Florida's Crime Rate Down For 12th Straight Year

http://www.local6.com/news/3292428/detail.html

"TALLAHASSEE, Fla -- Florida's serious crime rate dropped for the 12th year in a row in 2003, reaching levels last seen in the early 1970s, the state announced Tuesday."

This in spite of a lack of new gun control legislation.

...it's because a large percentage of Floridians are retirees, and not interested in lives of crime.

12 years would coincide with the passage of the Brady law...I daresay pretty much every state could make that same claim.

Of course, 1987 was the year that Florida idiotically started handing out pistol permits like candy...and between then and the passage of the Brady law, violent crime skyrocketed 31%.

Wonder how Florida stacks up against the rest of the nation?

Maybe those calculus courses I took in college made me forget how to do basic arithmetic, but I always thought that 2003 - 12 = 1991.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted on November 30, 1993.

Interim provisions (5-day wait for handgun transfers from a licensed person to an unlicensed person) became effective on February 28, 1994.

Permanent provisions (background checks on all transfers of firearms of all types from licensed individuals to unlicensed individuals) took effect on November 30, 1998.

Don't take MY word for it - See http://www.atf.gov/firearms/bradylaw/brady_pr.htm

And see also http://www.atf.gov/pub/gen_pub/imp_brady_law.pdf

Of course, 1987 was the year that Florida idiotically started handing out pistol permits like candy...and between then and the passage of the Brady law, violent crime skyrocketed 31%

But MrBenchley as usual offers no evidence that the change in the concealed-weapons law from discretionary-issue to shall-issue had anything to do with the rates of violent crime in Florida.

Wonder how Florida stacks up against the rest of the nation?

Wonder why MrBenchley so often relies to deception, distortion, and cherry-picking of data to make his "points"?

I wonder what percentage of those crimes were committed by CWL holders. Funny, every statistic from Florida I've seen demonstrates a definite decrease in violent crime since 1987.

why the gun lobby hired a crackpot to write a book misrepresenting those results as "More Guns/Less Crime."

But I don't really much care. It's enough for me to know what scummy dishonest pieces of shit the gun rights public figures, like Mary Rosh, are.

Why the anti-gun lobby always dredges up Red Herring arguments or switches to ad hominem attacks when its "facts" are shown to be bogus.

maybe you can find a picture there to "tell" you

I've never quoted or cited the Stentorian, and YOUR argument has been exposed as garbage.

Slackmaster's Fourth Law of Gungeon Discussions:

4. When the gun control side gets caught in a factual error they switch to ad hominem attack every time.

But it is an example of gun nuts spouting horseshit again.

1987....123,030 violent crimes in Florida
1993....161,789 violent crimes in Florida

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

Wonder why MrBenchley can point to actual facts andstories in real newspapers, etc. while "enthusiasts" like op and fat slob end up dredging up turds from cesspools like the stentorian and the rightist...No, I don't suppose anyone wonders that any more.

What happened to the POPULATION of Florida between 1987 and 1993? Will MrBenchley do the ethical thing and post the numbers, or does someone else have to do that for him?

:crazy:

On edit - Never mind, we already know the answer to that one.

Florida's population in 1987 was 12,023,000
Florida's population in 1993 was 13,679,000

(Source - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm )

Using MrBenchley's raw crime count figures, that works out to crime RATES of:

10.23 per 100,000 for 1987, and
12.19 per 100,000 for 1993, which equates to an increase of

About a 19.1% increase, nowhere near the figure claimed.

It might interest readers to know that the MURDER RATE, something a lot more important that the rate of violent crimes, decreased from 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987 to 8.7 per 100,000 in 1993, while the percentage of firearms used in murders actually increased.

See http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Publications/SACNotes/focusing_on_murder.asp

Homicide, rape and assault have all decreased since the start of concealed weapons licensure in Florida in 1987.

I know, old line, but it is the same old argument.

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

lack of complaints, that and Tommy Vercetti leaving vice city to take over Liberty City

The screenshots from this week's E3 show look spectacular.






Umm...I mean, guns are bad, mkay?

and guns are good, m'kay, i like going to a range and emptying a couple of clips

Leave "clips" to bad movies and anti-gun propaganda.

And GTA:SA is a little controversial already...seems that you play a black West Coast gangbanger in it.

why should i call them magazines? and i hope they atleast have a decent story line for SA

Using the term interchangably indicates lack of technical knowledge.

and clips for handguns

Magazines consist of a housing that rounds (not bullets) are inserted into.

Clips are usually just strips of metal that hold rounds together for faster loading into magazines.

ya learn something every day, thanks

But it is important that pro-gun people have their facts and terms correct...it is important that we differentiate ourselves from people who use dishonest, ignorant rhetoric like "hip-fired bullet hose cop killing machines with 100-round clips."

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

Actively exercising the right.

I read that crime, violent crime, gun crime etc. has skyrocketed in Washington DC.

:shrug:

I think.

I was perplexed.

I can't see how gun control could be anymore strict in DC than it is at this time.

IIRC, ammunition is even illegal to possess.

on edit...The comparison made no sense to me. Wht is the point of comparison?

It would seem to me that Florida, where people can carry concealed guns if they want to and get the license, appears safer than DC, where an outright ban on handguns was existed since the mid 70's, and crime is sky high. It appears that a ban on guns cause crime to go up, not the other way around.

without a lot more analysis. How many factors other than gun laws are not accounted for?

Demographics: Age and economic status of the populations.

Drug trade: Is there a difference in the illicit drug activities?

Economics: Income, disparity of income, and unemployment rates.

I don't know, but I will hazard a guess that I can use figures from any of the above and draw a so-called conclusion about (your choice) and violent crime.

The point of my original post is that there are factors other than gun control laws which are affecting the violent crime rates.

I have asked for evidence that CCW creates a greater danger. I also do not believe there is credible evidence that CCW or widespread firearms ownership causes reduction in crime.

MrSandman, I guess it's just a "coincidence" that places that forbid the carrying of firearms, or an outright ban, have higher crime rates than places where people do carry guns.

In the year 2000 Tennessee had an estimated population of 5,689,283 which ranked the state 16th in population. For that year the State of Tennessee had a total Crime Index of 4,890.2 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 10th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Tennessee had a reported incident rate of 707.2 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 5th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm

In the year 2000 California had an estimated population of 33,871,648 which ranked the state 1st in population. For that year the State of California had a total Crime Index of 3,739.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 30th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime California had a reported incident rate of 621.6 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 9th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

I do believe that CA, for practical intents, forbids the carry of firearms, while TN is a fair-issue state.

Yet CA ranks lower in violent crime?


on edit:

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

..your error is in not taking into consideration that California does not BAN ownership of handguns like DC does.

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

FL is still #1

and it was said...

"MrSandman, I guess it's just a "coincidence" that places that forbid the carrying of firearms"

Please explain that I am in error and CA has more liberal carry laws than TN or FL, both of which have higher violent crime rates.

I was speaking about DC. Handguns are banned there. Not in California.

"MrSandman, I guess it's just a "coincidence" that places that forbid the carrying of firearms, or an outright ban, have higher crime rates than places where people do carry guns."

D.C. is one such place.
CA is another such place(restricted carry right)

My mistake. I was talking the DC ban.

I am strongly tempted to make an award - my regret is that I was too late in the thread.

:evilgrin:

Maybe since FL has so many golf courses and DC has none, more golf leads to less crime. :evilgrin:

...more golf leads to more ugly polyester clothing, and more cheating on scorecards.

:-)

Of course your comment must be damning to anyone who believes that new gun laws are the ONLY way to reduce gun crime, that "serious crime" only includes crimes involving guns, that new gun control legislation in itself is guaranteed to reduce serious crime, etc. etc. etc........

I'm not sure that I know anyone who believes all that, but if I did I'm sure they'd be gutted by this news.

Any response to somebody who could be ignorant enough to suggest that serious crime (or more specifically, crime involving casual gun use) could have dropped EVEN FURTHER EVEN FASTER if existing legislation had been tightened, or some new laws brought in? It's just that you seem to be implying that a drop in crime indicates that we don't need to do anything else about it......

Claims made:

1.CCW will cause an increase in the rate of gun crime.

2.FL violent crime rates incresed over 30% after CCW.

3.Unless guns are more strictly controlled, there is no way to reduce gun crime.

The point of my post is to show that there must be factors other than gun laws which affect crime. When the Democratic Party starts attempting to identify these problems, we will become the party of the majority.

I have seen few attempts to identify the reduction of crime outside of increased gun control. When Project Exile was discussed, it was dismissed as a sham by many gun control advocates, without a discussion of its merits.

I am saying that we need to find the cause of the crime. Show me evidence of gun control effective in the reduction of crime. A drop in crime without an increased control on firearms does indicate a need to explore the cause of crime more carefully.

Why did the FL violent crime rate drop? By all means do more of it. It just appears that gun control was not a factor.

Just look at how safe Washington D.C., Chicago, and NYC are.

Seriously though, what possible new gun laws would have any more effect than the 20,000+ gun laws already in existence. It's already illegal to use a gun to commit a crime. Would more laws make it MORE illegal?

I'm interested in hearing some usefull suggestions.

There are other ways to reduce crime.

Dedicate a Federal prosecutor to gun crimes, eg carrying a gun in the commission of a felony, 5 years, no plea bargains.

That would probably not address all gun crimes, but would probably reduce the number of felons carrying a gun.

" Many gun offenses become federal as well as state crimes when they are coupled with other offenses like drug possession or when the person arrested is a convicted felon, an illegal alien, a mental patient, a drug addict, a fugitive, the subject of a criminal indictment or a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

As a key element of Project Exile, a coalition of business and civic leaders has cooperated with the police by saturating the area with radio and television messages, billboards and posters, warning that anyone caught with an illegal weapon faces a jail term of five years.

Project Exile is so well known on the street, said David E. Boone, a criminal defense lawyer here, that "the first thing I hear now when I talk to a client is, 'Can you keep this from going Exile?' A lot of them can't add two and two, but they know a gun plus drugs equals five."

http://www.vahv.org/Exile/NYT/ExNYT210.html

I've used sarcasm before now and should have realised that you were making a good point.

Fair play to you - you have indeed illustrated what you wanted to, viz. that it's not just laws that are needed in order to tackle crime/guns.

I happen to agree with you actually!

P.

how many posts did I spend trying to keep this from a thread arguing that liberalised gun control laws will reduce crime?

It put me on the defensive.

Well, it is that time...:beer: