Gun Violence is Actually Declining in the United States
The facts defy the narrative of the left.
In the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino, politicians and activists on the left have once again renewed their push for gun control.
The fact however, is that gun violence in the U.S. is going down.
Max Ehrenfreund reports at the Washington Post:
We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.
Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.
In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013…
This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI’s data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.
The report goes on to cite key factors responsible for the drop including a greater police presence, technological advances, and lower rates of alcohol abuse, to name a few.
Despite cries from the “do something” crowd, gun control isn’t named as one of the reasons.
John R. Lott Jr. of National Review touched on this point yesterday:
Mass Shootings and Gun Control
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton slammed Republicans for not being serious about protecting Americans from terrorism. “How many more Americans need to die before we take action?” Clinton asked in response to Friday’s shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. She believes that stopping such attacks involves “common-sense steps like comprehensive background checks, closing the loopholes that let guns fall into the wrong hands.” Within minutes of the attack in San Bernardino, Calif., yesterday, Clinton pushed again for more regulations.
Clinton also wants to crack down on terrorism by prohibiting people on the no-fly list from buying guns. “If you are too dangerous to fly in America, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.”
Are Republicans really putting Americans in danger by opposing new gun-control laws?
After every mass shooting, Clinton and President Obama have called for “comprehensive” or “universal” background checks, which would apply not only to the purchase of guns from a dealer but also to private transfers of guns. However, it wouldn’t have stopped any of the mass shootings during Obama’s tenure.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“If you are too dangerous to fly in America, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.”
Some thoughts:
1. If you’re determined to obtain guns to commit terrorist acts…which are per force HIGHLY illegal…you aren’t worried about obtaining guns “legally”.
2. IF there were a functioning criminal legal system in America, Hellary Clinton could not fly anywhere, or EVER buy a gun. She would be a caged bird, housed in a Federal pen.
3. The murderous volunteer pirates of San Berdoo were quite willing to commit an entire catalog of crimes, not one of which deterred them from their plan and purpose, which was itself as illegal as anything gets in the U.S.
There’s no way the name “Barack Hussein Obama” isn’t on the no-fly list. He’s definitely not buying a gun either with rules like she proposed.
“She believes that stopping such attacks involves “common-sense steps like comprehensive background checks, closing the loopholes that let guns fall into the wrong hands.” Within minutes of the attack in San Bernardino, Calif., yesterday, Clinton pushed again for more regulations.”
Hillary, do you mean the comprehensive (no way!) and exhaustive (no way!) background checks to be done on tens of thousands non-descript of refugees? Do you mean the kind of background checks that allowed terror into France?
In the face of the real threat from terrorists and criminals, a certain amount of precise “gun violence” is needed to stop their nefarious actions. Sharp, abrupt and decisive. As for Sen. Boxer… yes California is an example to the country, but not in the way she intended.
You really need pictures to convey trends.
Just quoting numbers (like 7/100k and 3.6) doesn’t do any good. Make the plot — throw up plots of firearm homicides, all homicides, all firearm deaths, etc… they all go down.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
America’s just been bombarded with TV newscasters repeating over and over that “active shooter incidents” are increasing at a phenomenal rate.
The correct response is to post/tweet/point to *pictures* of the real trends in violent crime. Numbers won’t do it.
Exactly what I was thinking.
It’s easy to plot [year] vs. [homicide rate] and publish the resulting line graph.
They did so for the original article in The Washington Post, as you can see if you follow the link.
It would be a lot nicer to have the graphs here at LI, though.
NRO did the work. Bookmark it. Link to it in comments:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425043/chart-truth-about-gun-ownership-america-isnt-what-liberals-think
I will believe in the effectiveness of gun control when all of our fearless leaders disarm their bodyguards in instead demonstrate that a car full of negotiators is all the protection they need. (but I would allow Hillary to keep the press roped-in if she likes.)
Looking at the line graph in the original article, as suggested by clintack, you can see that since about 2007 the homicide rate is consistently falling while suicides are constantly on the rise.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Let’s not forget the hundred million or so that died because they didn’t have a gun and were on the wrong side of the inevitable tyrant that always comes for the easy pickings.
The LibDems will continue to push their gun control agenda despite the real facts, just as they push climate change in spite of the truth. The danger is that the Roll-Over Party leadership in Congress will feel the heat from LibDem journalists crying that “something must be done” and compromise away some more of our Constitutional rights.
Firearms homicides, gun violence, and violent crime in general dropped precipitously during a period of time when tens of millions of more guns “flooded our streets.” This fact cannot, by itself, prove that “more guns equals less crime,” but it conclusively disproves the theory that “more guns equals more crime.”