No...school shootings are not on the rise, according to new research.

[Pogo]

Apparently not, since I never claimed we have a "bicycle culture" or a "swimming culture". Nor can you turn on a TV at any hour of any day and immediately find someone riding a bicycle or swimming. Nor is our colloquial language filled with references to bicycles and swimming.

You're not too good at this "thought" stuff are ya. Typical of the Cult.

The Americans "Bicycle Culture," and "Swimming Culture," kills more children than school shootings, and you don't care.......you must want children to die....

Apparently that would be you, since here you are shilling for the glorious wonder of school shootings. Meanwhile neither bicycles nor swimming were invented for the express purpose of killing people.

Sucks to be you but you should have thought of that before you came out on the side of death from your dank basement in mom's cellar where you never have to deal with the real world.

Now you are flailing around with RED HERRINGS (A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.), since he never in any way showed he was happy about school shootings, his FIRST post, the one you keep ignoring showed that school shootings have dropped dramatically, since the 1990's, this means GOOD news, which you didn't acknowledge at all.

This is why leftists lose the Gun control argument so often, they ignore evidence to instead follow ideology, it is why their replies are often shallow and stupid. No one here wants to see mass shootings, NO ONE!

You're dumb as a box o rocks aintchya.

NOBODY CLAIMED school shootings were up. OP pulled that out of his ass just so he could knock it down.

THAT'S WHAT A FUCKING STRAWMAN IS.

You ignored the definition of a strawman, since you keep making strawman replies, you are truly stupid as hell today. You haven't once made an actual counterpoint to anything in the thread or the article that disturbs you so much.

Not once have I or 2amguy said school shootings were up, only you talked about it as if that was relevant, when it didn't exist.

Good CHRIST you're a dense one.

UNreal.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here we have the myth of the school shooting as common occurrence.......and it is just that, a myth.....anti-gunners need it, there is nothing better for their gun banning and confiscation schemes than dead children.....but the truth is...school shootings are extremely rare and are not on the rise...

Study Proves Mass Shootings Are NOT Becoming More Common

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the '90s

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the ’90s
'There is not an epidemic of school shootings'

Researchers from Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events.

James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, and Emma Fridel, who is currently completing her doctorate at the school, revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain "incredibly rare events." Their findings, which are set to be published later this year, indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined since the 1990s.

The research team determined that, "on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school."

They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.

---
"There is not an epidemic of school shootings," Fox said.

The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today, the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters. They concluded that, on average, of the 55 million school children in the United States, 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years. In their research they found only five cases over the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers.

"The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround," Fox said.

The researchers said that more kids are killed each year in accidents involving pools and bicycles than from school shootings.


They said they supported ideas like banning bump-fire stocks or raising the age for certain rifle purchases but did not believe they would prevent school shootings. They also said active shooter drills did more to alarm students than protect them, and things like installing metal detectors or requiring ID cards for entry have not prevented shootings in the past.

"I'm not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we're surrounding you with security, you must have a bull's-ey

This would be good news for normal Americans.....it is horrible news for anti-gun extremist democrats....dead children are the one tool they need to push their gun control agenda......

Well, thank goodness for gun worshippers.

Gee this is a classic worthless reply, since I don't own or have any firearms at all. I go by evidence, data and logic, to be a supporter of the second amendment.

Where is your cogent reply? I haven't seen one yet, does it bother you that school shootings have dropped dramatically since the 1990;s, isn't that good news worth celebrating, on the way to ZERO school shootings in the future?

Without healing the sicko gun fetish culture? Pfffffffffffffffffffffft. Say that reminds me I've got a bridge for sale. New tires.

Already told bodecea, that I don't own any firearms at all, thus your dead reply is as useless as all the others ones you have made. Not once have you made an actual discussion/debate on the CONTENTS of post one, and this fact filled post he made.

Instead you have been insulting with numerous fallacies, in your attacks on me and 2aguy. It is clear you have NO cogent argument to offer at all, just wind and piss is the best you got.

What is your malfunction?

 

[whitehall]

The media tends to ignore the most notorious school shooting in history which happened in south west Va. Blacksburg Va. Tech. Democrats rigged the system so that a maniac who was undergoing court ordered psychiatric counseling was able to pass the name check for purchasing firearms. Faculty knew the Korean born student was so crazy that they refused to be alone with him but they never did anything about it. After he was arrested on a complaint of a female student the local Police gave him a kid glove treatment and the arrest was never recorded. He finally shot and killed about 30 faculty and students before taking his own life.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Americans "Bicycle Culture," and "Swimming Culture," kills more children than school shootings, and you don't care.......you must want children to die....

Apparently that would be you, since here you are shilling for the glorious wonder of school shootings. Meanwhile neither bicycles nor swimming were invented for the express purpose of killing people.

Sucks to be you but you should have thought of that before you came out on the side of death from your dank basement in mom's cellar where you never have to deal with the real world.

Now you are flailing around with RED HERRINGS (A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.), since he never in any way showed he was happy about school shootings, his FIRST post, the one you keep ignoring showed that school shootings have dropped dramatically, since the 1990's, this means GOOD news, which you didn't acknowledge at all.

This is why leftists lose the Gun control argument so often, they ignore evidence to instead follow ideology, it is why their replies are often shallow and stupid. No one here wants to see mass shootings, NO ONE!

You're dumb as a box o rocks aintchya.

NOBODY CLAIMED school shootings were up. OP pulled that out of his ass just so he could knock it down.

THAT'S WHAT A FUCKING STRAWMAN IS.

You ignored the definition of a strawman, since you keep making strawman replies, you are truly stupid as hell today. You haven't once made an actual counterpoint to anything in the thread or the article that disturbs you so much.

Not once have I or 2amguy said school shootings were up, only you talked about it as if that was relevant, when it didn't exist.

Good CHRIST you're a dense one.

UNreal.

I made a couple of factual statements, which you ignored that pertained to post one, all you come back is dead replies. It is clear you have no arguments to offer, you are here because you are an ideologist, which is why you are ignorant as hell on this subject.

 

[Pogo]

Here we have the myth of the school shooting as common occurrence.......and it is just that, a myth.....anti-gunners need it, there is nothing better for their gun banning and confiscation schemes than dead children.....but the truth is...school shootings are extremely rare and are not on the rise...

Study Proves Mass Shootings Are NOT Becoming More Common

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the '90s

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the ’90s
'There is not an epidemic of school shootings'

Researchers from Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events.

James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, and Emma Fridel, who is currently completing her doctorate at the school, revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain "incredibly rare events." Their findings, which are set to be published later this year, indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined since the 1990s.

The research team determined that, "on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school."

They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.

---
"There is not an epidemic of school shootings," Fox said.

The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today, the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters. They concluded that, on average, of the 55 million school children in the United States, 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years. In their research they found only five cases over the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers.

"The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround," Fox said.

The researchers said that more kids are killed each year in accidents involving pools and bicycles than from school shootings.


They said they supported ideas like banning bump-fire stocks or raising the age for certain rifle purchases but did not believe they would prevent school shootings. They also said active shooter drills did more to alarm students than protect them, and things like installing metal detectors or requiring ID cards for entry have not prevented shootings in the past.

"I'm not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we're surrounding you with security, you must have a bull's-ey

This would be good news for normal Americans.....it is horrible news for anti-gun extremist democrats....dead children are the one tool they need to push their gun control agenda......

Well, thank goodness for gun worshippers.

Gee this is a classic worthless reply, since I don't own or have any firearms at all. I go by evidence, data and logic, to be a supporter of the second amendment.

Where is your cogent reply? I haven't seen one yet, does it bother you that school shootings have dropped dramatically since the 1990;s, isn't that good news worth celebrating, on the way to ZERO school shootings in the future?

Without healing the sicko gun fetish culture? Pfffffffffffffffffffffft. Say that reminds me I've got a bridge for sale. New tires.

Already told bodecea, that I don't own any firearms at all, thus your dead reply is as useless as all the others ones you have made. Not once have you made an actual discussion/debate on the CONTENTS of post one, and this fact filled post he made.

Instead you have been insulting with numerous fallacies, in your attacks on me and 2aguy. It is clear you have NO cogent argument to offer at all, just wind and piss is the best you got.

What is your malfunction?

I in fact made no claims about what you own, nor would I know, nor would I care. What I did do was point out that the OP is built on a strawman. Which he later reinforced with more strawmen including accusing me of cheerleading murder. It's not even your OP yet here you are seemingly desperate to white-knight for a fallacious argument of THAT caliber.

So the question is, what is YOUR malfunction?

 

[Fugazi]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Thanks to Trump's leadership....school shootings are things of the distant Democrat past...

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

Sorry, that dodge has been tried before here......what you guys are doing is mixing in suicides with gun murder.....that doesn't fly here.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?

The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!

Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.

Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.

"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."

Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.


Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."

Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."
-----


Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.

A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)


, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)

And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

And looking directly at The Giffords....

Gifford's Goof | Why the Law Center Scorecard is Fraud | Gun Facts

Scorecard schema aside, we encounter the first problem, which is that the law center appears to include all forms of gun deaths – legal interventions, justifiable homicides, etc. – into their “gun death” stats.

This means they also include suicides. Sigh. Here we go again.

• Cross-sectional and time-series studies show no correlation between firearm availability and successful suicides.
• This is due to “substitution of means” whereby a seriously depressed or psychotic person finds a way to die (poison, hanging, suffocation, etc.).
• Hence, suicides do not figure into gun policy at all, and should never been aggregated into data for the evaluation of gun access policy.

More appropriate metrics focus on specific categories of mayhem, such as violent crime.

Law Center Lambasted
Which is why the Gun Facts project is here to help the Giffords Law Center out.

• We added Washington, D.C. into their list and assigned it their A+ rating (The District has such stiff gun control laws, we assume that fits Giffords’ A+ profile … but that is a guess since they don’t publish their scorecard criteria).
• We got the latest crime stats from the FBI.
• We included suicide rates (light blue) to show how including them seriously skews numbers toward states they consider to have “weak” laws.

What most people at Giffords Law Center must have known, and thus must have intentionally concealed, is that crime is seriously higher in “strong” gun control states and districts.

In A+ rated states and the District of Columbia, the homicide rate was nearly triple the average of all other states (278%), and aggravated assaults were more than double (211%). Even rapes were 40% higher.

Policy and Agitprop
Here is the point. These topics have been openly and vigorously discussed for decades. The people at Giffords Law Center know these details, and how it impacts both policy thinking and public opinion. Yet they:

• Omit crime-plagued Washington, D.C.
• Include suicides, despite guns not being a determinant variable
• Avoid detailing violent crime as a measurement metric

I guess we have to add one more item to the list of criminal offenses – the Giffords Law Center Scorecard.

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

As to actual causation...a few papers on that topic...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

===


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review




Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[hadit]

Here we have the myth of the school shooting as common occurrence.......and it is just that, a myth.....anti-gunners need it, there is nothing better for their gun banning and confiscation schemes than dead children.....but the truth is...school shootings are extremely rare and are not on the rise...

Study Proves Mass Shootings Are NOT Becoming More Common

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the '90s

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the ’90s
'There is not an epidemic of school shootings'

Researchers from Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events.

James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, and Emma Fridel, who is currently completing her doctorate at the school, revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain "incredibly rare events." Their findings, which are set to be published later this year, indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined since the 1990s.

The research team determined that, "on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school."

They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.

---
"There is not an epidemic of school shootings," Fox said.

The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today, the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters. They concluded that, on average, of the 55 million school children in the United States, 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years. In their research they found only five cases over the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers.

"The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround," Fox said.

The researchers said that more kids are killed each year in accidents involving pools and bicycles than from school shootings.


They said they supported ideas like banning bump-fire stocks or raising the age for certain rifle purchases but did not believe they would prevent school shootings. They also said active shooter drills did more to alarm students than protect them, and things like installing metal detectors or requiring ID cards for entry have not prevented shootings in the past.

"I'm not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we're surrounding you with security, you must have a bull's-ey

This would be good news for normal Americans.....it is horrible news for anti-gun extremist democrats....dead children are the one tool they need to push their gun control agenda......

You weren't supposed to notice that. We're supposed to believe that school shootings are rampant and only getting worse, but not so bad that parents should pull their kids out of the kill zone and school them at home. That would be bad.

 

[Pogo]

Not once have I or 2amguy said school shootings were up, only you talked about it as if that was relevant, when it didn't exist.

READ THE THREAD TITLE, Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....

The Department of Justice puts the number at 1.5 million....2 of about 16 different studies on the topic.....

And the liars at the Violence Policy Center only count dead criminals....they do not count criminals who ran away, surrendered and were handed over to police, were shot and not wounded......

So, they lie and distort, and you use them....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

 

[Pogo]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....

Yuh huh. So when you see the number "230" you think it's pronounced "1.1 million".

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

The National Crime Victimization Survey.........

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:



There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.



And the most obvious point.......they undercount rape and sexual assault by a vast number compared to an actual study that researches rape and sexual assault....using the same method the anti gunners claim for the number of gun defenses....

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Here we have the myth of the school shooting as common occurrence.......and it is just that, a myth.....anti-gunners need it, there is nothing better for their gun banning and confiscation schemes than dead children.....but the truth is...school shootings are extremely rare and are not on the rise...

Study Proves Mass Shootings Are NOT Becoming More Common

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the '90s

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the ’90s
'There is not an epidemic of school shootings'

Researchers from Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events.

James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, and Emma Fridel, who is currently completing her doctorate at the school, revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain "incredibly rare events." Their findings, which are set to be published later this year, indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined since the 1990s.

The research team determined that, "on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school."

They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.

---
"There is not an epidemic of school shootings," Fox said.

The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today, the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters. They concluded that, on average, of the 55 million school children in the United States, 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years. In their research they found only five cases over the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers.

"The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround," Fox said.

The researchers said that more kids are killed each year in accidents involving pools and bicycles than from school shootings.


They said they supported ideas like banning bump-fire stocks or raising the age for certain rifle purchases but did not believe they would prevent school shootings. They also said active shooter drills did more to alarm students than protect them, and things like installing metal detectors or requiring ID cards for entry have not prevented shootings in the past.

"I'm not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we're surrounding you with security, you must have a bull's-ey

This would be good news for normal Americans.....it is horrible news for anti-gun extremist democrats....dead children are the one tool they need to push their gun control agenda......

Illegals vs rifles

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

And more research.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

And more....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.