response has improved in the last decade

[hack89]

79. But unless Virginia is a odd statistical outlier

history tells us that this legislation will have no significant impact on gun deaths, crime or accidents.

Perhaps I am simply too sensitive to the blood in streets arguments that anti-gun rights proponents keep spewing despite decades of statistics that say otherwise.

[struggle4progress]

83. "history tells us" and "decades of statistics" here are empty noise

I gave you an argument based on WISQARS data

But it would be pointless jammering to dicuss whether or not Virginia is a statistical outlier except in reference to a good national database of firearms injury and mortality, broken down state-by-state

[hack89]

103. And I gave you an argument based on FBI crime statistics

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

You have never been safer.

[struggle4progress]

117. FBI data is voluntarily submitted, and the FBI actually tracks only a limited number of crimes

It is not uncommon for jurisdictions to be accused of "reporting" such data in skewed manner, for various political reasons. Moreover, certain crime-rates can be masked in usual ways -- "homicides" (for example) are usually distinguished by a corpse: thus, improvements in medical care can reduce the homicide rate, consistent with my reading above of the WISQARS data. So there are several reasons not to rely on one-sentence summaries of the FBI data

I suspect you started with the conclusion "You have never been safer" and looked only for data supporting that view

Have a nice day!

:hi:

[hack89]

120. So besides your tingly spider sense

what source do you use to track national crime statistics? And which of them disagree with the FBI? Or was your post a rectal extraction?

WISQARS comes from a variety of voluntary non-CDC sources so we can ignore it too?

[hack89]

124. Lets look at data from the VA state police (or are they liars too?)

page 4 shows the trends

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/downloads/Crime_in_Virginia_2010.pdf

If you want to go back further.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia.shtm

I look forward to seeing your data sources - I can't imagine you started with the conclusion that "more guns mean more violence" and rejected any data that doesn't support that view. You can show actual data that proves me wrong, can't you?

[LanternWaste]

75. After this, therefore because of this.

After this, therefore because of this. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

76. The formal term is post hoc ergo propter hoc

:hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Indeed. And it does apply to the situation at hand, don't you agree?

[SteveM]

114. If you believe in straw men...

See above posts.

When controller/banners could not prove their mantra: "More guns = more crime," they immediately moved to say that 2A advocates believed "More guns = less crime." Nope. Just straw. Perhaps as a much-anticipated prelude to their Mecca of booming crime rates?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

122. How does believing "The OP statistic is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc"...

...means "2A advocates believed More guns = less crime"?

[SteveM]

113. Only if one sets up straw men. Repeatedly.

The position by most 2A advocates here is that the data do not prove the notion "more guns = more crime," an oft-repeated mantra of gun-controller/banners for many years. I last heard this on a PBS news talking-head show in which a "major" Democratic leader said point blank ('scuse me): "It may not be popular, but I still believe more guns = more crime." In fact, that has not been proven.

But it seems some controller/banners now wish to build the increase in guns ("more guns") into a construct which proves fewer violent gun-crimes and murders ("less crime"). With the exception of a few like John Lott, remains a controller/banner straw man.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. IBTMTG

[ileus]

88. Youre welcome citizens of Virginia....safety first.

One year without an incident here also...

[Starboard Tack]

92. Considering the economy is in the toilet and toters are frequenting restaurants

It is hardly surprising that there would be less crime in restaurants. There are less people. I would be surprised if business is not down by a similar percentage.