Study Proves Strictest Gun Control has No Effect on Gun Deaths

Blond with Rifle

Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates in California 10 years after comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor policies enacted

UC Davis Healt  November 19, 2018

study of firearm homicide and suicide rates in the 10 years after California simultaneously mandated comprehensive background checks for nearly all firearm sales and a prohibition on gun purchase and possession for persons convicted of most violent misdemeanor crimes found no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.

The study, which posted online Oct. 12 as in press at the journal Annals of Epidemiology, was conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at UC Davis and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It compared observed annual firearm homicide and suicide rates in California over 10 years following enactment of comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies in 1991 with expected rates based on data from 32 control states that did not have these policies and did not implement other major firearm policies during the same time.

“In the 10 years after policy implementation, firearm suicide rates were, on average, 10.9 percent lower in California than expected, but we observed a similar decrease in non-firearm suicide,” said Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, senior author on the study.

“This suggests that the policies’ estimated impact on firearm suicide may be part of broader changes in suicide risk around the time that the California policies were implemented,” he said.

The study found no net difference between firearm-related homicide rates before and during the 10 years after policy implementation.

Read More: https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

Attn. Gun Control Advocates: We Banned Assault Weapons Before … And It Didn’t Work

Investor’s Business Daily 3/01/2018

Gun Control: Maybe they are too young to know, or have faulty memories, but whatever the reason, all those pushing for a ban on “assault weapons” in the wake of the Florida school shooting ignore the fact that the last time the country imposed such a ban it failed to make a measurable difference.

It turns out that various independent studies came to the same conclusion: the ban had no measurable impact on the number of shootings or the number of shooting deaths while it was in effect.

A 2005 report from the National Research Council, for example, noted that “A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.”

A 2004 study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that while the ban appeared to have reduced the number of crimes committed with “assault weapons,” any benefits were “likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics.

As a result, the Justice study found “there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.”

The main reason the failure of the ban to make a difference: “assault weapons” account for a tiny share of gun crimes — less than 6%. Even among mass shootings, most didn’t involve an “assault weapon” in the decade before the ban went into effect.

Mass shootings didn’t stop during the ban, either — there were 16 while the ban was in effect, which resulted in 237 deaths or injuries. In fact, it was while the ban was in effect that the Columbine High School massacre happened, in which 13 students were killed and 24 injured.

What’s more, gun deaths have steadily declined since 1994, even though the rate of gun ownership has climbed.

Read More: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/we-banned-assault-weapons-before-and-it-didnt-work/

 

Second Amendment Opponents are Gaslighting Americans About History

Children Need to be Taught the Real History of the World

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

   30, 2018

ver the past 50 years, a wide-ranging, well-funded political, cultural, and legal revisionism effort has been undertaken to erase much of the United States’ history and culture of the gun and the Second Amendment. The New York Times’s Nick Kristof’s recent column, “It’s Time To Talk About The NRA” (because no one’s been talking about them!) is a good example of this trend.

I’ll ignore Kristof’s partisan contentions about firearm violence, gun control, and the National Rifle Association’s lobbying, fundraising and scoring—much of it highly debatable—to point out three of the misleading historical assertions he embraces.

First, Kristof makes the claim that contemporary firearm advocates, in an effort to “reinterpret” the Second Amendment, had “expanded the gun-buying constituency by reframing the purpose of firearms from hunting to personal security.” As even a cursory reading of the Founders and American leaders through the 19th century can attest, this is untrue.

The predominant philosophical concern driving the creation of the Second Amendment was protection from domestic or foreign tyranny, or protection of personal property and life. As John Adams explained (quoting legal authority William Blackstone) when defending a British soldier who had fired into an American mob in 1770, self-defense was “the primary canon in the law of nature.”

In my book “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun,” I detail how this ideal was widely embraced by the Founding generation. The right to defend your property, life and liberty girds the entire American project. Not a single Founder ever challenged the notion of individual firearm ownership. Most celebrated it. Individual ownership of firearms was so omnipresent in colonial days—and beyond—that Americans saw no more need to debate its existence. Debates over the Second Amendment involved a disagreement over who should control the militia: state or federal government.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/30/new-york-times-botches-history-with-of-gun/

The CDC Is Publishing Unreliable Data On Gun Injuries. People Are Using It Anyway

By  and   OCT. 4, 2018

For journalists, researchers and the general public, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serves as an authoritative source of information about Americans’ health, including estimates of how many people are killed or injured by guns. The agency’s most recent figures include a worrying uptick: Between 2015 and 2016, the number of Americans nonfatally injured by a firearm jumped by 37 percent, rising from about 85,000 to more than 116,000. It was the largest single-year increase recorded in more than 15 years.

But the gun injury estimate is one of several categories of CDC data flagged with an asterisk indicating that, according to the agency’s own standards, it should be treated as “unstable and potentially unreliable.” In fact, the agency’s 2016 estimate of gun injuries is more uncertain than nearly every other type of injury it tracks. Even its estimates of BB gun injuries are more reliable than its calculations for the number of Americans wounded by actual guns.

An analysis performed by FiveThirtyEight and The Trace, a nonprofit news organization covering gun violence in America,1 found that the CDC’s report of a steady increase in nonfatal gun injuries is out of step with a downwardtrend we found using data from multiple independent public health and criminal justice databases. That casts doubt on the CDC’s figures and the narrative suggested by the way those numbers have changed over time.

Read More: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cdc-is-publishing-unreliable-data-on-gun-injuries-people-are-using-it-anyway/

 

The United States Does Not Have More Mass Shootings Than Europe

In the aftermath of a tragedy like the mass shooting in Las Vegas, political claims are tossed around rather quickly, and with little regard to the facts. Advocates of gun prohibition are quick to claim that the U.S. is uniquely prone to such events because of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

This claim, however, is false. In fact, as figures from the Crime Prevention Research Center show, “there were 55 percent more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in [the European Union] than U.S. from 2009-15.”

In other words, the opposite is true. There are actually more occurrences of, and deaths from, mass shootings in Europe than the United States, on a per capita basis.

Mass shootings are less common in the United States compared to Europe

As the following tables from CPRC show that the United States is in the middle when ranked against European countries that have, for the most part, far more restrictive gun laws.

The statistics show that an individual’s chance of being killed in a mass shooting are actually worse in Europe than in the United States.

President Obama’s claim that “this just doesn’t happen in other countries,” as Obama notoriously said in 2015, is demonstrably false. So too, is the implication that European-style gun laws would likely make any appreciable difference to the frequency of mass shootings.

The desire for a quick-fix solution is understandable after such an aching tragedy as in Las Vegas. But easy answers aren’t necessarily the right ones.

Rate of gun homicides is higher in America than in Europe, but rate of mass shootings is lower

It is true that the United States has a higher overall rate of gun homicides. But mass shootings and terrorist incidents are only a tiny fraction of that figure.

The vast majority are gang-related shootings tied to organized crime, particularly related to the prohibition of illegal drugs. These killings don’t get nearly as much news coverage and attention, but the body count associated with them is many times higher than all mass shooting incidents combined.

The bottom is clear: European-style gun laws are not likely to have prevented what happened in Las Vegas.

Read More: https://www.thejacknews.com/law/gun-rights/the-united-states-does-not-have-more-mass-shootings-than-europe/