Mom Runs Burglars Off with Gun

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

　

the problem is, it says there was a 50% decrease in the first quarter which is before the new law took effect.

the other problem is I don't see how going from 3297 to 3001 is a 50% drop.

Maybe percent was not the word they were trying for?

http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/pdf/2011_First_Quarter_Report.pdf

A drop in crime is not a "problem".

You obviously have not read the whole report or do not understand it...not surprising actually.

We will see a drop in crime in Wyoming over the next few years.

The thing about states like Wyoming, which already had a liberal concealed carry law and has simply increased the freedom they already had, is that they have pretty low crime rates already because they have allowed people to carry guns. The small population (Wyoming being the only state with less population than Vermont) means that 1 or 2 crimes makes a difference in their rates where it goes unnoticed in states that do not allow people freedom to defend themselves. Rather than a small population skewing the numbers to look "good" a small population skews the numbers to look "bad" If a state with 600,000 people has the lowest crime RATE then that is saying something indeed.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[luckytxn 2,264]

Vermont has no people living there. It has a border with Canada. There is no reason for high crime there. Few people and spread out. There is still crime though. Definitely not because one can be armed.

[Marilyn. 340]

if that is true how do you explain States that have low crime rates but have restricted concealed carry laws?

from what I read, New Hampshire has had the lowest crime rate the last few years.. Maine, North and South Dakota and Idaho have low crime rates too.

[Dan and Judy 614]

You obviously have not read the whole report or do not understand it...not surprising actually.

I am humbly asking you to explain to me how going from 3297 to 3001 constitutes a 50% decrease

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am humbly asking you to explain to me how going from 3297 to 3001 constitutes a 50% decrease

why would you ask ME?????????????? I did not do the report.

Do you have a point in any of this?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

if that is true how do you explain States that have low crime rates but have restricted concealed carry laws?

from what I read, New Hampshire has had the lowest crime rate the last few years.. Maine, North and South Dakota and Idaho have low crime rates too.

All have liberal concealed carry laws. What is there for me to explain? Allow people to carry guns and the crime rate is low. Thanks. Further evidence that Vermont has low crime BECAUSE of concealed carry, just like the other states you mention.

Vermont will occasionally trade places with another state with low crime for the safest state, such as New Hampshire and one time I recall with North Dakota. When a state has such low crime, one homicide for example can cut a state's homicide rate in half or increase it by 33%. The ones at the bottom are essentially equal and ALL allow their residents easy access to carrying firearms concealed.

care to try again? Unlike the anti gun people I CAN and will explain the facts, because they ARE facts and CAN be explained.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Vermont has no people living there. It has a border with Canada. There is no reason for high crime there. Few people and spread out. There is still crime though. Definitely not because one can be armed.

The "rate" takes into account the population whether it is low or high. Obviously the numbers are good enough for the FBI but not you? Really? I do use the UNIFORM Crime report. There are peopleand we have a higher density of population than many states, we are not even near the bottom in that category and also have a higher than normal amount of people living in urban areas.

How does a border with Canada help us to have low crime? They have higher crime than we do.

Vermont has no people living there. It has a border with Canada. There is no reason for high crime there. Few people and spread out. There is still crime though. Definitely not because one can be armed.

What are the reasons for high crime elsewhere that we do not have here?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am humbly asking you to explain to me how going from 3297 to 3001 constitutes a 50% decrease

YOU posted it as some sort of evidence of...what, exactly? And now you need me to explain it?

You have yet to make any point whatsoever.

[Dan and Judy 614]

why would you ask ME?????????????? I did not do the report.

Don't be so modest. You are much older and wiser than me. I know that you understand that report completely. Can't you spare me a few crumbs of knowledge?

Where does the 50% come from.

How can we trust these reports to prove your point if we can't understand the reports?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Don't be so modest. You are much older and wiser than me. I know that you understand that report completely. Can't you spare me a few crumbs of knowledge?

Where does the 50% come from.

How can we trust these reports to prove your point if we can't understand the reports?

I do not care if you trust the reports you post.

Seems as though your argument has run its course, whatever that is. If you have something new for us, let us know.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[ready4ONE 5,400]

All have liberal concealed carry laws. What is there for me to explain? Allow people to carry guns and the crime rate is low. Thanks. Further evidence that Vermont has low crime BECAUSE of concealed carry, just like the other states you mention.

Vermont will occasionally trade places with another state with low crime for the safest state, such as New Hampshire and one time I recall with North Dakota. When a state has such low crime, one homicide for example can cut a state's homicide rate in half or increase it by 33%. The ones at the bottom are essentially equal and ALL allow their residents easy access to carrying firearms concealed.

care to try again? Unlike the anti gun people I CAN and will explain the facts, because they ARE facts and CAN be explained.

John Lott has already been completely and thoroughly outed as having put forth a study so flawed a number of academics have used the word 'worthless' to describe both his study and conclusions. This of course didn't stop Mr. Lott from publishing a book based on his worthless study, and generated any number of fan-boys such as yourself who don't really understand academic research, and only point to what agrees with your points of view, ignoring anything which even remotely fails to agree.

The fact is the study which would definitively put the argument to rest hasn't been done, and the party most interested in making sure such research never gets done is the gun lobby. Credible studies do argue against the demonstrably flawed results of the demonstrably flawed study by Mr. Lott however. The gun lobby simply prefers researchers such as Mr. Lott. Form a desired conclusion, exclude any fact which works against said conclusion, emphasize anything remotely resembling support of the desired conclusion, make conclusion and call any criticism of the study 'bias' from 'the other side.'

Frankly I don't think increased danger to the owner/possessor of the gun is necessarily an argument against legally owning guns, as I have stated over and over again, I think that the danger is increased that the owner or their loved one do indeed increase and not without good reason, credible studies indicate that truth, but my thought is simply that is something for anyone to keep in mind prior to obtaining a gun.

Let's look at an excerpt from a credible study shall we?

...For this we have a legitimate study by Kellermann, published in the, horrors, the biased New England Journal of Medicine (Protection or Peril?). I'll quote the abstract:"To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The medical examiner's case files were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim. A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Handguns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths."

The expected tactic immediately materialized: raise doubt as to the validity of the study and its methodology. Didn't work; it underwent careful examination and emerged largely unscathed. Of course, demonization was not far behind: biased, liberal and worse.

http://www.thedoctor...ts-pro-and-con/

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

John Lott has already been completely and thoroughly outed as having put forth a study so flawed a number of academics have used the word 'worthless' to describe both his study and conclusions. This of course didn't stop Mr. Lott from publishing a book based on his worthless study, and generated any number of fan-boys such as yourself who don't really understand academic research, and only point to what agrees with your points of view, ignoring anything which even remotely fails to agree.

The fact is the study which would definitively put the argument to rest hasn't been done, and the party most interested in making sure such research never gets done is the gun lobby. Credible studies do argue against the demonstrably flawed results of the demonstrably flawed study by Mr. Lott however. The gun lobby simply prefers researchers such as Mr. Lott. Form a desired conclusion, exclude any fact which works against said conclusion, emphasize anything remotely resembling support of the desired conclusion, make conclusion and call any criticism of the study 'bias' from 'the other side.'

Frankly I don't think increased danger to the owner/possessor of the gun is necessarily an argument against legally owning guns, as I have stated over and over again, I think that the danger is increased that the owner or their loved one do indeed increase and not without good reason, credible studies indicate that truth, but my thought is simply that is something for anyone to keep in mind prior to obtaining a gun.

Let's look at an excerpt from a credible study shall we?

OMG the same study that only counts shootings and deaths as self defense again. The incident in this thread would not be considered a case of self defense in that "study" It is from the Violence Policy Center, funded by the Brady Handgun Control group.

Link to Lott's being disgraced. Please. He has written two books, one being a further follow up of his original study years later to confirm his findings and he uses the FBI Unirom Crime Report. Why don't you?

The passage of concealed all over the US was directly related to Lotts studies, going from 5 states to 49 that allow concealed carry was a result. You mean 44 legislatures were fooled?

And AGAIN you cannot provide a single "other reason" for all the states that have low crime and lenient concealed carry laws.

At least you are consistent.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Maybe if Gary won't help me, somebody else could take a look at this and let me know if it makes sense.

I'm thinking the 50% is a typo.

Here is the first section and you can follow the link if you need more.

This is not a trick question.

　

FIRST QUARTER REPORT

2011

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING

DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The number of Crime Index offenses reported by Wyoming law enforcement agencies during the first quarter of 2011 decreased 50.0

1 percent compared to the same quarter of 2010. Excluding arson, the Crime Index totaled 3,001 offenses during January-March, compared to 3,297 offenses in 2010. A total of 953 Index offenses were cleared during this 2011 reporting period, resulting in a clearance rate of 31.8 percent.

Collectively, the number of violent Index offenses rose 21.0

1 percent compared to 2010 figures. Murder rose with one reported for 2011 and two for the same period in 2010. Forcible rape and rape attempts fell 8.8%, with 31 reported in 2011 and 34 in 2010. Robbery showed a 19.0 percent decrease with 17 reported this quarter and 21for 2010. Aggravated assault rose 32.91 percent with 222 incidents this period and 168 for 2010.

Property crimes as a group fell 11.0

1 percent during this quarter. Burglary reflected a 4.91 percent decrease with 426 incidents reported for 2011 and 448 in 2010. Larceny-theft showed 11.81 percent decrease with 2,199 reported compared to 2,498 in 2010. Motor vehicle theft showed a 16.71 percent decrease with 105 reported in 2011 and 126 in 2010.

Arson, a property crime collected apart from the other Index offenses, registered a decrease with 4 reported instances compared to 16 in 2010. The estimated value of property damage related to arson totaled $45,500 during the first quarter of 2011. Two arsons were cleared, representing a clearance rate of 50.0 percent.

Property stolen incidental to Index offenses totaled $2,774,151 for 2011; compared with $2,882,615 reported stolen during the first quarter of 2010. Recovery of locally stolen property was valued at $1,036,007 or 37.3 percent of the total reported stolen during this period

http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/pdf/2011_First_Quarter_Report.pdf

　

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Gary there are likely a plethora of reasons why Vermont has a low crime rate:

1: Location

2: Demographics

The above two likely account for most of your states low (but gasp, horror, how can it be?!? not the lowest) crime rate.

Since you have tipped your hand, you rely on the spurious, tainted, and roundly (gun lobby excepted) discredited work of Mr. Lott, in fact aping his false argument and conclusion, you turn to fake righteous indignation trying to salvage your dignity. Sorry but you sir have just drank a very large mug of fail.

I don't want your precious gun, but I also don't want anyone to read your false claim and believe having a gun makes then safer. Facts and credible studies say otherwise. Simply put, having a gun may well be a risk you're willing to take, but you are not making yourself safer.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary there are likely a plethora of reasons why Vermont has a low crime rate:

1: Location

2: Demographics

The above two likely account for most of your states low (but gasp, horror, how can it be?!? not the lowest) crime rate.

Since you have tipped your hand, you rely on the spurious, tainted, and roundly (gun lobby excepted) discredited work of Mr. Lott, in fact aping his false argument and conclusion, you turn to fake righteous indignation trying to salvage your dignity. Sorry but you sir have just drank a very large mug of fail.

I don't want your precious gun, but I also don't want anyone to read your false claim and believe having a gun makes then safer. Facts and credible studies say otherwise. Simply put, having a gun may well be a risk you're willing to take, but you are not making yourself safer.

Non answer

Specify how location works in our favor. What demograhics make the difference? I mean you think you can throw out a couple words and that is evidence of anything? Typical. And yes, Vermont will have the lowest crime rate in 2011 when the numbers come out and it is consistently at the bottom in the categories of crimes against persons. I do not mince any words.

Again you have failed to present even ONE reason we have a low crime rate besides concealed carry. Guns prevent crime by being present, by serving notice to criminals that your next victim MAY be armed and MAY kill you.

How do demographics work? What is the demographic that keeps us safe? Please be clear. I am clear. I ask you to do the same. Please.