•After accounting for differences in states’ socio-demographic characteristics and economic conditions, states with stricter gun legislation had fewer non-fatal injuries than those with the least strict laws. States with Brady scores of 15 to 28 had 7.9 fewer non-fatal injuries per 100,000 people compared to states with scores of 0 to 4.

anyone want to explain that?

and the results are far more disturbing, and unfortunately raise very uncomfortable issues about race, class, urbanization, Democratic governance strategies, legislative priorities and approaches to crime, etc. I don't really know how one can truly and comprehensively adjust "for differences in states’ socio-demographic characteristics and economic conditions," but it seems that is little more than a disclaimer to handwave away inconvenient facts and data that don't support the author's views on guns. The article is an editorial masquerading as objective journalism.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

[**A Google search readily reveals a politically devastating map comparing gun violence rates to district voting patterns in 2012. Since the map was unsurprisingly distributed on conservative new sources and Facebook, I have not included the links in this post. However, it does not change the reality that blue, largely urban and minority districts, largely urban suffer gun violence at much higher rates.]

The author similarly mentions the CDC study, but then fails to discuss it because it again doesn't support her viewpoint. She also chooses not to note that gun deaths, and all violent crime, are consistently falling all while the number of guns is steadily increasing, ownership and carry laws pervasively liberalizing (along with the expiration of the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban), and the Obama DOJ's own research indicating that most current gun control strategies are ineffective.

Courtesy of the DOJ (BJS and NIJ) and Pew Research:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-kispbj31jpD1LvnFSDevryH2RmVvoLw1slOBZTe-suuy96Qq69nF9BhTmcw/edit

Thanks.

:large

(since Branford ducked my concern on another thread): http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=173983

.... re (Branford's) gun violence chart - I didn't realize pro gun Vermont, new Hampshire & maine had such high incidence of gun violence. Pls explain Branford, since this appears to be some sort of manipulated chart to coincide with liberal voting areas. Pro gun Tennessee has the highest violent crime rate in the country, yet is rated 'low incidents of gun violence' on your chart, absurd. I can only suspect the chart author might use gun violence rate & gun violence occurrence interchangeably, whichever puts the liberal area in the worse light.

Please explain Branford, where your two side by side charts come from, this pbs:twimg (from properties), and tell me if the left chart measures total gun violence incidents, or by rate? (as I said above, I suspect he blends them in deceptively) Total index of gun violence will logically be highest in cities with larger populations, rather than rural areas with smaller populations. The chart does not specify whether by rate or index. If index the chart is misleading, if by rate explain vt, NH, & maine.
Does southern texas & the grand canyon area really have higher gun violence than Detroit and new orleans? do you have 'reservations' about what you're posting now?
And what are the links you posted supposed to prove? they seem to have little to do to back up what you say, & are only there as supportive of violent crime data, yet you proudly strut as if they were supporting your premises: Courtesy of the DOJ (BJS and NIJ) and Pew Research

Highest Crime Per Capita (Disregard #1 DC for comparison, DC is a city not a state & only included to be all inclusive of violent crime nationally)
Note the top 6 are PRO GUN states, only Md is gun control, Delaware neutralish.
2.Tennessee: 643.6 .. 3.Nevada: 607.6 ... 4.Alaska: 603.2
5.New Mexico: 559.1 ... 6.South Carolina: 558.8 ... 7.Delaware: 547.4
8.Louisiana: 496.9 ... 9.Florida: 487.1 .... 10.Maryland: 476.8
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/09/10-states-with-the-highest-rates-of-violent-crime.html

Last edited Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:31 PM - Edit history (2)

How do your figures (I wont accuse you of using facts) square with the following map?





I'll tell you. Nevada and Alaska and New Mexico make your list not because they have high amounts of violent crime, but because they have a small population. Disregard them from the list, as you'd have us do with DC, and New York Texas and California take their place. Disregarding the three low population states, Pro-gun TX with its higher pop makes the list, and NY and CA with their ridiculous gun control and higher populations make the list in spite of both.


That changes the picture a bit doesn't it Jimmy, when two of the three flagship gun control states make the top ten?

Well I'll be, if you make the change I suggest, the data starts to support that map I posted, and branfords assertions.

Lastly, speaking of concern on another thread, theres this:

There are 4x as many guns since 1960, so why isn't there 4x the rates of murder and violent crime?

You never did answer that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=173987


Here, I circled a certain section of my map:



Maybe you can tell us all why the encircled pro-gun states (none of which have strict gun control) don't have actual gun violence incidents in quite the same way the places outside the circle, many of which having strict gun control, do.

Once again, a gun control advocate has done a fine job convincing another gun control advocate
who already agrees with them...

Branford: .. gun deaths, and all violent crime, are consistently falling all while the number of guns is steadily increasing, ownership and carry laws pervasively liberalizing (along with the expiration of the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban), ..

Proof of Branford's duplicity, since the greatest decline in violent crime rate occurred during the 10 year period when the Clinton assault weapon ban was in place - yet above Branford implies that the AWB was counter productive & as a result of it expiring violent crime declined.

Since the early 1960's - with the increasing 'deployment' of semi-auto handguns - the national violent crime rate rose FIVE TIMES and now 2015 remains about twice as high as when guns started their climb to saturate the country. (Gun murder rate will be about 2/3 of murder rates & guncrime rates generally a consistent proportion as well.)
Simply put, in early 1960's the violent crime rate was ~160, today it's double at 368, all the while the "number of guns has been steadily increasing".

Rate...... Violcr ... prop ... murder ... US gunstock
1960 ..... 160.9 1,726.3 5.1 ........ ~75 millions
1964 ..... 190.6 2,197.5 4.9
1975 ..... 487.8 4,810.7 9.6 ........ ~150 mill
1985 ..... 556.6 4,650.5 8.0
1993 ..... 746.8 4,737.7 9.5 ........ ~225 mill
2000 ..... 506.5 3,618.3 5.5
2010 ...... 404.5 2,945.9 4.8 .......... ~300 mill
2013 ..... 367.9 2,730.7 4.5 ........ ~300+ mill

The violent crime rate today is twice what it was in 1960, the property crime rate 50% higher, & the murder rate at parity 10% lower;
... from approx. 1960 to 1993 the national gunstock rose ~200% while the violent crime rate increased near 400%, the murder rate near doubled and the property rate near tripled.
From 1993 to 2013 the violent crime rate decreased approx. 50% while the US gunstock increased approx. 35%.
You cherry pick the years from 1993 to 2013 & praise guns, while ignoring the devastion caused during the rise of the gun 1960s - early 1990s.

Branford: Courtesy of the DOJ (BJS and NIJ) and Pew Research:

Why do you keep posting these links to make it appear they support your premises when they don't? they only supply data & crime statistics. Just a sham.

Rates went both up and down, even as the number of guns kept increasing.

I'll ask again a question you seem ...reluctant to answer:

4x as many guns since 1960, so why isn't there 4x the rates of murder and violent crime?

You do understand that the AWB increased, rather than decreased, sales of AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK's, and whatnot 1994-2004, yes? That the AWB didn't ban any guns whatsoever, only the names that could be used to market them?

I guess that means that more people owning .223 and 7.62x39mm semiautos, and vastly increased concealed carry licensure, correlated with a sharp decrease in the crime rate. Hmmm....

ezra: You do understand that the AWB increased, rather than decreased, sales of AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK's, and whatnot 1994-2004, yes? That the AWB didn't ban any guns whatsoever, only the names that could be used to market them?

You're leaving out a lot:
fuller context of what the third and final study actually concluded: Koper, 2004: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, 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, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.

Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.” http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets. There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
.... the measure's prohibition on high-capacity clips was probably its most effective provision.

"For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens."

No, it was NOT illegal to manufacture AR-15's and civilian AK's for sale to private citizens. It was only illegal to manufacture new AR-15's and civilian AK's and call them "Colt AR-15" or "Poly Technologies AK-47" (or 17 other naughty names), or to manufacture a new AR-15 or civilian AK and fit them with more than one scawwy feature (e.g. a pistol grip was OK, but a pistol grip plus a bayonet lug was verboten for new production).

I bought a brand new (2002 manufactured, 2002 imported) 7.62x39mm civilian AK in 2003, during the Feinstein non-ban. To comply with the Feinstein law, it had a smooth muzzle (no brake, though a pin-on brake would have been legal) and the catch on the bayonet lug was ground smooth. That's one of these, a Romanian SAR-1:



Note the lack of bayonet lug and a smooth muzzle, which made it ban-legal 1994-2004; mine looked just like that. It came with a newly imported ex-Warsaw-Pact 30-round magazine and a rare, newly imported 40-round RPK magazine (collector's item). Spare magazines were only $5.99 for 20-rounders and $9.99 for 30-rounders, since they could be freely imported under the Feinstein law.

It was a great rifle to shoot, plenty accurate for 200-yard plinking, though you had to allow for the drop of the low-velocity cartridge (muzzle velocity of 7.62x39mm out of a 16" barrel is only 2350 ft/sec). I shot competitively with it until I eventually upgraded to an AR, and I eventually sold the SAR-1 to come up with a down payment on my current residence. Of all the guns I've ever sold, I'd buy that one back first. Mine had a Kobra optic, which was a neat piece of history in its own right.

Thing is, many millions of people did what I did. The AR-15 platform became one of the top selling rifles in the United States between 1994 and 2004, thanks in large part to Ms. Feinstein's misguided holy war against them. AK imports from Europe skyrocketed after 1994.

The net result was that after 1994, "assault weapons" as currently defined became *more* available and common, not less, and that rise in popularity has continued to the present day. If you dislike the current popularity of the AR-15 platform vs. (say) the Ruger Mini-14, thank Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Schumer; they greatly speeded their adoption into the mainstream in the mid and late 1990s.

" the measure's prohibition on high-capacity clips (sic) was probably its most effective provision."

The Feinstein law didn't affect the availability of 30+ round magazines for AR's and AK's *at all*. During and after 1994, tens or hundreds of millions of 20- and 30-round military surplus magazines for AR's, AK's, CETME's, G3's, FAL's, M1A's, etc. etc. etc. were imported from Europe, perfectly legally. This influx kept the rifle magazine market saturated, and gun owners well supplied.

The *only* guns which the 1994 Feinstein fraud significantly affected magazine prices for were those that (1) used nonstandard magazines and (2) were new enough on the market that there weren't large stockpiles of magazines to go around. Over-10-round Glock magazine prices quintupled, but you could still buy as many as you wanted; my wife paid over $100 for a Glock 19 magazine during the ban era, but could have bought twenty of them if she wanted to devote the funds to do so. Pro-gun police departments helped out civilian owners by trading their used 15+ rounders for post-1994 ones, so that the pre-'94s could be sold to civilians, but even that wasn't really necessary; manufacturers had produced decades' worth of supply prior to the ban's enactment, and doled them out as prices warranted. It was certainly a big moneymaker for distributors. Smith & Wesson and Beretta 15+ round magazines were cheaper, as I recall, because they had been around longer at the time.

Had the ban gone on longer, a black market in magazines could have eventually developed in another decade or three, but that was never an issue.

The gun industry did downsize some popular models to take advantage of the dimunitive "Clinton Clips", which gave rise to the extra-concealable Glock 26, and some people decided to simply upsize their caliber instead of paying for more expensive wondernine magazines (hence the increase in popularity of the .40 S&W and .45 ACP during that time). But anybody who wanted full-capacity magazines could legally buy them, and we did.

They talk a great talk don't they? They make the things they say seem really meaningful and on the level don't they?

Want to see a picture of reality? Behold:



That's a raw map of gun violence as it happens, where it happens. It paints a bit of a different picture than the brady bunch would have everyone believe, does it not?

I believe the victims in Chicago are less dead.

Move to the Midwest or mountain states, where they have very high rates of legal gun ownership, and you'll be safe from guns.

beevul: That's a raw map of gun violence as it happens, where it happens. It paints a bit of a different picture than the brady bunch would have everyone believe, does it not

It paints a different picture from Branford's chart. Try to explain the discrepancy for the more savvy readers of this forum. Funny nobody else caught it.
To wit, Vt, NH, & Maine, & tennesse area, & grand canyon areas & southern texas. Plus Minnesota.
Or is it beevul's chart which is wrong? gee, dunno now. Who's the culprit?

Of course, when viewed per capita, secmo's OP contention is not disproven by beevul's chart, since the higher gun violence areas portrayed as liberal areas also constitute greater areas of population.
Plus, near half of the high gun violence areas depicted in beevul's chart occur in the pro gun south, or in proguns Indiana or Kentucky or Missouri or Kansas city area.

On edit:

No James. Everyone else caught it right away, and you missed them catching it.

Everyone else is well aware of the differences and the reasons for them, except, apparently, you.

beevul, pathetic non-explanation: No James. Everyone else caught it right away, and you missed them catching it. Everyone else is well aware of the differences and the reasons for them, except, apparently, you

Nobody else said boo about the discrepancies between your chart & branfords chart. You haven't either, you only think you did. For one thing you mislead readers including myself that your chart measured gun violence, it apparently doesn't:
beevul post 14: Maybe you can tell us all why the encircled pro-gun states don't have actual gun violence incidents in quite the same way the places outside the circle
beevul post 6: That's a raw map of gun violence as it happens, where it happens.

Your map/chart evidently measures gun deaths, including suicide & accidents, not overall gun violence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

It appears that the chart beevul posted only measures the incidence of gundeath from when newtown shooting occurred and dec 31, 2013. Click on LA globule and Matched Deaths: 266 or more between Newtown and Dec. 31, 2013
I think NYC: 81 or more between newtown and dec 31, 2013; Dallas 105, Houston 90; Nashville(?) 71;

beevul: How do your figures (I wont accuse you of using facts) square with the following map?

Duh, mine measured violent crime rates, your map/chart measures index (of gundeaths I now see). I'm gonna buy you a copy of 'statistics for dummies', you couldn't recognize a fact from progun propaganda unless your life depended on it.

beevul: I'll tell you. Nevada and Alaska and New Mexico make your list not because they have high amounts of violent crime, but because they have a small population.

It's not 'my' list, it's the list of states with the highest violent crime rates, obtained from fbi ucr. Nevada Alaska & NMex have high violent crime rates. Comparing by rates is the better way to measure efficacy of regulations, is this a revelation to you? if so you need go back to playing softball on the junior varsity, you're out of your league with me.

beevul: Disregard them from the list, as you'd have us do with DC, and New York Texas and California take their place.

DC should be disregarded from the list of 50 states since it is not a state. DC is a city & should be compared with other cities, not states. DC is only on the list since DC stats are needed to provide complete USA violent crime stats. To compare DC violent crime rates with the state of Alaska's is an invalid method of comparison, tho charlatan band leader does similar frequently with Baltimore, demonstrating his naivete' of proper statistical methodology. DC has ~8,000 per sq mile, nearest state is RI 1,000, while Alaska has 1.
You cannot 'disregard' Nevada Alaska, new mex or Tennessee from the list, this is more junk science from beevul.

beevul: Disregarding the three low population states, Pro-gun TX with its higher pop makes the list, and NY and CA with their ridiculous gun control and higher populations make the list in spite of both.

No you cannot disregard New Mex, Alaska, or Nevada from the list of top ten violent crime rate states. They have HIGHER violent crime rates than California & New York, which have stricter gun control. You evidently do not understand what a rate measures.

beevul: Well I'll be, if you make the change I suggest, the data starts to support that map I posted, and branfords assertions.

Utterly ridiculous. Beevul demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of what he speaks of. He didn't even understand what his map was measuring, didn't post a link as usual, & he blundered in his portrayal of gun violence.

All I did was peel away the layers of dishonesty, Which is why you responded:

The unvarnished truth offends you, and so you feel you must add varnish.

I understand EXACTLY what a rate measures, and exactly why you lot default to it. It hides the fact that strict gun control states are utter failures, and attempts to shift the focus to states with 'promiscuous' gun laws, by making them seem like the most dangerous places around, in spite of having gun death numbers that are in the double digit range.



Oh, look, Alaska with its lack of gun control had 2.8 gun murders per 100k. How many gun murders caused the rate to go that high? A whopping 19. Say it out loud jimmy, nineteen. Why did 19 gun murders cause the rate to go so high? Low population.

While strict gun control NY Has a rate of 2.7 per 100k, it had 517.

Ca with their rate of 3.4 per 100k had 1257 gun murders.

New Mexico had 3.3 per 100k with its 67 gun murders. How did 67 gun murders cause NM to have a rate near that of CA? Because NM has a very small population.

NV had a rate of 3.1 gun murders per 100k, with its 67 gun murders. Why did 67 gun murders cause NV to have a higher rate than NY? Because NV has a low population.


Too bad so sad Jimmy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state



No James, you only think I didn't.

Whether you know it or not, you just got owned in the face.



(and the rest of the garbage you posted for that matter)

Blah blah blah.



Jimmy, I could have Alzheimer's, be half asleep, and in the burn ward on a morphine drip, and I'd still have no problems with the parochial sophomoric screeds you and your anti-gun buddies post regularly.

And as to being 'out of your league'...someday you'll know better than I do about this topic.

Of course, I'll be at my own funeral, when that day comes.

is not an apples to apples comparison. Let's compare apples to apples then. Let's compare Alaska with it's population of 735,132 people to Baltimore, with it's population of 622,104 people.
Baltimore just celebrated it 211th murder this past week and Baltimore has very strict gun control.
We don't have 2015 homicide/murder data for Alaska but we all know it's nowhere near 211. It's probably in the neighborhood of 10. Alaska has lax gun control laws as you know.

So why is there so much more murder and gun violence in Baltimore, despite all the gun control?

It's a simple question. answer it please.

What do I have to say?

That you're hiding behind rates and muddying the waters as usual, as those of your ilk are known, habitually, historically, to do. Me, I think that ought to be the definition of 'carping', personally.



Oh, look, an accusation that I misled (someone) as to what the map I posted means. Hey james, reading is fundamental:

That's a raw map of gun violence as it happens, where it happens. It paints a bit of a different picture than the brady bunch would have everyone believe, does it not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172173913#post6

If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with the authors, since they titled it 'INFO at a glance: Gun violence since Newtown'.

P.S. "pathetic little charlatan" is a personal attack, James.

On edit: it appears the jury agreed.

Someone obviously did not read the post that was alerted on.