NJ Gun sales at all time high while NJ ranks as one of safest in US

[rsa 1]

Interesting article:

http://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/s/fshiq/nj-gun-sales-at-all-time-high-as-state-ranks-among-safest-in-u-s?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=police%20%26%20fire&utm_campaign=alert

[JackDaWack 2,895]

A convenient fact left out..... New Hampshire, a state with more guns and less laws has lower violent crime than NJ... among many other states with the same or lower per capita crime.

[Howard 538]

Of course NJ is one of the safest states as we have a highly affluent educated population.  IF it were not for the five crap cities which represent 11% of the population and two-thirds of all shootings we would be the safest state.  We are also one of the most over taxed with crap return for our taxes.

[deerpark 83]

So theyre implying that despite the uptick in gun sales, there hasnt been a proportionate uptick in gun related violence.

 

And that somehow its because of our crap gun laws.

 

Couldnt be because the actual criminals are obtaining their guns illegally despite our stupid laws.

 

Biased journalism is biased. 

[Newtonian 453]

More bullshit.

 

NJ is:

 

30th-safest in terms of gun murder rate

36th-safest in terms of murder rate

 

See chart here. 

 

Considering that our gun laws are the strictest (not among the strictest, they're demonstrably the worst) in the nation, by any reading 30th-safest is below average; 36th-safest is piss poor -- the bottom third. Affluent/educated my ass.

 

Some day when I have a couple of spare hours I'm going to construct and post a graph that will blow your socks off, that will include this data and more.

 

Unfortunately I'll be preaching to the converted because facts don't matter.

 

 

[Michael2013 56]

Thanks Newtonian,

 

I tried a business intelligence tool that can read right from a web page, and here is what I got:
NJ is #26 in murder rate (1 being the lowest), and #29 in gun murder rate.

The safest state is VT, with 42% gun ownership (in fact probably more, given their absence of gun laws)

The worst is DC, with more than double of the 2nd place LA and the lowest gun ownership, 3.6%.

There are 24 states with higher gun ownership then NJ, and the lower gun murder rate at the same time:

Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

 

Charts show no correlation between the gun ownership rate and gun murder rate.

[voyager9 3,434]

Charts show no correlation between the gun ownership rate and gun murder rate.

Probably because most gun murders are not done by gun owners. I know everyone here is shocked.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maintenanceguy 510]

I can't find my chart.   I made one myself several months ago.  Both sides claim that either more guns = more crime or more guns = less crime and I decided to see who was right.  I'd like to say that I discovered that we were right and more guns = less crime but...

 

the fact is that there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

 

If you graph firearm crime or violence with a firearm vs. gun ownership, the chart isn't a slope up or a slope down, it's a series of random peeks and valleys.

[Kevin125 4,772]

I'm not getting the "it's really safe here" vibe when passing through Camden, Newark or East Orange. And while walking through Trenton this week, I was pissed off because it was situations like that where we should be carrying a firearm.

[345Sire 158]

Interesting article:

http://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/s/fshiq/nj-gun-sales-at-all-time-high-as-state-ranks-among-safest-in-u-s?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=police%20%26%20fire&utm_campaign=alert

According to that posting, 

 

The Center says the state could improve its already high ranking by requiring background checks on all gun sales (private, gun shows) at the point of purchase; prohibiting the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition magazines; and regulating “junk” guns.

 

New Jersey also prohibits the possession of assault firearms, like the one used in the Orlando shooting, as well as a restriction on magazine capacity. Those limits include 15 rounds for semi-automatic firearms and six rounds for semi-automatic shotguns.

 

They say that gun sales at gun shows are less restrictive, due to lack of background checks. I can't remember that last time I was able to go to a gun show without crossing a state line. Usually into Pennsy. 

 

They say assault rifle. I'm STILL trying to establish what truly constitutes the true depiction of that phrase.

 

They  say "regulate junk guns", umm, what's a "junk gun"? Do they even have a clue? Inexpensive doesn't HAVE to mean it's no good, not in these times.

[Ricky_Bobby 130]

^There are gun shows in NJ?  LOL

[Golf battery 1,223]

Bastards are dissin' my hi point 9!!!!

[mikeyjones 88]

Bastards are dissin' my hi point 9!!!!

You have yet to bring it out for CO in Uspsa.

 

Sent from my Z812 using Tapatalk

[Golf battery 1,223]

Its a work in progress.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Bastards are dissin' my hi point 9!!!!

Can't wait to see you shooting competition with that thing.

[NJGF 375]

They say assault rifle. I'm STILL trying to establish what truly constitutes the true depiction of that phrase.

 

Assault Rifle:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

1. It must be an individual weapon
2. It must be capable of selective fire
3. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
4. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
5. And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

Most of us don't own any assault rifles. I am not sure how many (if any) assault rifles have been used in any crimes. But whatever.

[Newtonian 453]

Thanks Newtonian,

 

I tried a business intelligence tool that can read right from a web page, and here is what I got:

NJ is #26 in murder rate (1 being the lowest), and #29 in gun murder rate.

The safest state is VT, with 42% gun ownership (in fact probably more, given their absence of gun laws)

The worst is DC, with more than double of the 2nd place LA and the lowest gun ownership, 3.6%.

There are 24 states with higher gun ownership then NJ, and the lower gun murder rate at the same time:

Alaska

Colorado

Connecticut

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Minnesota

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

South Dakota

Utah

Vermont

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

 

Charts show no correlation between the gun ownership rate and gun murder rate.

Your numbers are off according to the FBI. Why don't you just look at the latest figures they provide?

[Newtonian 453]

I can't find my chart.   I made one myself several months ago.  Both sides claim that either more guns = more crime or more guns = less crime and I decided to see who was right.  I'd like to say that I discovered that we were right and more guns = less crime but...

 

the fact is that there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

 

If you graph firearm crime or violence with a firearm vs. gun ownership, the chart isn't a slope up or a slope down, it's a series of random peeks and valleys.

I just calculated the correlation from the data in the table I linked above. It's messy but not random, as you'd expect from such a complex mix of laws, demographics, demographic population density, and gun ownership.

 

If you include DC the correlation between gun ownership % and murder rate is -0.34. If you don't count DC the correlation is -0.12.

 

This means that there is a trend toward lower murder rate when gun ownership is higher.

 

If you count only gun murders the correlation is -0.33 (w/ DC) and -0.11 (w/out DC), essentially equal to the overall murder figures.

 

These figures modestly support the claim, "more guns = less crime." The other way to view this is that by no means do more guns equal MORE crime. This has also been even more strongly supported by the fact that murder and gun murder rates are about half of what they were in the 1980s, with X-number of more guns (I think it's 2X but am not sure). That's a huge repudiation of "more guns more crime."

 

BTW I think it's quite fair to include DC since it is the only remaining territory within the US where gun ownership is flat out illegal unless you're checking badges at the National Gallery and weigh at least 450 lbs.

 

If I had to bet on one sure-fire correlation it would be demographics, not number of guns or percentage ownership. A graph of % minority habitation vs. gun murders would probably show a 75-80% correlation. 

 

"Guns don't kill, people kill."

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I just calculated the correlation from the data in the table I linked above. It's messy but not random, as you'd expect from such a complex mix of laws, demographics, demographic population density, and gun ownership.

 

If you include DC the correlation between gun ownership % and murder rate is -0.34. If you don't count DC the correlation is -0.12.

 

This means that there is a trend toward lower murder rate when gun ownership is higher.

 

If you count only gun murders the correlation is -0.33 (w/ DC) and -0.11 (w/out DC), essentially equal to the overall murder figures.

 

These figures modestly support the claim, "more guns = less crime." The other way to view this is that by no means do more guns equal MORE crime. This has also been even more strongly supported by the fact that murder and gun murder rates are about half of what they were in the 1980s, with X-number of more guns (I think it's 2X but am not sure). That's a huge repudiation of "more guns more crime."

 

BTW I think it's quite fair to include DC since it is the only remaining territory within the US where gun ownership is flat out illegal unless you're checking badges at the National Gallery and weigh at least 450 lbs.

 

If I had to bet on one sure-fire correlation it would be demographics, not number of guns or percentage ownership. A graph of % minority habitation vs. gun murders would probably show a 75-80% correlation.

 

"Guns don't kill, people kill."

Which statistical analysis did you use to get those numbers?

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Bastards are dissin' my hi point 9!!!!

[Golf battery 1,223]

Now were talking. Yup thats my piece.

[Newtonian 453]

Which statistical analysis did you use to get those numbers?

I plotted the values I mentioned from the 2010 table, then asked Excel to do a correlation. The numbers I reported are the correlation coefficients. Disclaimer: I got a C or C- in statistics in 1973 and have not used it since.

 

If you hold that "more guns = more crime" then the numbers should disappoint you. OTOH if you believe that "more guns = less crime" the numbers on their own are only weakly convincing. Of course you can cherry-pick data from specific areas to prove either position.

 

Folks, as I hinted in my last post: This is an extremely complex issue that cannot be reduced to plotting gun murder rate against firearm possession, which is all I did: The kindergarten of statistical analysis.

 

"X guns = Y crime" (fill in the variables) are shortcuts for both gun advocates and haters not to have to face the real predictor of gun violence, which is race. It's perhaps an over-simplification, but all you have to do is look at Vermont or NH on one hand, and DC or Louisiana on the other. Addressing that problem is infinitely harder than passing gun bans and magazine restrictions on the one hand, or pro-nightclub-carry laws and constitutional carry on the other.

 

Fact is we don't know when we'll need a gun to defend self or home. You can live in Irvington for 30 years and never be bothered, or get the shit kicked out of you in Burlington, which is what happened to the daughter of friends of ours. 

 

Which is why the 2nd Amendment protects an absolute right IMO. It doesn't matter if you're stocking ATMs in Camden at night or strolling on the Appalachian Trail in Maine at 6:30 am. YOU decide on your level of protection and preparedness, not f*****g THEM. Not a dried up old hag like Weinberg, a political hack like Sweeney, or your local Geheimstatpolizeiueberfuehrer. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

An article was just published that is relevant to this thread. Though I must say, the author is only saying what you guys have already pointed out quite effectively. Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436839/gun-control-fact-free-debate

[Newtonian 453]

You beat me to it Mrs. Peel. My next post was to be on the correlation between gun control and crime. It will be difficult to rank the states effectively though without doing a lot of research. The published lists are mostly written by individuals who don't understand the true nature of gun control and therefore are incapable of questioning how various organizations categorize states.

 

I once proposed four categories: constitutional carry, de facto shall issue, de facto may issue, de facto no-issue. The shall-issue states could be further broken down into those requiring high-level training and those that do not, or by region (e.g. upstate NY, northern CA, western MA). It's a very complex issue. You can dice and slice in many different ways, but it will all come down eventually to demographics. The whitest counties will have the least crime, the highest-percentage minority counties will have the most, regardless of other factors, and the correlations will be much higher than .32. Probably more like 0.7 to 0.9

[mipafox 438]

You guys are using "usliberals" on about.com to determine gun ownership rates? That's the citation from the wikipedia article. That's like asking the guy at the local Quickiemart.

 

They don't even give their sources or methods. They could have pulled it right out of their ass for all we know. If there even is a "they." It's about.com, it could be a 40 year old living in his mom's basement with a neckbeard and eating Cheetos.

 

REAL firearm ownership polls are the most unreliable polls there are. They suggest half of all gun owners get rid of their guns whenever there is a push for gun control. I guess that's the tragic boating accident effect. Then they buy them back a couple years later apparently. And people lie so the results are always underrepresented. See the research of John Lott on this.

 

Whatever you do, never use the General Social Survey. Their primary mission is to show lack of enthusiasm for gun ownership in order to facilitate the political will to ban guns. Their numbers are generally 20 points lower than all other polls.

[Newtonian 453]

You guys are using "usliberals" on about.com to determine gun ownership rates? That's the citation from the wikipedia article. That's like asking the guy at the local Quickiemart.

 

They don't even give their sources or methods. They could have pulled it right out of their ass for all we know. If there even is a "they." It's about.com, it could be a 40 year old living in his mom's basement with a neckbeard and eating Cheetos.

 

REAL firearm ownership polls are the most unreliable polls there are. They suggest half of all gun owners get rid of their guns whenever there is a push for gun control. I guess that's the tragic boating accident effect. Then they buy them back a couple years later apparently. And people lie so the results are always underrepresented. See the research of John Lott on this.

 

Whatever you do, never use the General Social Survey. Their primary mission is to show lack of enthusiasm for gun ownership in order to facilitate the political will to ban guns. Their numbers are generally 20 points lower than all other polls.

Even if the true numbers were 100% higher the correlation would not change unless mis-reporting varied greatly among states. Think about it. If individuals in high-crime states under-reported gun ownership our position weakens. That's why we should focus on:

 

* the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is quite clear

* declining rates of violent crime since 1990 despite many more guns

* experience in shall-issue or constitutional carry states. This will be my next calculation but even that won't necessarily prove anything for reasons I will save for that post.

 

Stay tuned.

[mipafox 438]

 

Even if the true numbers were 100% higher the correlation would not change unless mis-reporting varied greatly among states. Think about it. If individuals in high-crime states under-reported gun ownership our position weakens. That's why we should focus on:

 

* the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is quite clear

* declining rates of violent crime since 1990 despite many more guns

* experience in shall-issue or constitutional carry states. This will be my next calculation but even that won't necessarily prove anything for reasons I will save for that post.

 

Stay tuned.

The relative rankings do looks reasonable in general, although PA is ranked way too low. Despite the million something people in Philly, we must have way more than 50% gun ownership. It's gotta be closer to 90%. Despite our faults and quirks, we have the strongest gun culture in the world.

[Newtonian 453]

 

The relative rankings do looks reasonable in general, although PA is ranked way too low. Despite the million something people in Philly, we must have way more than 50% gun ownership. It's gotta be closer to 90%. Despite our faults and quirks, we have the strongest gun culture in the world.

Even stronger than Texas? Ooops sorry I said that.

[345Sire 158]

 

Assault Rifle:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

1. It must be an individual weapon
2. It must be capable of selective fire
3. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
4. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
5. And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

Most of us don't own any assault rifles. I am not sure how many (if any) assault rifles have been used in any crimes. But whatever.

 

Seems to me this one (2.)  about sums it up.  The M16 I was issued back in the day had selective fire, and we were taught to almost always try for 3 shot bursts when in full auto mode.  Less waste, more accuracy. 

 

"But whatever" Be nice if we could show the Liberals the stats on how many "assault" weapons HAVE been used illegally. Of course, it just means they'd scrounge up some other "catchy phrase".

 

Thanks for the proper clarification, it's worth sharing here and there. A few dweebs on Facebook need to see it.