PDA

View Full Version : Interesting FBI statistics


Ford8N
03-25-2006, 3:44 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

Rifles were used 75 times to commit murder here in 2004. To bad the FBI doesn't break it down to "evil" vs "politically correct" rifles. With a population of 35 million, why are the rulers worried about some rifle with a $.99 piece if plastic stuck to the bottom of the receiver. It would be interesting to work out the statistics and use those facts. But the rulers don't want hard facts. =(

jmlivingston
03-25-2006, 3:56 PM
Based on those stats I think we need to outlaw hand, fists, and feet. The number of murders (144) commited by those extremities was exactly equal to that of rifles and shotguns combined! I would imagine that hands, fists, and feet also caused substantially more non-lethal injuries than rifles and shotguns did.

John

Gnote
03-25-2006, 4:02 PM
... But the rulers don't want hard facts. =(

Or any facts for that matter that does not support their cause. It is fustrating at times.

Bacon
03-25-2006, 8:43 PM
Couldn't help but notice in Table 4 they include Washington DC & Maryland with the South. This jacks up the rates for the South (DC is over 3 times the national average), while it conveniently takes away those high numbers from the North.

C.G.
03-25-2006, 8:59 PM
Maybe they should make "Other Weapons" illegal, too.:rolleyes:

Charliegone
03-25-2006, 9:25 PM
The problem here is the guns are in the wrong hands and no one does single thing about it. Instead our almighty controllers in our legislature thinks the legal guns are being used in crime....looking at the survey given to convicts about how they go their firearm.. it makes me wonder about the sanity in our state legislature.:rolleyes:

sierratangofoxtrotunion
03-27-2006, 5:25 PM
California: 2,391 murders

Follow along: "We're number one! We're number one!"

filefish
03-27-2006, 5:49 PM
Hey if we can stamp out 3.1% of murders over a .99 piece of plastic then by god lets do it! I wonder how much it would cost us to add a column for assault rifles

bbq_ribs
03-27-2006, 9:59 PM
Wow, that was a really interesting report!

In 2004, there were 2,391 murders in California.

In Minnesota? 110.

In North Dakota? 8. Yes, EIGHT.
I know there's a huge population difference, but even if you break it out per 1,000 residents, there are a farkload more homicides in California.

Yeah, Dianne Feinstein, you moron, we feel so much safer here. Ugh. Interesting stats indeed, and from the FBI no less. No bias there like the Brady Bill morons.

PanzerAce
03-27-2006, 10:07 PM
well, I would just like to point out that in ND, people are so spread out it would be hard to kill someone, you have to drive 2 miles just to find em.

Seriously though, I bet the homogenous (sp) nature of the pops in those areas helps alot.

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 10:16 PM
Wow, that was a really interesting report!

In 2004, there were 2,391 murders in California.

In Minnesota? 110.

In North Dakota? 8. Yes, EIGHT.
I know there's a huge population difference, but even if you break it out per 1,000 residents, there are a farkload more homicides in California.

Yeah, Dianne Feinstein, you moron, we feel so much safer here. Ugh. Interesting stats indeed, and from the FBI no less. No bias there like the Brady Bill morons.

What is the per capita murder rate?

I think I'll find out.

North Dakota: 2004 population 634,366. Number of murders 8. 8/634,366 = 1.2611016353335456187752811468458e-5 or ~ .0000126 murders per person

California: 2004 population 35,893,799. Number of murders 2,391. 2,391/35,893,799 = 6.6613177390334191150956186053195e-5 or ~ .0000666 murders per person.

Comparing California's murder rate to North Dakota, California's is greater by a factor of five.

Minnesota: 5,100,958 - 110/5,100,958 - .0000216 - Roughly one third that of California.

Just for fun: New York : 864 murders in 2004. 19,227,088 total population. Comes out to about .0000449 murders per person. Still lower than California, but I bet you New York City would be different.

I'd be interested to see the murder rate of Washington D.C., another city with a gun ban.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/

ldivinag
03-27-2006, 10:30 PM
well, I would just like to point out that in ND, people are so spread out it would be hard to kill someone, you have to drive 2 miles just to find em.

Seriously though, I bet the homogenous (sp) nature of the pops in those areas helps alot.

yup... dont forget to factor in POPULATION DENSITY.

a true study would have taken this factor in very heavily.

but then again, people used statistics to sway the results in their favor... ;)

yoda
03-27-2006, 11:09 PM
Funny. I don't see Florida on that list. Last time I checked they were still in the Union....

filefish
03-28-2006, 1:04 AM
I would sure like to see a break down on an epidemiological racial and socioeconomic break down I see that about 12% of the population is committing about 40% of the murders. I did not take the time to read this entire study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdluc00.pdf) but it sure looks like it is the poor adolescents and young adults that are the common thread to murder and crime. Availability of guns appear to have a negligible inverse affect on the problem

blacklisted
03-28-2006, 1:06 AM
I would sure like to see a break down on an epidemiological racial and socioeconomic break down I see that about 12% of the population is committing about 40% of the murders. I did not take the time to read this entire study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdluc00.pdf) but it sure looks like it is the poor adolescents and young adults that are the common thread to murder and crime. Availability of guns appear to have a negligible inverse affect on the problem

I have noticed this as well, and all the data is out there.

filefish
03-28-2006, 1:28 AM
I have noticed this as well, and all the data is out there.

My opinion and this is just my opinion, as we all know you can make any stats mean anything you want, is that people who have no stake in the community, no personal ownership, have nothing to lose and are more likely to take risks and break the law. For instance the majority of people reading this post have family responsibility a household, some material possessions, a career, and enough disposable income to purchase a $1k gun. We do not want to lose these things that is why the majority of us jump through hoops, flaming hoops to observe the law and avoid incarceration and to avoid losing the before mentioned items. When I think about dropping my mag I think “what would my wife and kid do with me in jail, (or in an expensive legal battle) it is just not worth it” and I just shoot 10 at a time. The man that has been indoctrinated in the “40 acres and a mule” mentality will never acquire and maintain these things so why not “just bust a cap in some fool’s *** so I can get me some Nike’s” I fully blame the “social and community leaders” that perpetuate the “the government owes me” mentality. The people I look up to say “despite the odds you can work hard and make something of yourself” it is hard and takes years to pay off but it works

Ford8N
03-28-2006, 6:11 AM
Another interesting point is the amount of pages in the BATFE State Gun Laws book. ND might have one page and CA has the thickest section. Pretty soon, CA will need it's own volume. =(

crs1
03-28-2006, 9:29 AM
I'd be interested to see the murder rate of Washington D.C., another city with a gun ban.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/


There was an article in the CRPA (Cal. Rifle and Pistol Assoc.) Bulletin that said you are more likely to get shot and killed in Washington DC than in Iraq.:eek: