"source: FBI crime data tables"
You’re using skewed data by only presenting justifiable homicides as positive outcomes (“crimes stopped”). In your mind, if a gun isn’t used to kill then the crime was not stopped.
Also ironic that submachine guns aren’t easy to come by in the US, G36s can’t be imported and the SVT-40 is much cheaper in Canada than in the US. Only one of those weapons is extremely common.
Guns are used at an estimate between 200,000 (on the low end) and 2.5 million (on the high end) defensively in the United States.
You let me know when 2 million to 25 million people a year in the US are killed by guns.
So the study was funded by the $300,000,000 Bloomburg gave them as a donation, a notorious anti gun guy in Mayors against illegal guns, half of who are convicted of various felonies and gun crimes themselves. Besides, a 1 year increase doesnt show a “trend” of any kind. Pretty biased and suspicious.
Imagine if the NRA gave that amount to a place that then went and did a study showing guns are fine and do not cause crime. How fast and hard would the left and the anti gun crowd criticize it?
The average gun murder in that state anyway is 285 averaging the numbers from 2005 to 2012. Out of a state with 6,000,000, the chance of getting killed by a gun is 0.00475%
I wonder why that study is being touted as some kind of chink in the pro gun argument when there are more studies showing that gun control and ownership have no bearing on crime. The anti gun side will often talk about correlation doesnt imply causation when presented with data, but soon as they get something on their side that fits their views, HURR LOOK PROOF.
Why the arbitrary 1 crime stopped 10 victims are killed? Source? Nothing was mentioned in the “study”