New York’s SAFE Act was submitted for a vote less than a month after the Sandy Hook spree killing. Empire State legislators passed the package of gun control measures (e.g., limited ammunition magazine capacity, ban on “assault weapons”) some 20 minutes after its introduction. Governor Cuomo signed the measure half an hour later (as an emergency provision). In short, the SAFE Act was a sucker punch to New Yorkers’ gun rights. Over at thedailynewsonline.com anti-gun activists for NYAGV (New Yorkers Against Gun Violence) offer An open letter to lawmakers regarding the SAFE Act. Paul McQuillen and Gary Pudup try to take lawmakers set on SAFE Act repeal to the proverbial woodshed. Here’s their conclusion . . .
We at NYAGV appreciate that gun ownership is a right guaranteed under our Constitution and upheld by our courts. But, as with any right comes responsibilities. Those responsibilities are particularly grave when we are discussing the right to possess lethal weapons.
The corporate gun lobby has opposed any sensible gun regulations because their only interest is in selling more guns to more people, not caring if their weapons fall into dangerous, or young, hands.
It’s the responsibility of governments, including the Genesee County Legislature, to protect the public safety by promulgating and supporting laws that, for example, protect citizens from gun violence. That’s done by keeping guns out of the wrong hands — those of terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill and children. The SAFE Act goes a long way toward that goal.
NY State has the third-lowest gun death rate in the nation because we have smart gun laws that keep guns out of dangerous hands. The rest of the country should follow our lead to save lives.
It’s standard-issue anti-gun agitprop. Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms can be infringed because guns are dangerous. The evil gun lobby is evil. Public safety trumps individual rights. It’s the last ‘graph – a sanctimonious statistical citation – that stuck in the craw of commentator demnsco. Here’s his reply:
You people are unreal… NY has the third lowest rate of gun deaths PER CAPITA. Using that lame stat Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana all have the highest rates of gun homicides. Alaska is the most dangerous state to live in according to you, how many died of gun homicide? 17, yup, 17 yet you claim they are living in the most unsafe gun state in the country behind Illinois which has how many shootings? NY has some 350 gun homicides a year which, based on gross shootings, puts it as one of the worst states in terms of gun safety.
You can’t win unless you cheat, period. Don’t tell us you support gun ownership, only your proposals are sane and reasonable (you hate guns), or that the SAFE Act is loved by all, most don’t understand it because, as you point out, only 18% of NYers own guns and are unaffected by the law. However the 4,000,000 NY gun owners disagree with much, not all, of the law.
You banned “assault weapons” which were used in less than 2% of all gun homicides. You tightened gun ownership yet shootings are up in NY. You actively quote outdated and discredited data and info as fact when they are garbage data points and no one ever calls you out on them except by people like me who you ignore. You lie and its wrong. If you can’t win honestly then you don’t have a winning argument.
Your hard close about per capita gun homicide rates proves it, Alaska with 17 gun homicides is worse than NYs 350+ or Chicago’s how many? Please. You can keep background checks and mental health checks, those are fine, but your magazine limits and gun bans are garbage and haven’t saved one life, period. Stop lying about the data, data is what I do.
People who support civilian disarmament can’t tell the truth about guns. The truth doesn’t support their position. So they lie. Luckily, America’s tradition of free speech remains robust; even the anti-gun press makes room for gun rights advocates’ counter-arguments. (On Facebook? Not so much.) Which leaves an important question on the table. Do gun rights protect free speech or does free speech protect gun rights? I say yes. You?
Is this really shocking any of us? I group of people hell bent on destroying our freedoms would use half truths and misrepresentation? No never…..
I do find it shocking when someone has no compunction about lying and deception. There appears to be no respect for the rule of law from those that have passed and support the farce that is the “Safe act” . They appear ethically bankrupt and morally self righteous to a extreme that is disturbing and discusting. The opportunistic start of the law, coercing it through without discussion or public oversight is evidence enough of their corruption and malfeasance, that any and all the actions after that are merely reminders of how reprehensible they are.
Statistics are like clay. You mold them into whatever you want it to be and cut off the parts you don’t want.
I don’t think there’s an anti gun group in existence that hasn’t misled people with poor statistics.
“Statistics are like clay. You mold them into whatever you want it to be and cut off the parts you don’t want.”
Not really. That’s only true if misrepresent the data itself for the purpose of misleading.
Statistics are nothing but computed values used to describe a dataset. Such computed values are not moldable and they are not like clay and they cannot say what you want.
An average is an average. A rate is a rate. Normalization is normalization. Etc. They are just computed numbers.
Where the misinformation comes from is the lack of understanding of what those computed numbers mean in terms of communicating information about the underlying set of data.
Those that seek to misrepresent and manipulate count on that lack of understanding on the part of the listener or reader. Why on EARTH do you think atrocious math education continues?
To folks that understand what the numbers mean and what they convey about the actual data, statistics are cold and objective…exactly the opposite of ‘moldable clay.’
The numbers themselves, the statistics, are no more harmful (in this case, being manipulative is the harm) than is a gun in a holster. It’s not the TOOL that is the problem. The problem lies in the ignorance of the listener/reader that is exploited.
Here are two examples that illustrate how the context of numbers (statistics) are critical to understanding the significance of the numbers.
(1) There were about 8,800 homicides in the U.S. last year where the attacker used a firearm for their murder weapon. Furthermore, on the order of 90% of those homicides were criminals attacking other criminals. I don’t know about you, but I am NOT willing to give up my rights in some vain, unproven strategy to stop violent criminals from killing violent criminals. More importantly, that means people with no criminal history who just “snap” one day and murder someone with a firearm is quite low — roughly 1,000 people per year. That puts our firearm murder rate extremely low. The per capita rate becomes about 0.32 murders per 100,000 people … far lower than the murder rate in all European countries.
(2) Vermont has the lowest violent crime rate in the United States. In fact Vermont’s murder rate is equal to or better than the murder rates in all European countries even though anyone age 16 or over who has no felony criminal record can carry any firearm openly or concealed without any background checks or licensing from government. If “weak” gun laws cause high murder rates, how can Vermont, which has arguably the “weakest” gun laws in the nation, have a murder rate that is lower than all the European countries with their “tough” gun control laws?
These two examples should illustrate that gun control is a farce. But gun grabbers never seem to talk about those two examples.
i am not doubting you at all, but do you have a source for the “90% is crime on crime” claim?
would love to have a good source to bust that stat out
Comparing the US to European countries is meaningless. And comparing only murders committed with guns is meaningless.
Calculate the number of all murders, by all methods, without including suicide. And murder isn’t the only violent crime, obviously.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to then compare the number of people who have stopped a violent crime, saved a life because they have a gun, or any other self defense tool.
Comparing the number of guns and/or the “laws” to the number of murders, even just in the US, is not apples and oranges… it’s comparing apples and tin cans.
“…Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to then compare the number of people who have stopped a violent crime, saved a life because they have a gun, or any other self defense tool.”
That comparison is interesting in conversation, but irrelevant as it relates to our 2nd Amendment Rights. None of our Rights are predicated on how often they are or aren’t used or in what manner.
I wasn’t comparing anything to the “second amendment.” The natural, inalienable and inherent right to self defense – whether from common criminals or government – isn’t what we’ve been talking about here.
NJ2AZ, an in depth CDC report from a couple of years ago (going into great detail about all the ways Americans die, disease, violence, accidents, etc) made the claim that 85% of this country’s homicides are gang-related. And the CDC’s data on deaths is actually more accurate than the FBI’s, since it’s the CDC who actually handles the logistics of who is dead and who is alive (no small task in a country of 350 million people).
NJ2AZ,
here is one jurisdictional study
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
Its a cummulative thang, lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
We see where the FBI has repeatedly show how gangs commit the massive majority of violent crimes each year!
For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice.
These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals.
Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.
Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
Petersilia et al ., 1978;
Williams, 1979;
Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
Martin and Sherman,1986.
http://www.temple.edu/prodes/adobe/dhs_chronic_offenders.pdf
http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/career-criminals-who-are-they-and-what-should-society-do-about-them-1012040.html
http://www.academicroom.com/users/joan-petersilia
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2814z1.html
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/DeLisi%20Scaling%20Archetypal%20Criminals%20AJCJ.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2815.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00381.x/abstract
http://www.threestrikes.org/walsh_pg_one.html
http://www.cgu.edu/include/Evaluating%20criminal%20justice%20programs.pdf
Funny thing about 3 strikes your out, it has been implemented in other states with identical results…..except for one major difference, those other states dont have the strict gun control laws of kalifornika, hence no proof the gun control was the reason for the reduction in violence…..
California has what is probably the most publicized campaign against habitual criminals known as the three strikes law. There is plenty of evidence that the laws in California have provided significant benefits both in protecting citizens from further harm but also in fiscal impact to the California prison system.
Calculations based on the California Crime Index indicate that between March of 1994 when three strikes was first signed into law and the summer of 2004, there was a dramatic drop in California’s crime rate. Whether or not such a decline over those 10 years could be attributable to the three strikes sentencing scheme, other sentencing legislation enacted during the decade, changes in demographics, economic trends, or a combination of these factors, the crime rate in California fell by approximately 45% during this 10-year period. (Prosecutors’ Perspective on California’s Three Strikes Law – A 10-Year Retrospective, published 2004)
The prison system in California has seen its prison population numbers stabilize and has actually seen a massive reduction in the rate of increased spending in the budget for corrections. During the 10 years preceding three strikes (1984 to 1994), state expenditures for corrections increased nearly 220%. This is more than four times greater than after the enactment of three strikes.
“Many police officers, corrections officers and others, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, have noted that criminals fear three strikes. These people have also found that some criminals have modified their behavior. For once felons are worried about the criminal justice system and that has proven to be a deterrent factor. Despite predictions that the law would incarcerate many youthful offenders, for the 83 three-strikers sentenced to date (1997), the average age is 37 years old. These are career criminals, not likely to “outgrow” their antisocial behavior with added maturity”. (Washington Policy Center, “Three Strikes You’re Out; A Reform that Worked”, published 1997)
It is hilarious when one reviews the USDOJ data how one see’s 30% of the population in the US, not white, commits 87% of all the most violent crimes, funnier how that same 30% votes predominantly demokrat!
Then one see’s OTHER studies showing the same results……..hmmm where there is smoke, there is fire!
http : // www . usnews . com / news / articles / 2013 / 11 / 14 / gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions?s_cid=rss:gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions
“Gun Violence Significantly increased by social interactions”
Andrew Papachristos, an associate professor of sociology at Yale, analyzed police and gun homicide records from 2006 to 2011 for people living in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago.
He found that 41 % of all gun homicides occurred within a network of less than 4 % of the neighborhood’s population, and that the closer one is connected to a homicide victim, the greater that person’s chances were for becoming a victim.
Each social tie removed from a homicide victim decreased a person’s odds of becoming a victim by 57 %
“What the findings essentially tell you is that the people who are most at risk of becoming a victim are sort of surrounded by victims within a few handshakes,” Papachristos says.
“These are young men who are actively engaged in the behaviors that got them in this network.”
The network in question consists of more than 3,700 high-risk individuals – young, African-American males from a poor neighborhood – who were clustered into a network by instances of co-offending, meaning each person in the group had been arrested with another person.
Overall, the community’s five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000).
But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000.
What’s more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 %, to 554.1 per 100,000.
“You’re at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you’re in the network, your risk is astronomical,” Papachristos says. “That rate is beyond epidemic proportion, that’s actually scary.”
Of course recidivism is rather apparent….
http : // www . pewstates . org / uploadedFiles / PCS_Assets / 2011 / Pew_State_of_Recidivism . pdf
http : //www . bjs . gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510 . pdf
Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005— . About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
. Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.
. More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.
. Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.
. A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
. An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period.
. Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.
http : //www . bjs . gov/content/pub/ascii/aus8009 . txt
Recidivism rates being over 40% as well!
2.7 mil prisoners
1.4 mil active gang members
2.5-3.5 mil active criminals
1.043 mil plus open felony warrants
Hence add in the career criminals.
CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves as suicide is a felony.
Shall we review police firearm discharge reports in Chicago and NYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.
www . popcenter . org / problems / drive_by_shooting / PDFs / Block_and_Block_1993 . pdf,
www . nyc . gov / html / nypd / downloads / pdf / public_information / 2007_firearms_discharge_report . pdf,
www . nyclu . org / files / nypd_firearms_report_102207 . pdf
Yeah, review of all the govt. data above shows over 96% of all killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies w approximately 50% of the remainder due to domestic violence incidents.
A sane person would normally address the largest problem first don’t you agree?
Its a cummulative thang really, lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.
http : // www . fbi . gov / stats-services/publications / 2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
We see where the FBI has repeatedly show how gangs commit the massive majority of violent crimes each year!
For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice.
These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals.
Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.
Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
Petersilia et al ., 1978;
Williams, 1979;
Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
Martin and Sherman,1986.
http : // www . temple . edu / prodes / adobe / dhs_chronic_offenders . pdf
http : // www . articlesbase . com / criminal-articles / career-criminals-who-are-they-and-what-should-society-do-about-them-1012040 . html
http : // www . academicroom . com / users / joan-petersilia
http : // www . rand . org / pubs / reports / R2814z1 . html
http : // www . soc . iastate . edu / staff / delisi / DeLisi%20Scaling%20Archetypal%20Criminals%20AJCJ . pdf
http : // www . rand . org / pubs / reports / R2815 . html
http : // onlinelibrary . wiley . com / doi / 10 . 1111/j . 1745-9125 . 1986 . tb00381 . x / abstract
I always feel this bears repeating in cases like this:
“Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.”
Although the original commentator for this article, demnsco, does make a very good point as well:
“If you can’t win honestly then you don’t have a winning argument.”
Maybe not, but they have a loud and brash argument, and unfortunately that lets them win.
“Maybe not, but they have a loud and brash argument, and unfortunately that lets them win.
“
They are not winning.
They have enclaves of strong support, but that is not the same thing. Compare the number of rights affirming laws (which admittedly, we should not really need) and court rulings on the books today compared to the state of affairs 20-25 years ago.
Their cause is very fragmented and the more public ones are laughing stocks. They trot out a new euphemism for ‘gun control’ every other week because they know “gun control” as they want it does not sell. Last election cycle showed politicians avoiding being ‘pro gun control’ or even wanting to appear ‘pro gun.’
They are NOT winning with their bleating, histrionic propaganda.
I can counter this position very easily. NYC and Chicago both have strict gun control. Why has NYC cleaned up, but Chicago is a war zone? If gun control makes us safe, why hasn’t it worked for Chicago? Maybe because violent crime isn’t about the tool, it’s about the criminal.
To be fair, Chicago used to have strict gun control. In the last few years new state laws and overturned statutes have made Chicago just like the rest of Illinois, with the exception of prohibiting ‘assault’ rifles, which has about zero effect anyway.
“You can keep background checks and mental health checks, those are fine,”
BZZZZZT… wrong.
Neither of these are useful. It is not possible to prevent criminal activity by making innocent people into criminals.
Background checks do nothing to stop crime, and it is not possible for “mental health” workers to predict who will become violent, no matter how many “laws” are enacted.
So yes… violent crime isn’t about the tool, it’s the criminal.
Agreed. More importantly, background checks (and their regrettably widespread acceptance) weakens the constitution as a whole by turning a right into a privilege (aside from the fact that they are an expensive sham). Most people support the idea that “only certain people should have guns”, and yet it is supposedly a constitutionally protected right. We don’t say that “only certain people should have free speech”, or “only certain people have a right to a trail by jury”, or “only certain people have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure”. Yet we do that with the 2A. And the public safety argument is idiotic and inconsistent. Anyone can own a car and get a license to drive it. Even people with multiple DUI’s or vehicular homicides. Cars are demonstrably far more dangerous than guns (and car ownership is not a constitutionally enumerated right), yet we don’t say that certain people are too dangerous to own cars.
The very idea of background checks is an ingenious one. Get people to accept that there is a class of people who should be, for the sake of public safety, barred from exercising a constitutionally protected right. Then, gradually broaden the definition of “prohibited person”, while also getting people to accept more and more infringements (because stupid people now think of gun ownership as a privilege, rather than a right). There needs to be a massive push back by the POTG against this idea that certain people should be prohibited from owning guns. Unfortunately, too many of us have drank the Kool-aid. The many dumbasses on our side will scream about their rights and how they shouldn’t be punished for what they MIGHT do, while also raging in favor of the idea of this prohibited class of people.
First they came for the felons….
Alot of people think only some people should have guns. Invariably they think they are in the group that should. What they never realize is the ever tightening noose of class-ism. You aren’t on the Progressive’s team no matter how much you toe the party line. The power gets seized by a small group of elites who have no intention of sharing their privileges. You are pawns to be used and discarded as they continue to shrink and consolidate their power base. There’s no point in getting on the ground floor of an elevator going straight to hell.
Well stated.
The antis like to narrowly define the numbers by only using “gun deaths.” When murder rates are used, the regions with the most restrictive guns laws always come out on top of the murder rate list. And that is a fact they cannot avoid so they hope the rest of us don’t notice.
Because NYC spends a lot of $$$ on having a lot of cops. It’s working, for now, so long as you don’t mind trampling the Constitution.
Tell that to the South Bronx.
NY has a pretty good gun death rate because it’s biggest city, NYC, is actuallly pretty damned safe as cities go. This is largely due to a large, well-funded and very proactive police force, which NY City can afford because of a strong economy due to it’s place as a world finance hub.
The NYC model of “no guns, lots of cops” actually does work fairly well, so long as you can afford all those cops and you don’t mind wiping your feet with the Constitution a little.
The unSAFE Act, however, didn’t really affect NYC, since it already had its own incredibly draconian laws. The Act mostly impacted suburban and rural NY State, where crime stats are already quite low. Those newly designated “assault weapons” were already illegal in NYC, and they are not being used in drive-bys or armed robberies in Rome or Bronxville.
All that said, I don’t see the point in arguing AGAINST per capita calculations – I mean, yes you can say that for states like Alaska with very small populations (and also lots of extreme rural poverty and substance abuse), those stats can easily be skewed – but that’s not helpful. What is helpful is to show how the homicide rate stayed level or declined in states where gun restrictions have been relaxed.
AinCT – Whoa to you sir. Whoa. NYC may be statistically a safe place, but NOT because of the model of NO GUNS/LOTS OF COPS. Yes, numbers in cops helps. But so does stop and frisk. And there in lies the issue. This is about the most unconstitutional program imaginable, maybe right after the not so Patriot Act. Safer, sure, but at what cost? I mean, how important are civil liberties and natural rights anyway and at what point is the price too high?
What do you think I meant by ?and you don’t mind wiping your feet with the Constitution a little”? That’s stop and frisk and similar policies. I didn’t say that they are good or ideal, but that to a certain extent they work, if you define “work” loosely enough. I don’t like it. I would really like to be able to actually carry while going to and from work. But we won’t win an argument by saying that NYC is Chicago or Camden, because it’s not.
Anon in Connecticut,
when you take similar demographic same region jurisdictions in the US, and properly control for suicide, those with LESS gun laws and more guns have LESS violence, especially murder. Compare Virginia and Maryland.
your repeat of the use of the term “gun death” shows you drank the koolaid. Gun control advocates use that because about 2/3 of US gun death are suicides.
This way they can pack in and fully 20,000 US gun suicides, when the peer reviewed studies indicate that all but 100 to 400 would occur by other means if all guns simply disappeared. In fact for the studies that control for demographic, and certain demographics commit suicide at higher rates, put the number attributable to gun availably at the lower end.
That is why these studies count gun suicide” but avoid counting and comparing ALL self inflicted death.
Self-inflicted death by licit and illicit drugs , which are per se ruled accident absent affirmative proof of suicide (as opposed to self-inflicted death by gun which is ruled suicide absent affirmative proof of accident) is HIGHER in equal demographic populaitons in states with LESS guns and stronger gun laws.
In fact in Australia, peer reviewed researchers believe the wide-scale gun confiscation d draconian gun laws did not reduce suicide one iota, as self-caused death associated with suicide, but not ruled so absent proof, rose MORE than decline in gun suicide (google Australia sucide undercount).
I won’t even get into the fact that north of 90% of felons arrested under stop and frisk in the past five years (“walking while black”), even though the program ended, are still in prison, taking repeat criminals who are the cause of almost all gun crime, off the streets
Fine, I will give you all of that. And I have no doubt that the long winters and isolation in Alaska leads to high suicide rates, but then we need to pick a different metric (murders vs gun deaths), NOT argue against per capita statistics. Arguing against per capita stats makes us look like idiots who can’t do math.
New York City is safe because of the “Broken windows” philosophy of policing. Which was simple. Find criminals and lock them up. There is no correlation between its draconian gun control and safety as those gun control laws have been in effect for decades and pre-Guliani the city was a war zone with upwards of 2,400 murders a year. Times Square was place you did not walk through. Now it’s Disneyland.
But the dangerous tradition continues in dangerous places like the Bronx where the murder rate is still double above the national average. And half of the Bronx is actually very nice. Isolate only the worst neighborhoods and that murder rate skyrockets.
What worked in New York was locking up bad guys, taking illegal guns away from bad guys (which also meant taking away constitutional rights) and a booming economy. Williamsburg Brooklyn. 15 years ago you were taking your life into your hands walking through that neighborhood at night. Now with a hipster renaissance, the scariest fate you’ll contemplate in that neighborhood is having some drunk kid in a fedora puke on you’re shoes.
53 of New York’s 63 counties have signed resolutions denouncing the SAFE Act. That’s Westchester and below, Albany (of course) and Thompkins (anomaly?). I think the opinion of New Yorkers has been made clear. What does it say about you if you have to sneak around in the middle of the night and hush rush a bill?
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, “Who sees us? Who will know?” Isaiah 29:15
I went to upstate NY (unfortunately for a funeral) a few months back. The town we were in was littered with lawn signs demanding Cuomo’s ouster and the revocation of the SAFE Act. People in New York City often want to break away from New York State as a whole. I don’t see an issue with this. A small region dictates policy for a vast state.
I have no idea where their numbers come from. If you look at the FBI numbers, New York and Alaska are both pretty average, despite their completely polar opposite policies. Across the board, both very free and very restrictive places have very low and very high homicide rates. Basically, the two factors are not correlated.
Bingo!
Of course the real difficulty with stats here can be that guns laws have changed so much, in both directions, and to really show a correlation that is not potentially spurious you need decades of data.
In anycase, I remember trying to run the numbers to see if any correlation satisfied cointegration, even on the lower standards for that. I couldn’t (nor have I seen anyone else do it), which means at the very least that it is a minor factor and there are bigger fish to fry.
Family stability, moral responsibility -so-called economic fatherhood (the share of men 18-45 who actual have an active role as a provider/father) is one such factor that cointergrates (whether as a cause of lower crime, or as a manifestation of more men have better morals)
The data manipulation is simple. Most of this data, 2/3 is suicide.
Self inflicted death by gun is virtually always ruled suicide (as is hanging). Only a tiny proportion of self inflicted drug overdose is ruled suicide, even though in places with less guns and similar demographics to places with more guns, self inflicted death by drug overdose is higher. Indeed prescription opioid death is skyrocketing.
MEDIA CONTACT: (347) 396-4177
Jean Weinberg/Veronica Lewin: [email protected]
New Data Show Drop In Opioid Analgesic Overdose Deaths in Staten Island But Overall Drug Overdoses Increased In New York City
Success in stemming a steep 3-year increase in opioid overdose deaths in Staten Island
In response to high opioid overdose death rates in the Bronx, the Health Department will work with local health care providers to prevent overdoses
health.nyc.gov
August 28, 2014 – The Health Department released new data today showing that, from 2010 to 2013, the rate of drug overdose deaths increased by 41 percent – from 8.2 per 100,000 New Yorkers to 11.6 per 100,000 New Yorkers. According to the new Epi Data Brief, 77 percent of drug overdose deaths in 2013 involved an opioid, including opioid analgesics (prescription painkillers), methadone, or heroin. On average, there is more than one fatal opioid overdose a day. Heroin plays an increasing role in overdose deaths in New York City, doubling from 3.1 per 100,000 New Yorkers in 2010 to 6.2 per 100,000 New Yorkers in 2013.
i’ve plotted this before and the lack of correlation between gun laws and homicide rate was literally non-existent (like 0.0)
but hey, if they maybe possibly could save just one life!
That is why they use “gun death.”They pack in gun suicide but exclude higher self inflicted death by other means.
In terms of overall murder and gun laws, when you use proper comparisons, like same region similar demographic states, like Maryland and Virginia, the results invert and those with less gun control and more guns have lower per capita murder rates.
Knee-jerk decisions are always emotion based. It’s alarming how quickly NY was able to get this trough. Clearly the people have zero importance as their Rights were overlooked and input was ignored. Radical anti-gun laws primarily do one thing best; they increase the misuse of firearms but driving firearms underground. I find it curious changing the law such as they did was truly legal.
Now, I swear I was recently told that suicide was a personal choice, and that I was arching away from justice by opposing it. Who knew it could become an evil conservative thing overnight, just because gunz!?
The New York City/Bloomberg crime control system is pretty simple — have an army of cops (35,000 or more), stop and frisk every minority person who dares to be seen in public, keep every citizen disarmed and helpless, and plant gun and drug evidence at every possible opportunity.
the mag limits so they can reload is a joke. the other day on “sleepy hollow” 1 guys is shooting at them with a bolt action rifle, the girl says ” he has a single shot bolt action it will take him time to reload, i got him.” it literally took him 25 seconds to move the bolt and you can tell he was trying to do it real slow. lol
Guns in the hands of citizens protect free speech.
It is sad that most Americans are clueless as to the “real” value of the 2nd Amendment. Over a decade ago I was always amused at the “hunting” argument for the 2nd Amendment. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is the core litmus test regarding whether people really want freedom and liberty. Please, to all those who do not understand this, please read the history books and think about why our founders did and why they did. Think about what would have happened if gun ownership had been as ubiquitous as it is in the US with the Jews in Germany before WWII, Cambodians before Pol Pot, Russians before Lenin and Stalin, Chinese before Mao? Guns save lives. Massive gun ownership by citizens is the only deterrent to tyranny. That is why Colt named it famous revolver, the “Peace Maker.” Sheep don’t like sheep dogs and certainly not wolves. Our sheep in the country, many are the political elite, believe they can “wish” away the wolves through their right to vote or influence power in our democracy. That kind of utopian thinking the most dangerous kind.
N.Y , N.J., Il., Ca., Ct. And Ma. All need a lesson on how to not infringe upon rights of the American people.
Hope you all are calling or writing your state Reps. In Washington and urging them to co sponsor the constitutional carry bill that is now in the legislature in Washington. In 2013 it almost made it it had majority but fell short by 3 votes. Let’s get those 60 votes this time and put an end to these anti 2nd amendment states not allowing a law abiding citizens to carry without fear of getting arrested for exercising the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Do it do it now. It will start to restore all Americans rights regardless of what state they are traveling through that pokes a big hole in these state laws like N. Y. ,Ct.,N.J. Ca., Il. And others. Take the time and let them know that the people want Thier constitutional rights upheld.
“Do gun rights protect free speech or does free speech protect gun rights?”
They are both inexorably intertwined, as are the rest of the Bill of Rights protections.
You are so right. My response was to an either / or alternative but you are correct.
Which is why those who oppose gun rights are by and large the same people who condone offenses against free speech.
One need only look at what people support to determine how low they will sink. I mean, come on…these people oppose freedom, human rights, self defense, and the limitation of oppressive government. They are literally terrorists who are simply using a different weapon. Of course they’d lie and cheat.
I’d also say that while the 1A does help us protect the 2A, it is also used by our enemies to help chip away at the 2A. The moment we allowed treasonous speech supporting the destruction of the Constitution to be protected by the 1A without consequence, we gave we gave evil the same rights as good people. Sort of like how a gun is only as evil as the hands that use it, so too is free speech.
Soooo…since the NY SAFE Act has been passed, the violent crime rate has just plummeted to near zero? Yes?
Tom – That’s a straw man argument and absolutely absurd. The NY SAFE ACT wasn’t designed for that. It was designed to prevent Sandy Hook Elementary School from never being attacked again. Do try to keep up…
All rights are synergistic are they not? They support each other? Like a teepee.
just a fact—-lower ny fudges their crime stats for decade—————
Two thoughts occur to me here.
1. I find it particularly amusing that the people constantly blame the gun lobby – meaning manufacturers – rather than gun owners and pro-2A voters. The reality is that the gun manufacturers are subject to our whims, not the other way around. Freedom Group is busy learning that lesson right now. Of course, I’ve no problem if the Anti’s want to fight the wrong people.
2. I just love the use of statistics. The reality is that statistically gun death really doesn’t even occur from the perspective of statically significant population metrics. Or more properly, you could incidence of gun death approaches zero. That may sound pretentious, but actually, I think that is part of the reason the Anti’s message fails to resonate. The number of Americans who are actually affected by gun related violence is so miniscule that it is negligible. All they have is the momentary emotional rush when they can nationalize a story.
Actually, homicides per capita (homicides per 100000 inhabitants usually) is the right statistic, commonly used in social sciences and policymaking.
Gross homicides is completely meaningless.
demnsco wants to use raw counts rather than per capita murder rates as a measure of risk? That means we would all be twice as safe by dividing every state in two.
Not a good voice for our side.
You should take part in a contest for one of the
best blogs on the net. I most certainly will recommend this web
site!
Comments are closed.