The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

o accompany TheBlaze’s coverage of the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Houston, we figured it could be helpful to share some gun statistics pointed out to us by some of the NRA Convention attendees. Forget the talking points used by both sides in the gun control debate; we’re going to be talking about verified statistics.

Gun control advocates be advised, these are not the statistics you are looking for.

According to data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

“What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which we can remove guns, recover guns from people who have a gun and then subsequently become prohibited or dangerous,” Brady Campaign spokeswoman Amanda Wilcox said at the time.

It should be noted, though, that California is also one of the biggest states in the country, with a population of about about 37 million. Therefore, it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders but its murder rate is still high as gun control has had a seemingly inconsequential impact. In comparison, Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 — nearly half that of California — and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Utah has a population 2.8 million.

(Brady Campaign)

But if you look at the data another way — murders per 100,000 people — another gun control haven tops the list.

The FBI data also notes that Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. The nation’s capital saw 12 gun murders per 100,000 in 2011. DC also finished first in gun-related robberies per 100,000 people – with 242.56.

In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures — which lasted more than three decades — didn’t had the desired effect.

Journalist and attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro explains the not-so-surprising result in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 15, 2013:

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

[...]

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994.

Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You expect us to believe that Utah is as good as Vermont?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

California ... equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

Texas...a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

The Blaze!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves.

Yeah, because a gun in the house makes you safer. Only there isn't a single shred of evidence to back that up. The opposite actually holds true. A gun in the house is 12 times more likely to kill a member or guest of that household than to fend off an intruder. But why am I talking facts here while quoting an article from The Blaze? They don't do facts over there.

The Blaze!

Exactly!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22443441

The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 - a reduction of 39%.

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center found gun homicides per 100,000 people fell to 3.6% in 2010 from 7% in 1993.

You forgot the important part.

However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.

Which means that gun homicides have fallen in line with all homicides. Guns still account for more than 2 out of 3 homicides.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Conclusion being that criminals haven't changed in terms of their taste in tools. Either way homicides involving firearms (and all weapons) are in decline - clearly a good thing.

Homicides are in decline. That is a good thing indeed. There are still way too many homicides and the vast majority of them continues to be perpetrated with firearms. That's not a good thing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Conclusion being that criminals haven't changed in terms of their taste in tools. Either way homicides involving firearms (and all weapons) are in decline - clearly a good thing.

Only if Americans turning into a bunch of p####s afraid to go outside is a good thing.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yeah, because a gun in the house makes you safer. Only there isn't a single shred of evidence to back that up. The opposite actually holds true. A gun in the house is 12 times more likely to kill a member or guest of that household than to fend off an intruder. But why am I talking facts here while quoting an article from The Blaze? They don't do facts over there.

Exactly!

You anti constitution nuts really never attack facts you just attack the source. I guess if it's not the Huffinton Post, CNN or PSNBC, it's not allowed. LOL

[Darnell 8,478]

2011 ? Who cares?

stats on 2012 are welcome.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Why bring a knife to a gunfight?

[Love's JAA 100]

The key IMO are the urban centers where 50% of them occur.

What, you mean Provo, UT isn't just like Oakland or Chicago?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What, you mean Provo, UT isn't just like Oakland or Chicago?

Nope. Utah is its own special kind of different.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You anti constitution nuts really never attack facts you just attack the source.

Who's anti-constitution? Certainly not me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The key IMO are the urban centers where 50% of them occur.

Fifty percent? Not bad seeing that some 80% of the population lives in urban America and only 20% live in rural America. Some murderous b!tches out there in the country, eh?

[Karee 4,190]

Fifty percent? Not bad seeing that some 80% of the population lives in urban America and only 20% live in rural America. Some murderous b!tches out there in the country, eh?

²Urban areas include all urbanized areas (over 50,000 population) and Urban Clusters (2,500 to 49,999 population) as defined by the Bureau of the Census in the 2000 Decennial Census.

I hardly consider 2500 people Urban.