The Law Center’s latest publication, The California Model: Twenty Years of Putting Safety First, examines the history of success in enacting smart gun laws in California and how those laws have contributed to a significant drop in gun death rates in the state.
As the publication describes, gun violence is not a problem without solutions. We know what works,
we’ve seen the difference it has made in California, and we are already seeing the same success in states around the country.Proof in the Data: Thousands of Lives Saved
Over the last twenty years, the number of people injured or killed by guns in California has decreased dramatically. In 1993, 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire; by 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, that number had dropped to 2,935.3 In just two decades, the state’s gun death rate has been cut by 56%, a reduction that translates to thousands of lives saved every single year.4
Over the last twenty years, California’s gun death rate has decreased dramatically.
The rate of gun violence in California has also fallen notably compared to rest of the country. Today, California has the ninth lowest gun death rate of any state nationwide when twenty years ago, it had the thirty-fifth lowest rate.5
California has taken a comprehensive and courageous approach to addressing the epidemic of gun violence, and that approach has succeeded. The state’s strong gun laws not only help save lives, but also reduce the trafficking of illegal guns to other states and to Mexico, protecting lives in neighboring communities.6
So California has gone along with the national trend? Notice the the periwinkle line there includes all other U.S. states and possibly territories. Also notice that the difference between those two lines isn't all that large.
ReplyDeleteWhat this doesn't show is that gun control is the cause. What would happen if we pull out other states one by one and plot their lines? This is the plot of one state's results against the combined results of all other states. If California were the only state with onerous gun control and all other states had loose laws, that would be one thing--not much, given the lines, but something. But all the other states have a variety of gun laws.
All in all, this is a cute attempt, but it doesn't stand up to analysis.
Nice generalities Ted Nugent (Greg) but the author gave facts, graphs, etc., you gave nothing but opinion, no facts to back up your opinion, but of course you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Again, screaming for facts, something that was supplied, yet, something you refuse to supply. Keep flapping those lips like a good representative of Ted Nugent; nothing but overheated bias oral manure. Where are the FACTS you allude to claiming you are correct? Bye Ted(the red neck bigot) Nugent (Greg) I have to attend the funeral of a 6 year old who was killed by his father in a hunting accident(?).
DeleteDoes this mean that we won't have to waste time with you for a while?
DeleteThe article gives graphs, but they don't show what they are purported to show. The claims of fact here are questionable. I have shown the errors in the methodology, and we've gone over the relevant facts many times on this site.
NO.
DeleteAlways some excuse you don't have to give, or deal with facts Ted Nugent (Greg).
No surprise. As I said days ago, you are just a joking ass hole, not into serious discussion of the issues, and yes I proved that against you days ago also.
The talk of gun nuts will come up at the funeral and I will mention your absurd statements as proof that gun nuts don't care how many die, so you can have a gun.
I'm sure the grieving family will appreciate your insights, Kevin, as well as your insinuations that the death was intentional. Personally, if I were you, I'd open with the line about how the dad's really wanted the kid dead--bound to win friends and influence people.
DeleteNo, I will open with your insidious comments, just to show how depraved guys like you are. You should get back to promoting death, talking rational is not your forte.
DeleteKevin, since you insist on mischaracterizing and misrepresenting what we have to say, it's no surprise that you failed to understand our points. From what I've observed from my fellow gun rights supporters here, we care a great deal about human life. We also recognize that sometimes, lethal force is necessary to defend innocent life. We know that gun control proposals if made into law would only affect law-abiding people without doing much of anything to change the rates of violence. In fact, we know that taking guns away from good people will only make violence increase.
DeleteBut what we don't know is what you want done. You offer no answers of your own. All you do is play puerile games and toss insults. If you have something useful to say, go ahead. So far, I've seen nothing from you that is of any value.
You started the insults after I made a serious comment. Of course you don't understand, you don't listen, you don't care, you don't address the issues/points I made, just come back with your arrogant, egotistical bullshit. Keep up the good work.
DeleteKevin, when you want to talk about facts and logic, let me know. I don't care what you think of me, and I see no point in discussing that with you.
DeleteYou are dense. I tried serious, you were an ass. There is no sense talking serious with you, as I stated a week ago. Have fun living in your delusion.
DeleteYou were insulting from the start. If you want to try again, go for it--presuming you're able.
DeleteGo back and read the thread, liar. Be a jack ass, get treated like a jack ass, and you were (and are) certainly a jack ass.
DeleteI'm done speaking to you until you either apologize or prove that I'm a liar.
DeleteApologize? You apologize for being a jack ass, then I will consider it. Besides, as I have said many times now, no sense talking to you about serious issues when you just respond with jack ass jokes. I tried serious, you responded with jack ass jokes. The proof is there. I can't read for you.
DeleteI thought you were leaving for the day, Kevin.
DeleteGuess the fake funeral was superceded by the need to whine about Greg being a "jackass" because he responded to your insulting post with sarcasm.
You are worfress troll, Kevin.
DeleteNow be a good boy and get back to the video games and comic books and leave the arguing to the grown-ups.
Or at least take out the trash next time momma hollers to you down the basement steps.
I just got back from the funeral, but thanks for your depraved thoughts. Is this sarcasm? You guys are sick. Drink a beer, shot a deer, and pull your head out of your ass.
DeleteThe character of the man is the offspring of his zeitgeist, or so I say, and so the porcine Imperialist West has birthed a most wretched piglet who spits on the boot of those who he ought to be blessed with the privilege of groveling to.
DeleteYou see, Tennessean, it appears that our Kevin here is evidence of the fallacy inherent in the structure of Western Civilization, where the ass is free to garner the same pulpit of the virtuous man who he ought to obey and serve, as such would benefit all aforementioned parties.
It is Democracy that is perhaps the greatest foe of individual liberty, freedom, prosperity and the progress of mankind, to which ends it be established to protect, yet consistently disrupts and stifles.
But carry on. This blog makes for a good petting zoo anyway (But do be wary of the pooch. He bites!).
I'll let these childish leches speak for themselves as they make jokes about death (a child's death) laughing themselves silly. Great characters guys, thanks for proving me correct.
DeleteGreg said with a straight face, I'm sure, "we care a great deal about human life."
DeleteOf course, anyone who's read along here knows different.
Tell you what, Mikeb. Let's take a vote on that. Of course, we'll have to insist on voter ID, since there are great many sockpuppets...
DeleteThat's a low and defamatory comment, Mike.
DeleteI expect nothing else from him.
DeleteThat's rich coming from two scum who just got done making jokes about the death of a six year old.
DeleteGreg, I have no doubt you're telling the truth when you say you value life, but I don't see you that way. Your standard is a bit low for me, especially when it concerns "thugs."
DeleteMikeb, put it this way: In a violent confrontation between an innocent person and a thug, who's life is at that point worth more? You cannot fairly say that they're equal, since the thug started the fight. If a person can be a thug without harming innocents, go for it.
DeleteWell, Mike, your earlier statement said pretty much the opposite about Greg. Nice how you throw something out there, way across the line, and then walk it back.
DeleteKevin,
Give it up. No jokes were made about the death of a child. A comment was made, by myself alone, questioning your veracity since you made it sound like you were imminently departing, and then when I came back you had sparred with Greg for hours.
But go ahead and keep making defamatory statements all over this blog about me "making jokes about dead children." You've shown yourself incapable of carrying on a polite conversation, so lying and defamation are the only way you can hope to win.
You did make a joke about a dead boy. It's there for all to read. You are a sick bastard. Right, the funeral was scheduled around YOUR schedule. Really a sick bastard. In fact I started one of my comments by saying, "I just got back from the funeral".....
DeleteKeep proving what a sick jack ass you are, and proving me right.
You're not worth the time.
DeleteThe brave anonymoi and sockpuppets and trolls who come around here making claims that they refuse to substantiate. They go to gun shows enough to gather data. They insist on having superior knowledge, but are miserly about sharing. Their sole tactic is scorn, and since it's not backed up with any evidence or reason, it's merely the mockery of fools.
DeleteDidnt we just have a go around yesterday about correlation and causation?
ReplyDeleteDon't you remember the result? It's correlation in states where gun ownership has gone up or laws have loosened. It's causation when gun control has been tightened. Because.
DeleteYou're absolutely right to call me on the correlation/causation thing when I post things like this. The inference is clearly that the improvement is at least in part due to the strict gun control laws. I happen to believe that's exactly the case.
DeleteThe frequent claims on your part that gun ownership is up and crime is down has been proven false. Gun ownership is not up unless you count guns per capita of the gun-rights fanatics.
The increase in gun ownership has not been proved false. What is beyond dispute is that gun laws have loosened around the country, while rates of violence across the board have gone down in the entire country.
DeleteGreg, you would argue to the death about anything. And you always refuse to admit that you were wrong regardless of the proof.
DeleteJadegold published the post a couple days ago that did just that, proved that gun ownership has gone down steadily over the last few years.
Do you even read your own blog? I've commented on that article. I say he's wrong, and I have support for that. As always, your standard of evidence is whether or not something agrees with your position.
DeleteJade also suggested making Seat-belt violations a felony was reasonable and that most people would agree with him on that. He stated that microstamping couldn't be gotten around by changing out the microstamped parts. He stated that it was a provable fact that people with carry permits committed crimes at a higher rate than the population at large. Etc. etc. etc.
DeleteJade is as far as you can get from being a credible source, and as Greg said in the comment thread, other polls have had different results, so one disagreeing poll is far from proving anything.
Excuse me--minor correction--Jade did make those comments, but he made them on the "Gunloonery" post that he posted the same day as his supposedly earth shattering post on gun ownership.
DeleteOops, silly me, it's a recruiting pamphlet for an antigun group. That explains using MAIG as a data source.
ReplyDelete“Gun Deaths”. Not murder rate, suicide rate, or violent crime rate, but again they are using the dishonest metric of “gun death”, which you, Mike, even agreed is dishonest. Haven’t I always told you that the gun controllers always turn to this metric to make things look better for them? What is most unscrupulous is that they equate it to “lives saved”, without ever considering the actual murder rate and suicide rate. How do we know lives were saved without looking at these? On a nitpicky note, what kind of amateurs publish a graph without getting the scale right (they are missing the 4.0 in gun deaths per 100K)?
ReplyDeleteMy challenge to all gun control advocates is this: anytime you see “gun deaths” in a statistic as proof of something, substitute it with murder rate and see what happens. I know you won’t do it, so I have to do it for you. Remember in my on-going posts about gun laws and zero correlation, right? How when we use their exact same methods and source data, but use murder instead of gun death, all correlation goes away. Well in this case, it is not quite as bad for them. Using FBI UCR, California has actually had a similar drop off in murder rate from their early 90s high as they have in “gun deaths” (63% and ~65% respectively). Where the makers of this graph gain their advantage is by showing it against the US totals. They are showing roughly a 20% drop in “gun deaths” with the California line dropping much faster and well below the nation in order to show it as being meaningful. Substitute in murder rates, and we see the US has dropped 52% from their early 90s high to a rate of 4.7 in 2011. California’s murder rate in 2011 was higher than the national average (albeit negligibly higher) at 4.8. So it is much less impactful to show a graph where CA starts of higher and ends up at the national average when they want to make a point about the California model of gun control and “lives saved”. Hey, we used to suck, now we’re average, you should do what we’re doing!
So what does this mean? The data does show that CA has had a more substantial drop in murders (but not nearly as much as they make it seem), but we have to remember a couple of things:
1) California had some real problems during their “boyz-n-da-hood” days as evidence by their high murder rate. These problems still exist in some of their cities like Oakland, Fresno, Stockton, and the number 2 murder rate capitol of the US- Richmond.
2) California still had the strictest gun control in the nation back in the early 90s, with policies such as handgun registration, and assault weapons ban (though relatively new), waiting period, etc.
3) California is one data point. It is a piece of cherry picked data. What happens when we continue down the list of Brady Campaign darling states and compare them to the national rate of 52%: NJ has only a 19% drop in murder rates. MA had a 33% drop. NY was 72% (keep this in mind next time you’re searching for good cherries to pick, Mike). MD was 46% which isn’t much better than your favorite state to denigrate, Louisiana which had a 45% drop. I could keep going with this and tally up all the states and put them into a correlation calculation, but you won’t believe the results and you’ll call the math “pro-gun bias”. I am willing to keep going, but I need you understand and accept the math first.
Excellent post TS. Or we could compare to other individual states. Minnesota's gun death rate taken fron the same source at CDC is 6.8 compared to California's rate of 7.8. And this is seven years after the state's shall issue permit system went into force.
DeleteBut, I forgot, when its gun freedom, it's correlation, not causation.
TS,
DeleteThanks for taking the time out of your day to pull the stats!
Now we wait for our favorite trolls to ignore the data...
DeleteAll the data and facts in the world become inane when the force of the law is brought to bear.
DeleteThe people know that they don't need to understand it when we can simply ban it.
TS: "The data does show that CA has had a more substantial drop in murders"
DeleteYou should have kept quiet and not even brought up your pet peeve about "gun deaths.
Mikeb, how about addressing all the points that TS made?
DeleteIf one has made good points, Mike prefers to merely pull a quote out of context so that it seems friendly to him and move on, pretending that he's won.
DeleteMike, I don't hide from data. I am completely willing to address and even draw attention to pieces of data that are on your side. I even pointed out that NY had a bigger drop than CA (unsolicited). That seems to be the difference between you and me. I look at the aggregate, while you glom on to whatever looks good for you and ignore the rest. I looked at five gun control loving states, and three of them were worse than the rest of the nation. No correlation means that some data will be on your side, some will be on my side, with the overall point that gun control is useless. Like I said, if you are willing to look at the aggregate with me, we can keep going.
DeleteI will Also point how "percentage change" is an awful stat to measure success by for a variety of reasons, and how it's best to correlate gun laws to murder rates, but we already did that...
And why are you dismissing my point about "gun deaths" as a pet peeve? You've acknowledged that it is a dishonest statistical measure in the past.
DeleteQuoting one's own words is completely in line. It's your problem if your words contradict themselves.
Delete