Below is a recent article from the NRA, which discusses how gun sales skyrocketed as the murder rate declined in 2009:
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963—a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.
According to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and “large” ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned—AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.
Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS’ inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008.
More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.
My thanks to Anders for pointing out this article.
Bile,
I'm curious why you say that the current data is "nearly useless"? While I agree that longer term data is almost always more useful, seeing a spike in gun purchasing and a reduction in crime certainly has some probative value when disproving the idea that more guns lead to more crime. A year seems to be long enough, and the nation-wide stats seem to be a large enough sample size.
While I’m completely opposed to all forms of gun restrictions and disagree with pro-gun regulators on nearly all accounts… for those wishing to argue empirically (which I tend not to do) this data is currently nearly useless. If the trends stay the same or stabilize in the next few years then it’d be useful. Not that the pro-gun control crowd would be swayed.
Bile,
If the crime report read just the opposite. The anti-gunners would have had this report on every news station all day. Plus it would be on the front page of every news paper above the fold. However, since it is pro gun you are not likely to see or hear about it anywhere.