More gun laws = fewer gun deaths?
hiram alejandro rodriguez briceño | Wikimedia Commons
Could it be true? Could it actually be that in states that have more gun-control laws, there are fewer gun deaths?
A major new study is reporting that. While it doesn’t directly contradict the controversial “more guns = less crime” mantra, it seems to put a big question mark or asterisk over it.
From the Associated Press:
In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.
The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.
What does it mean? Where do we go from here? Sometime in the next few weeks or so (if not tomorrow) some A-rated National Rifle Association lackey in Congress is going to slip an amendment on some bill that will outlaw future CDC analyses of anything related to guns.
Maybe they’ll even try to rename the agency by removing the word “Prevention.” Because the gun industry can’t abide studies like this. It directly contradicts their “official story” — that the only thing that can help prevent gun deaths is more guns.
March 6, 2013 - 9:54 PM
This piece is not worthy of a comment, other than it’s pathetic.
Dan, I read an article within the last month or so which was written and researched by a VCU professor and it appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch. His research showed that cities and states with more guns do not have more crime. I would ask you to re-print his article on your site to get the other side of the story and to be fair and balanced.
Also, is their another city in the US with more gun laws than Chicago? Doesn’t Chicago have a high homicide rate? I think it is one of the most dangerous cities in the US What does that say about this CDC research?
Clay: I would ask you to re-print his article on your site to get the other side of the story and to be fair and balanced.
-
The article goes on to describe the difficulties the researchers are having correlating the results of the study to popular beliefs about gun control laws, both for and against. Did you read the linked article or did you just see “oh, it’s Dan Casey whining about guns again” and demand the Faux News spin?
Dan, i believe you left this part out if your great reporting.
“Wintemute said it’s likely that gun control measures are more readily enacted in states with few gun owners – a factor that might have more influence on gun deaths than the number of laws.”
The most significant piece of the President’s proposal to curb gun violence was the Executive Order allowing the CDC access to previously undisclosed data. Given time, I am confident the CDC can suggest meaningful strategies to address gun violence.
-
Frank, that you think this piece is pathetic is of no consequence, nor is what I think about the data. The data will remain as it is and will move forward as a constructive part of the conversation.
I find this post quite interesting for one simple reason. If the NRA were to produce a study that directly contradicted this study it would be slammed for being narrow minded and right winged, however the Brady Center to prevent gun violence produces data to support the CDC and some of you take it as the gospel truth. It’s amazing how the US public have become less independent in their thinking and more like sheep herded from place to place.
A gun thread with only 5 comments? This beta really IS killing traffic.
“The most significant piece of the President’s proposal to curb gun violence was the Executive Order allowing the CDC access to previously undisclosed data. Given time, I am confident the CDC can suggest meaningful strategies to address gun violence” comment by Jason Perdue.
-
Right on, Jason. By liberating epidemiological data from overt intimidation, the president has restored the CDC’s scientific effectiveness in examining and addressing the public health aspects of gun violence. I’m confident that among those committed to improving public health outcomes the CDC’s unfettered science can lessen demagoguery of gun violence vis-a-vis other public health issues like drug and auto death rates, suicides, etc.
Typical “liberal garbage” from so called media….
I a finding I hilarious the way he wingers march onto this site and demand stuff be put up or taken down. Get your own blog, people.
that is because rt has the same level of IT people as columnists, sad, slow and just wrong
In a republic such as ours, it is IMHO extremely difficult to assess the effectiveness one state’s laws relative to another’s especially when the states abut one another. Virginia for instance could have the tightest air pollution regulations in the nation but they would be all for naught as the winds from our neighboring states with less stringent regulations would (and do) pollute our air. The same applies to water and I say the same about guns.
How many of us here have traveled to a bordering state and been stopped on the state line and checked for guns? Our ridiculous patchwork of gun laws which vary from state to state, city to city and town to town and where enforcement is reactive instead of proactive, make these laws a joke. Chicago is often cited by gun advocates as an example of the failure of gun control laws to curb gun violence. But it is not as if Chicago exists in a vacuum, it instead abuts the state of Indiana which has very lenient gun laws. I think we all know there is no border checkpoint at the city/state line and I’m pretty sure the laws in Chicago are enforced just as anywhere else; you’re pretty much on your own until you commit a crime with a gun. Until we have a system of strictly enforced Federal laws which apply to all jurisdictions will we truly have a system that works. I’m sure more progressive nations in the world (which is likely every other industrialized country) look at us and wonder why we still behave like we are still living in our Wild West era. good question.
Ironically, the sidebar has an ad for concealedcarrymagazine.com. I am happy to see that the CDC is looking at the data. But I don’t expect anything to change.
So I’m supposed to believe a study by the Brady Center is non partisan when the FBI’s own statistics say violent crime has gone down 49% from 1992 to 2011.
http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-compelling-fbi-statistics-that-show-50-less-violent-crime-than-20-years-ago/
“Sometime in the next few weeks or so (if not tomorrow) some A-rated National Rifle Association lackey in Congress is going to slip an amendment on some bill that will outlaw future CDC analyses of anything related to guns.”
What’s odd, Dan, is they already did that. I don’t know how this study slipped through the crack.
As most here know, I do not attribute causation to correlation or equal correlation to causation in human behavior — without extensive regression analysis and other/or other statistical techniques and modeling or analyzing several variables, to focus on the relationship between a dependent variable and the many possible independent variables across a wide range of socioeconomic variables and relationships. However, as long as we are talking about correlations, see: http://tinyurl.com/ct8r63z
**
March 7, 2013, 3:36 PM
Justice Dept.: Violence against women fell 64% over decade
WASHINGTON The Justice Department says the rate of sexual violence against women and girls age 12 or older fell 64 percent in a decade and has remained stable for five years.
In 2010, women and girls nationwide experienced about 270,000 rapes or sexual assaults, compared with 556,000 in 1995, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey released Thursday.
Rates declined from a peak of 5 per 1,000 women in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 women in 2005. The figure remained unchanged from 2005 to 2010.
SNIP
**
And as those of us committed to recovering the RKBA know, women were the fastest growing segment of those receiving CHPs in that same time frame.
Interesting tidbit of juxtaposition, IMHO.
and speaking of domestic violence:
Former wife: NRA official banned from carrying gun after ‘years of domestic violence’
-
“The New York Daily News on Wednesday reported that police has confiscated an arsenal of 39 firearms from the home of Richard D’Alauro in 2010 because of a confrontation with his then-wife at their Long Island home. ”
[...]
“A man who has an order of protection against him … is a poor spokesman for the NRA,” Friedman said.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/07/former-wife-nra-official-banned-from-carrying-gun-after-years-of-domestic-violence/
“recovering the RKBA”
Inflammatory but utterly inaccurate choice of verb, ITSCOTUSHO
I might add that in light of the preamble in the message posted at 6:05pm, one can question if the H in the final acronym is fully accurate.
Dave Hicks – don’t get your hopes up that there is a correlation between gun owning women and a drop in DV and other forms of violence against women.
The actual reason for the drop in the numbers was that domestic violence/stalking laws became tougher in all states, were enforced in most states, and jail finally became a reality for the abuser.
-
I worked for over 25 years in family violence with a specialty in domestic violence. For years “a man’s castle was his home” was the mantra for allowing husbands to beat wives. Laws were passed in progressive states – domestic violence statutes stood on their own, were challenged, and were upheld – law enforcement received mandatory special training to understand said laws and the dynamics of abuse, and finally, abusers were thrown in jail – their weapons confiscated, and protective/restraining orders were finally enforced by the courts. Stalking became a crime and also resulted in protective orders/restraining orders.
-
Please do not give credit to NRA / RKBA types – women fighting for laws and their enforcement to protect other women, finally overcame the paternal misogynist society to protect battered, abused and sexually assaulted women.
-
Guns were used against women and there was never a “peep” of support for women’s protection from the lobbying group called the NRA…and now that they see a financial opportunity to exploit women’s fear, they market and promote guns for “women’s safety”. I want to throw up. I find it disgusting – and those who find a correlation in guns and “women’s safety: know nothing of what they speak.
And as those of us committed to recovering the RKBA know, women were the fastest growing segment of those receiving CHPs in that same time frame.
Interesting tidbit of juxtaposition, IMHO.
Guess the violence against women act, the major emphasis that it brought about, and the stiffer penalties had nothing to do with it eh Dave Hicks..
You know, the one Republicons in the House of Representatives screwed around with for over 18 months before finally being shamed into renewing it.
Re: wayne goodman at 7:36 pm
1) note my first paragraph @ 6:05 pm.
2) Such other variables, which you cite, are my reason not to “attribute causation to correlation or equal correlation to causation in human behavior” in my cited “Interesting tidbit of juxtaposition” or. for that matter, in Dan’s OP
—–
Re: Hillary at 7:35 pm
See reply to wayne goodman. You are right about “women fighting for laws and their enforcement to protect other women.” However, the NRA & other RKBA groups have long championed tougher laws, better enforcement, and more jail time for violent criminals.
—
Re: Hillary at 7:05 pm
I agree that a “man who has an order of protection against him … is a poor spokesman for the NRA” or any other organization for that matter.
However, should he reflect badly on all RKBA folk any more than a teacher who molest a child reflects badly on all teachers? Or more than Joseph Painter should he reflect badly on all attorneys-at-law?
1./ Re: Hillary at 7:35 pm
“See reply to wayne goodman. You are right about “women fighting for laws and their enforcement to protect other women.”
“However, the NRA & other RKBA groups have long championed tougher laws, better enforcement, and more jail time for violent criminals”.
-
I hate to be insulting Dave Hicks but that is a load of stinking horse manure. Please show me where, back in the day before we fought and WON protective rights for battered women, the NRA ever provided ONE iota of support for better laws to protect victims of domestic violence/sexual assault! And btw, telling them to arm themselves, in their homes, with their children present, with a typically larger male who is a brute is well, just stupid.
I’ll be waiting for citations on the NRA response to DV circa 1990′s….
2./Re: Hillary at 7:05 pm…
I call specious argument…
“Guns were used against women and there was never a “peep” of support for women’s protection from the lobbying group called the NRA…and now that they see a financial opportunity to exploit women’s fear, they market and promote guns for “women’s safety”. I want to throw up. I find it disgusting – and those who find a correlation in guns and “women’s safety: know nothing of what they speak” comment by Hillary
Directly apropos of Hillary’s point, see the cartoon “Non Sequiter” in today’s RT extra section. I’ll post the gist of it later for those who don’t get to see it.
Dave hicks
I did note your first paragraph. Then I noted your last paragraph which by insinuAtion negated your first paragraph. You can’t have it both ways.
Hey Clay,
Your post #2 is the reason I said what I said in post #1.
Somehow, they always forget ….obama’s home burg of ….Chicago.
Re: my comment @ March 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Or more than Kwame Kilpatrick should he reflect badly on all Democratic politico?
http://tinyurl.com/azp6lda
**
Jury finds Detroit ex-mayor guilty on many charges
Ed White, The Associated Press11:04a.m. EDT March 11, 2013
Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit’s former mayor, faced 30 counts, including extortion, bribery and tax evasion.
DETROIT — A jury has convicted former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick on corruption charges after a five-month trial that portrayed him as a greedy politician who took bribes, fixed contracts and lived far beyond his salary.
Jurors convicted Kilpatrick of a raft of crimes, including a racketeering conspiracy charge, ensuring a return to prison for a man once among the nation’s youngest big-city leaders.
Prosecutors said Kilpatrick ran a “private profit machine” out of Detroit’s City Hall. The government presented evidence to show he got a share of the spoils after ensuring that the excavating company of his buddy, Bobby Ferguson, was awarded millions in work from the water department.
SNIP
**
Re: wayne goodman | March 7, 2013 at 11:16 pm
“Interesting tidbit of juxtaposition, IMHO.” is far far from claiming causation.
Action, fact, or condition “A” could cause observation “B.”
Action, fact, or condition “A” could also cause observation “C.”
The Interesting tidbit of juxtaposition of “B” to “C” does not suggest that “B” causes “C” or vice versa.
There is a very strong correlation between ice cream bar sales and drowning.
There is a very strong correlation between shoe size and math skills in elementary school.
Would you assume that ice cream causes drownings of shoe size increases math skills? That drownings increase the consumption of ice cream? That math skill increases shoe size?