The Facts That Gun Grabbers Can’t Wrap Their Minds Around

| |

pistol shooting wikimedia

It seems like there are irreconcilable differences between those who are pro-Second Amendment, and those who advocate gun control, and I think it goes beyond their personal beliefs. They think about the world in fundamentally different ways, which becomes plainly obvious when you see how these two groups compile data on homicides and gun ownership. Let’s take a look at how anti-gun folks see these numbers:

Higher ownership of guns in the United States has been linked to more violent crimes and overall homicides, according to a new study by researchers at Harvard University.

I was intrigued when I first read that. I don’t think it would change my overall position on the rights of human beings if this were true, but I’d like to know if the statistics I give readers are true or not, so I decided to read more into this study.

Firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in US states with the most guns versus states with the least, said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

“We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime, instead, we found the opposite,” Monuteaux told Live Science.

“This study suggests that it’s really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes,” he said.

Numerous studies have found that gun ownership is directly associated with gun-related homicides, and homicide by gun is the most common type of homicide in the United States.

Boston University researcher Michael Siegel and colleagues found in a 2013 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that over 30 years, gun ownership levels correlated with firearm homicides, such that the higher the gun ownership rate, the higher the firearm homicide rate.

Do you see what they did there? At first, the article was about gun ownership causing violent crime. Then it shifts back and forth between that, and claiming that more guns cause more gun related crimes. I swear the next time I hear the words “gun homicide” “gun crimes” or “firearm homicides” I’m gonna scream.

That’s because gun control advocates can always find plenty of statistics that show higher gun ownership rates correlate with gun related crimes. Obviously, if you live in a state or country with an easy access to firearms, there will be more crimes committed with firearms. Human beings always seek out the most effective tools for the job, so they will always spring for best weapons they can get a hold of, regardless of whether or not they are criminals or law-abiding citizens.

But gun control advocates have a tendency to ignore overall homicides, and instead focus on homicides that are caused by firearms. When you do that, you’re missing the bigger picture. You’ll always fail to recognize that, while more guns equal more gun related crimes, they may also cause the overall violent crime rate to go down, a fact which has been proven time and time again.

Now it’s true that the Harvard study did claim to find a relationship between more guns and a higher overall homicide rate. I decided to look for another article that had more details on the study, which I did find. The researchers behind the study admitted that while there did appear to be a connection between more guns and more crime, they weren’t sure which came first. Do guns cause more crime, or does a higher crime rate cause people to buy more guns?

This reminds me of another falsehood that gun controllers fall for over and over again. They love comparing the statistics of criminal homicides and justifiable homicides. Criminal homicides account for many more deaths than the former, so they conclude that guns are much more likely to be used by a criminal to kill, then they are to be used by a law-abiding citizen to protect themselves. But there’s a serious problem with that conclusion.

As many of us now know, police departments in America are famously bad at reporting the number of “justified” homicides their officers commit. And apparently, they’re even worse at reporting justified homicides committed by average Americans. These numbers also don’t account for how often someone uses a gun to protect themselves, which don’t result in injury or death. It’s a number we’ll probably never know for sure, since some people probably don’t even bother reporting these incidents to the police.

So the next time you read about any study that draws a conclusions between gun ownership, crime, and self-defense, always read between the lines and dig a little deeper. The truth is often elusive.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • YeahRightOkay

    …typical liberal BS…take real data and then twist it to fit their demented mindset…

    • BW83

      To be fair most groups manipulate data to make it demonstrate what they wish it to. Liberals just happen to be better at it than conservatives.

      Thinking the “other” side doesn’t do the same thing is silly

      • Reverend Draco

        Neither side is very good at it – they can only gull the gullible – anyone who is even half awake can see through the smoke. . .

      • Gearmoe

        I’ll bite. You are gloriously wrong but nice try. I used to think and argue the way you do, but wisdom caught up. Basically you are saying nothing and attempting to appease everyone. The problem is your own integrity goes straight to the dumper. You’ll learn. The anti-2A groups are well known for creating catch phrases and falsifying stats, they’ve been caught many times. They also use emotional phrases to market their agendas typically using fear. The pro side is known for producing too many facts rather than stir human emotions, e.g. they often seem dry from being fact-oriented. The pro’s also do not market and promote the positives of firearms as well as they could. The anti’s have some billionaire money to spend, and they do. Many pro’s $ come from private donations of the people and memberships, (NRA, GOA, SAF, etc). To say “to be fair” and “most” are words I won’t let you get away with, and you know it. Better luck next time.

        • Reverend Draco

          You bit the wrong. . . whatever it was you bit.

          He didn’t say pro- and anti-2A do the same thing. . . he said Liberals and Conservatives.

          Reading is FUNdamental.

          • BW83

            +1

        • BW83

          Reading comprehension, you fail. Better luck next time…
          I guess wisdom involves focusing on the wrong topic all together.

          When did I mention anything about pro-2A groups? Point it out for me. The guy I responded to specifically mentioned liberals, so I decided to point out conservatives happen to do the same thing. The fact conservative-leaning people tend to favor the second amendment has nothing to do with what I said, therefore gun supporters using facts is a moot point.

          Since we’re on the topic, yes, I agree with you that gun-control groups blatantly use fear-mongering.

          Accusing both sides of the political spectrum of manipulating data is true, therefore “to be fair” is an accurate lead in to what I was saying.

        • g13man

          so you are saying neither side manipulates data and or statistics
          lol

      • GlennBillings

        I disagree.
        Give me an example, one study, where “conservative” have done it.

        BW33 for THE definitive statistical work that gives the BEST argument that
        More Guns means Less Crime written by
        John Lott.

        I have a math degree and know Statistics pretty well .
        I attended one of his lectures and read one of his books.
        He does a pretty good job or establishing his point.
        OR just listen ton one of his Youtube videos.

        Note: in all this Anti-Gun Statistics,
        pay attention to difference between
        “Gun Crimes” or “Gun Violence”
        vs
        Violence in General.

        If you take away ALL the guns in a country,
        GUN CRIME does go down,
        but does the OVER ALL CRIME Go UP, or Down, or Stay the Same?

        That’s the only question.

        In England, Gun Crime did go down, but
        the Overall Crime DID NOT go down.

        On other thing.
        Get John Lott’s book.

        • BW83

          You’re actually stating conservatives never manipulate data? We all know how true absolutes usually are, leaving it at that. Not wasting my time finding anything. Actually, here’s a perfect example, what were the reasons our country was sold a war in Iraq? If that wasn’t a manipulation of truth/data I don’t know what was, and it wasn’t liberals leading the charge on that one.

          I wasn’t commenting on gun violence, or any violence for that matter. Just stating the obvious, both sides manipulate data, regardless of what the data implies.

          Yes, it’s obvious gun violence goes down when guns are removed, it can’t help but go down, so no disputes here. I also don’t argue with general violence going up when guns are removed. Once again, I don’t need a study when there’s soo many present day examples. Your example of England fitting perfectly. Guns ARE a deterrent to crime.

    • Tom

      A long time ago on a comment thread at Smirking Chimp I pointed out the obvious that by and large, conservatives tended to be well armed and liberals not so much. I also pointed out that historically, when such large differences in armament between two groups occurred, it could have negative consequences for the lessor-armed group — just a fact of history. Their response? They permanently banned me from the site.

      • YeahRightOkay

        …lol…been banned from many for stating the obvious…hang in there Tom…

      • BW83

        That’s hilarious Tom. Be glad they banned you. Any site that would ban someone for expressing their opinion or point of view isn’t a site worth belonging to.

        I find it even more egregious when comments are blocked or people are banned simply for expressing things that may hurt someone’s feelings. That’s apparently the worst thing you can do in modern day America, made worse by the fragile nature of the average cry-babies emotions.

      • g13man

        they banned you so you would not warn the liberals , or so they would not be afraid and stop their spouting ?

        • Tom

          I think they mistook a simple statement of historical fact as a threat
          to liberals, as if I had said “We gun-totin’ conservatives are gonna
          gitcha.” But that’s not what I said — I just think liberals might want
          to re-think their belief that if they can get the government to take
          away everyone’s guns (except the government’s guns, of course) then
          they’ll all be safe.

          I don’t want to see another civil war
          anymore than anyone else. Large differences in armament are what
          encourage one group to think they can easily overwhelm another group at
          low cost to themselves. This is what the Hutu Tribe in Rwanda thought
          when they attacked the Tutsi Tribe. It’s what the Christian Serbians
          thought when they attacked the Muslim Serbians. It’s what the Nazi
          Ukrainians thought when they attacked the ethnic Russian Ukrainians. It
          never works out well for anyone on either side. But liberals will never
          figure out that if they just lay off their gun-grabbing horseshit the
          of us real Americans might find the rest of their horseshit a little
          easier to laugh off.

          • Razedbywolvs

            There using a completely different history book. I don’t know what book, but it appears to go back in history about 3 weeks.

          • g13man

            true , and scary

            except the croats and muslims attacked the Serbs first , they just did not lay down and returned fire the same way as attacked

          • Tom

            I highly recommend the book _Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War_ by Peter Maass. He was an American war correspondent who lived in Sarajevo for two years during the siege to send reports of what was happening out to the world. It may be the best first-person account of the war.

            It was from this book that I first “got it” that the United Nations is NOT what we are told it is. I’m still not sure what it is, but “peacekeepers” they are not.

          • g13man

            Europe hates the Serbs , the Serbs have rebuffed Europe’s advances before ! The USA got pulled in and snokered …
            Standard Moslem war ,
            1, attack when they think they can win ,
            2,sue for peace when they are losing ,
            3, wait till they rebuild

            repeat …

            the Serbs in WW2 were a pain to the germans , and this was their chance for pay back

      • Don’t you just love “online communities.”

        • Tom

          “Community” is one of those words all of us misuse (me too), in the same way we all use the words “money” and “currency” interchangeably when there are actually important differences between them. A community is an established human living arrangement which includes all ages from young to old and where everyone knows everyone else, often from birth to death. Online “communities” are actually “networks” which are established for specific purposes, where people don’t really know each other, and may only have brief, superficial contact with others in the network.

          We all have a natural longing for community, something lost in modern life, so we accept networks instead. Pleased to meet you, socoloco.

      • sunshine

        They love to ban dissenting opinions, but I’ve been to a few conservative sites that have banned my old incarnation for speaking my mind (in a polite and nonviolent way, of course).

  • I believe ‘gun control’ is not about guns but about control.
    And I believe Heinlein grokked it when he said, “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”

    • Reverend Draco

      RAH grokked much that the average politico, the average American, has no idea even exists.

  • Gil G

    I’d say it’s safe to say guns don’t statistically keep people hence the appeal to a safer society fails. The real reason for gun ownership should instead be simply of private property ownership without interference from government.

  • Lori

    did anyone notice the freedom of choice that we are supporting and supposed to be assuming?? And there is a question about this here? The fact that people choose to live in the areas with a high armament population are still making a choice to live there, therefore they arm themselves….does anybody not see the simplicity in this? For the life of me …I can’t see an issue here. It’s the people,… not the guns.

  • BigGaySteve

    We cant keep crack out of prisons or DC mayor Marian Barry’s body. Leftists don’t realized gunpowder was invented over a millennia ago and many Asians and whites are smart enough to build guns in their garages. They actually do calling them 80% build parties. There is even a gay gun group the Pink Pistols so leftists are even more pansy than puffs.

    • arahn

      lol

  • I live in a place where there are more guns than people and the police blotter has more DUIs than real crimes. Even the drunks don’t shoot each other here.

  • frankw

    Actually, I’m growing weary of the whole discussion. My life and my body are my own and noone has the right to jeopardize it for their own self righteous viewpoint. Therefore, I’ll do whatever is necessary to protect me and mine. End of discussion.

    • Reverend Draco

      And there it is.
      Not much that can be added to that.

  • molon_labe

    *Not mentioned, was rather or not the elite Harvard researcher went to the shining beacon of gun control, Chicago, for his study.

    • BW83

      They’ll just twist it and use it to push more stringent laws. That’s the mind boggling thing.

      Their logic: law didn’t stop it, so clearly we don’t have enough laws and need more.

      I personally would like to see the roles reversed. Make an anti-gun guy research data supporting gun rights, and a pro-gun guy research data supporting gun control. At the very least you know the results with be tightly scrutinized, and I think it would be interesting to see how it plays out.

  • Ken, Megapolis

    Hi. I come in peace and am unarmed. I do not believe I have mental health issues but I question who I really am and the fear of making a mistake in a quick split second decision means I don’t want a gun.
    Do you think it right that someone who threatens to smash a South African geezer over the head with a bottle on Facebook is the actions of the person needing a gun just because he shakes like a diabetic or alcoholic as a cop car passes him in the street?
    I still believe that Policemen not Muslims represent a greater enemy but I trust God / Allah not Police or guns.
    No Avatar incarnated as a policeman.
    Muhammad was the last Prophet pbuh and Police came later so they are not God and never will be.
    Having said that, most rich people and landowners in UK possess firearms. The poor don’t. Trust me.

  • Reverend Draco

    Funny thing – in states where there are more bathtubs, more people drown in bathtubs. . .
    In states where there are more cars, there are more accidents.
    In states with more fast food restaurants, there is more obesity.

    Imagine (if you have an imagination, that is) what you might do if you had an education.

    • Kivaari

      Excellent observation. We still have many more children drowning in buckets, toilets and bathtubs, than are killed with firearms.
      More fat mothers kill their infant children by sleeping in the same bed or sofa.
      When I was part of the Child Death Review committee, our last 5 “SIDS” deaths were actually co-sleeping fat women on small cots or sofas. But, the women on the panel, did not want to further cause grief in the parents.
      Well, that wimpy idea, causes a huge mistake when they report to state officials. It was a big enough of a big lie, that CDR committees found themselves worthless.
      When grandpa runs an electric cord under a rug, and the living grand child says, “Don’t you remember grandpa, that used to get real hot. The fire chief and I wanted it reported as a preventable death. But the public health women didn’t want to hurt grandpas feeling. The chief and I did not have enough voting power to tell the truth.
      Data on deaths from gun shot wounds are similarly misreported.

  • WTSHTFLIBERALSRUN

    Anyone /Everyone That does Not Abide By The Constitution of The United States Of America IS A TRAITOR/INVADER and The Constitution Outlines Our Rights to DEAL with Those Vermin
    LIBERALS ARE DISEASED VERMIN, RODENTS-RATS

    • g13man

      yeah , i am still waiting for the military to take its oath and kill the bankers over the breaking of the constitution over the Federal Bank ! [1913]

  • BW83

    Facts are facts, true. The issue is how those facts are used. Statistics can be misrepresented, or even misinterpreted, and they usually are. Not always intentionally.

    Yes, guns must be present for GUN violence, anyone should understand that. The issue is are the guns causing the violence? The presence of a weapon doesn’t imply violence will occur correct?

    I’m not searching for it, but I’d be willing to bet NY has a greater incidence of violence than Alaska as well. Less of it involving guns doesn’t make NY a safer place. Guns as a weapon merely level the playing field (the reason for there popularity as weapons I should add).

    Iraq is a poor example. It’s been an area of high conflict for most of the past, and well before guns. The guns don’t cause the violence, but they well may be a symptom of it. If I lived in a violent society I’d want a gun too. May not make society safer, but it makes me safer in that it gives me a better fighting chance, should violence find me, than my hands or a knife would.

    “They want a free for all”. Bit of a stretch don’t you think? Were I to apply a blanket assumption or statement to an entire group of people (blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, etc.) I’d be labeled a racist or bigot….

    • sunshine

      I bet he labels poor white conservatives all the time. It’s the only group those people love to label, every chance they get.

      • BW83

        Oh I’ve noticed, believe me. Whites are the only people you can openly bash without having to apologize on a talk show later for, lose your job, or face any consequence.

        Maybe we should let the blameless minorities run the country for awhile. Obviously they did a GREAT job with Africa, Mexico, Central/South America, etc. So good in fact they’re constantly attempting to stream across our borders.

  • Nick

    The anti-rights crowd has been playing the switcheroo for almost two decades now. You can never get them to admit that violent crime overall is higher in ban states then it is here in the US, they just parrot the same tired old “gun crime” mantra.

  • RON HOLT

    Not once have my guns even attempted to find their way out of my gun cabinet to attack someone…….wait,WHAT?

  • The watcher

    A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many
    is unclear. More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their
    household owns a gun. There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child they best watch there steeping and who they be steeping on

    • Gearmoe

      Minority is the wrong word. There are a number of people who would not tell any report they own firearms as they do not trust the collection of data of such. From what I see I’d have to say well more than 50% of the population has a firearm, this would indicate the majority own firearms.

      • The watcher

        yea 80% at lest

  • Gearmoe

    Anti-2A progressive’s want the uninformed to believe anyone who owns a firearm is a criminal in wait, or might already be. They assert criminals acquire firearms in the same way a law-abiding citizen does when in fact they do not, most acquisitions are stolen. They assert a firearm to have the ability to rise up on its own and be fired, refuting a machine is not a tool but a biologic life.
    Since we came to N. America (and even before) firearms have been arriving. With hundreds of millions of firearms, if firearms were a danger in epidemic proprtion, thousands would die daily at the hand of lawful citizens. Of course this is not what is happening with annual firearm death well down the list from many others.

  • sunshine

    Oh lord, here we go with the “You’re soooo backward, you’re living in the past, dinosaur!” crap. And you’re especially retarded if you think that people just break out guns and start shooting like Yosemite Sam whenever anything happens. It’s really none of your concern anyways, it’s a RIGHT to own guns and you don’t have to like it but you damn sure won’t take my rights away.

    You should be ashamed, I bet you whine and snivel about gay RIGHTS and tranny RIGHTS, and the RIGHTS of every other sick pile of pus freak but you couldn’t give two sh*ts about the ACTUAL RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. You people make me utterly sick and I loathe having to share a country with you. Move to South Africa or somewhere else, there are plenty of liberal utopias out there, so go enjoy them and stop trying to ruin our nation like you’ve ruined them.

  • BradenLynch

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says that my Second Amendment rights are subject to the whims of a “scientific” study.
    The axiomatic truth is the Second Amendment is there for our security from both criminals and the GOVERNMENT. Given the body count for democides in the recent past facilitated by gun confiscation, I really don’t give a rat’s hind end about statistics for crime. I know I am safer having a firearm for my own protection rather than being defenseless. You have to be dense to not recognize the utility of a firearm.
    Regarding some of the comments about the veracity of the two sides, you should easily detect the lies spewing forth from the anti-freedom, anti-2A side which manufactures terms and hides behind emotional language. They lie, they lie, they lie. Acknowledge it.

  • SBIAM

    The 2nd admendment is an American Birthright. All nations that have been disarmed the marxist governments have killed milions. True fact. If a person is intent on evil, there are many more weapons in our every day life to complete the job with, axe, knife, fork, hammer, or anything with a point & blunt force behind it. Are they going to ban every day living life objects? The only thing keeping the UN GLOBALIST, & OWN GOVERNMENT AT BAY, is the fact that we are an armed people and most know how to defend their selves. I would rather die standing on my own 2 feet, than as a slave on my knees. People need to bone up on our gun rights that are in USCODE & other doucments that have stood the test of time. There would be no comfencation of your guns if people knew their rights against lawenforcement. We have become a very dumbed down nation, because that is how the elites want it. Stupid people have no grounds to stand on.
    Molen Labe

  • SBIAM

    You are spewing pure bull shit. People like you never learn, until it affects you or a family member personally. You are a perfect excample of “The Dumbing Down” of America. All people are born ignornant
    but you really have to work hard to remain
    stupid.

  • Kivaari

    Why are criminal homicides involving firearms so high in states with extreme gun control? Why does Chicago, Newark, DC, E. LA, Cleveland and Baltimore have so many criminal homicides?
    I live in North Idaho, where pretty much everyone has some kind of gun, yet we have few murders.
    One thing about living in 2015, is more people own guns, than they did in 1865.
    Gun laws were primarily racist laws intended to keep blacks, Chinese, Jews, Irish and low earning rednecks. Racists want power. They serve us in congress and the white house, all the time wanting to disarm us.
    Should we get to a state of wide-spread civil disorder, the people that will have the best chances of making it into the future, are the good armed citizens. The ones that your local mayor or sheriff will form a militia to support aid groups like FEMA. Having DHS running things would be a terrible mistake. Currently the law supports local control.
    We know that where leftists rule, things will go bad much faster. Just think about how New Orleans and surrounding areas collapsed. Look who did the most murders, it was the cops. Citizens are supposed to control the local officials, and if it takes fighting corrupt mayors and their thug police, we need to be ready to restore order, respecting the rights of everyone.