The Colorado recall election garnered attention, money, and input nationally as a broad referendum on gun control. The recall shows us that sound policy instead of partisan sensationalism is what American citizens want. Previously passed measures – restricting magazine capacity to 15 rounds and universal background checks are not only unpopular, but are utterly useless in preventing crime or mass shootings.

Colorado voters booted out two Democratic state lawmakers on Tuesday in a heated recall effort that generated national headlines as a referendum on the renewed gun control debate. Both Democrats provided crucial support for a package of state gun laws earlier this year, sparking a wave of protest that got their names on the ballot for the state’s first-ever recall at the state level. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.

Voters passed measures recalling state Sen. John Morse, the body’s president, and state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo. According to the Denver Post, with almost 100 percent of votes counted in the historic recall election of Morse, returns show 51 percent have voted “yes” and 49 percent “no.” Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo was defeated by a vote of 56 percent to 44 percent. The immediate effect of the recalls — the first of their kind in Colorado — was to remove two state senators, Angela Giron of Pueblo and John Morse of Colorado Springs, and replace them with Republicans.

The vote comes on the heels of a series of defeats in the U.S. Senate that ended five months earlier, which included the failure to expand background checks nationally, and handed another loss to gun-control supporters and gives moderate lawmakers across the country a warning about the political risks of voting for tougher gun laws. The special elections were widely seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions after mass shootings at a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. New York City mayor and anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg personally gave $350,000. The Denver Post reported that proponents of the recall have raised about $540,000. The Colorado Republican Party said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation” while Democratic Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper, said he was “disappointed by the outcome of the recall elections.

What do the elections means in larger context? Perhaps that swing-state moderates should think twice about restricting rights protected in the Constitution; that remains to be seen. What is clear is that Coloradans value these rights. As I have written previously, both measures passed earlier this year are futile, having no real hope of preventing mass shootings or curbing less sensational murder, or of keeping guns out of criminals hands.

Regarding the magazine capacity restriction to 15 rounds, this is frivolous. Even the County Sherrifs of Colorado Association did not support this measure. Most homicide victims are shot less than four times and shot at less than 10 times. There is no reason to believe this measure will marginally reduce murder. Neither is there any logical reason to believe it would curb mass shootings. Colorado’s most infamous mass shooting – Columbine – occurred during the federal ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ and the shooters used a HiPoint 995 carbine which uses 10 round magazines. Similarly, Virginia Tech – the worst school shooting in U.S. history involved mostly 10 round magazines.

Universal background checks (UBC) may sound like a good idea, but the fact is Justice Department studies show criminals obtain guns less than 1% of the time from gun shows. However, 80% of criminals obtain guns illegally through illegal transfer from a friend or family member or illegal trafficking on the black market. UBC also doesn’t solve for several very real problems in how criminals obtain guns including: theft from private residences, police, and military, failure of Congress to fully fund NICS (the background check system), failure of states to report data to NICS, failure of the Justice Department to prosecute background check fraud currently, and straw man purchases.

Perhaps this recall truly is a broader referendum on gun control, rights and policy. Politicians and media often push what is sensational instead of what years of research supports as realistic policy. If the voters of Colorado have any message to share with the rest of us, it is perhaps that emotionalism and sensationalism do not make good policy. Gun rights advocates want safe streets, schools and shopping centers for our families too. Let’s be honest about what makes good policy and what doesn’t. Education defeats propaganda; Colorado just showed us the truth of that.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 12, 2013).

Colorado Recall: What It Teaches Us About Gun Control Policy

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 13, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The Colorado recall election garnered attention, money, and input nationally as a broad referendum on gun control. The recall shows us that sound policy instead of partisan sensationalism is what American citizens want. Previously passed measures – restricting magazine capacity to 15 rounds and universal background checks are not only unpopular, but are utterly useless in preventing crime or mass shootings.

Colorado voters booted out two Democratic state lawmakers on Tuesday in a heated recall effort that generated national headlines as a referendum on the renewed gun control debate. Both Democrats provided crucial support for a package of state gun laws earlier this year, sparking a wave of protest that got their names on the ballot for the state’s first-ever recall at the state level. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.

Voters passed measures recalling state Sen. John Morse, the body’s president, and state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo. According to the Denver Post, with almost 100 percent of votes counted in the historic recall election of Morse, returns show 51 percent have voted “yes” and 49 percent “no.” Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo was defeated by a vote of 56 percent to 44 percent. The immediate effect of the recalls — the first of their kind in Colorado — was to remove two state senators, Angela Giron of Pueblo and John Morse of Colorado Springs, and replace them with Republicans.

The vote comes on the heels of a series of defeats in the U.S. Senate that ended five months earlier, which included the failure to expand background checks nationally, and handed another loss to gun-control supporters and gives moderate lawmakers across the country a warning about the political risks of voting for tougher gun laws. The special elections were widely seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions after mass shootings at a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. New York City mayor and anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg personally gave $350,000. The Denver Post reported that proponents of the recall have raised about $540,000. The Colorado Republican Party said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation” while Democratic Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper, said he was “disappointed by the outcome of the recall elections.

What do the elections means in larger context? Perhaps that swing-state moderates should think twice about restricting rights protected in the Constitution; that remains to be seen. What is clear is that Coloradans value these rights. As I have written previously, both measures passed earlier this year are futile, having no real hope of preventing mass shootings or curbing less sensational murder, or of keeping guns out of criminals hands.

Regarding the magazine capacity restriction to 15 rounds, this is frivolous. Even the County Sherrifs of Colorado Association did not support this measure. Most homicide victims are shot less than four times and shot at less than 10 times. There is no reason to believe this measure will marginally reduce murder. Neither is there any logical reason to believe it would curb mass shootings. Colorado’s most infamous mass shooting – Columbine – occurred during the federal ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ and the shooters used a HiPoint 995 carbine which uses 10 round magazines. Similarly, Virginia Tech – the worst school shooting in U.S. history involved mostly 10 round magazines.

Universal background checks (UBC) may sound like a good idea, but the fact is Justice Department studies show criminals obtain guns less than 1% of the time from gun shows. However, 80% of criminals obtain guns illegally through illegal transfer from a friend or family member or illegal trafficking on the black market. UBC also doesn’t solve for several very real problems in how criminals obtain guns including: theft from private residences, police, and military, failure of Congress to fully fund NICS (the background check system), failure of states to report data to NICS, failure of the Justice Department to prosecute background check fraud currently, and straw man purchases.

Perhaps this recall truly is a broader referendum on gun control, rights and policy. Politicians and media often push what is sensational instead of what years of research supports as realistic policy. If the voters of Colorado have any message to share with the rest of us, it is perhaps that emotionalism and sensationalism do not make good policy. Gun rights advocates want safe streets, schools and shopping centers for our families too. Let’s be honest about what makes good policy and what doesn’t. Education defeats propaganda; Colorado just showed us the truth of that.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Sep 13, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Why New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety

New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety. Gun politics as usual, anti-gun politicians like Gov. Pat Quinn say new law endangers public safety. But that is exactly contrary to the academic research on the matter.

When Illinois passed a law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns, it became the last state in the union to do so. Illinois previously allowed no handguns outside the home, but the courts ruled this violated the Second Amendment, and gave the state legislature until July 9 to change their law before the old was repealed. In the land that made the phrase “Chicago politics” infamous, the stakes – and grandstanding – were high. A version of the bill was originally sent on to Governor Pat Quinn, who threatened veto and sent the bill back with suggested changes. The changes were all but ignored and the legislature passed the bill (found here) with a two-thirds majority anyway.

Governor Quinn called the vote “extremely disappointing,” saying it “will lead to tragedy” and that “public safety should never be compromised or negotiated away.” He accused the legislature of “surrender[ing] to the National Rifle Association.” But who’s playing politics? Does Gov Quinn have a point, or is he patently wrong? Based on academic research from criminologists, Governor Quinn is wrong. His suppositions of what endangers people run exactly contrary to research. There is no reason to believe that the overridden suggestions or allowing citizens to carry guns threatens public safety; in fact, quite the opposite.

Governor Quinn’s rejected proposals included inserting limits on the ammunition capacity of gun magazines, restoring the right of local governments to enact restrictions and prohibiting firearms in bars or restaurants that sell any alcohol. The law still restricts carrying guns at restaurants or bars that with 50% or higher percentage of sales from alcohol and many public places, including public transit, schools, libraries and parks. Based on the research, the restrictions as they were passed, are what endangers people.

Illinois citizens still must wait an additional 9 months – 6 months for the state to set up to begin receiving applications for permits and another 3 months once they start receiving them – before they can legally carry. But the homicide rate in gun-less Illinois surpasses the national rate. According to the FBI, the U.S. has a national homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people. Illinois has a homicide rate of 6.4 per 100,000 or 136% of the national rate. There were 599 officially FBI-reported homicides and non-negligent manslaughters in the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2011, with the estimated total coming in at 609. The Chicago MSA makes up the vast majority of murders in the state, but doesn’t account for 100% of them. Firearms and handguns in particular were involved with the vast majority of murders, even though they are illegal. Illinois public safety is already “compromised.”

Which leads us to a basic question: do gun restrictions make the public more safe or less safe? Put another way, does allowing otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry guns jeopardize public safety? Though politicians like Governor Quinn makes politics out of their answers, the academic research is much more straightforward. A 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser answers emphatically, ‘No, allowing otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry guns does not endanger society.’ They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations and the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They conclude that higher gun control is consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

They further state: “Laws whose effect is to reduce gun ownership by law-abiding citizens – the ones who obey gun laws – are futile because these laws do not reduce violence or murder” (p.672). The reason is that average, otherwise law-abiding people do not commit murder. Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system; and minors typically have significant contact with the system. Even homicides within the home are usually the product of increasingly violent behavior and prior restraining orders and police contacts before a murder occurs. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “In any event, studies analyzing acquaintance homicide suggest there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). They also indicate studies in the U.S. indicate substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime.
If anything, the final provisions that prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns on public transit and libraries are likely counter-productive. However, the freedom of Illinois citizens to finally carry guns does not “compromise public safety”, as Governor Quinn suggests; the research shows it increases safety.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 12, 2013).

Homicides, Gun Murders, and Violent Crime Drop 50 Percent In The Last 20 Years

Despite mainstream media reporting, the FBI and DOJ annual reports show that homicide, gun murders, and violent crime have been cut in half since 1993. In the same time period, guns are more prevalent than ever and states have relaxed gun control laws.

The expression, “don’t believe the hype” is perhaps never more true than of mainstream media reporting on homicides, gun deaths, and violent crime. The old media adage is nothing sells like death, injury, and destruction. Add children to the mix and you have the perfect – if not morbidly obsessed – mix for selling media like crazy. Enter the hype about gun control. However, any attempt at honest gun control discussion and debate requires an honest look at the facts. The facts show that homicide and violent crime has dropped significantly in the last 37 years. In fact, homicide and violent crime have been cut by almost 50% in the last 20 years, and gun homicide is significantly down

The facts in this case are official U.S. government crime figures released annually by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), both Department of Justice agencies. The FBI releases Uniform Crime Reports, and Crime In The United States reports annually. We’ll also look at long-range crime data from the BJS to try to get context to homicide, gun homicide and violent crime trends. Looking at the long-term trends help us get an accurate picture of what the data shows and avoids the other “-ism” that statistics lie. All data is linked and publicly available to anyone.

To get a baseline and long-term trend perspective, we’ll start with BJS homicide data going back to 1976, in which there were 18,780 total homicides (p. 137). Firearms made up the majority of them (63.7%) at 11.979, and most of those – 8,561 – were from handguns. Non-Firearm homicides, which include knives, blunt objects, personal weapon (hands/feet), and others were 6,801, still a sizable portion of the total. The homicide rate in 1976 was 8.7 per 100,000 people (p.146).

Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in between 1990-1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A whopping 17,075 of these were Firearms-related (69.6%), and again the majority of those – 13,981 – were from handguns. Non-Firearm homicides were 7,455. The FBI reports the homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people.

That was the peak of violence, homicides and gun homicides in the United States. Since then, the trend has seen these crimes go down.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports show homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011, the last year available. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583, and the majority of those – 6,220 – came from handgun use. Non-Firearms related homicides totaled 4,081 The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people.

Crime In The United States report from the FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. BJS data shows from 1993-2010, non-fatal violent crime (homicides are the fatal kind), firearms are used less than 10% of the time. Handgun homicides dropped by more than half, now at just 44.4% of what they were in 1993 (going from 13,981 to 6,220) The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144) and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). The data are not cute factoids taken out of context, but instead show a trend in declining violence in America – in overall violent crime (which includes homicides among other violent crimes), in homicides, and in firearm homicides – that has been occurring for more than 37 years. In fact, the homicide rate is lower today than the year 1900.

The facts do not support the gun control advocates narrative that gun crime is increasing. We do not owe this to a decrease in guns: gun sales are soaring and there are more guns in the U.S. today than ever, with estimates ranging from 310 to 350 million. Nor is the decrease because of stricter gun laws. Over the last several decades, more states have adopted ‘Right to Carry’ laws, allowing citizens to legally carry concealed guns. And yet, there is less violent crime, and less homicide, including gun homicide. Consider this: in the middle of this 20-year period we had an assault weapons ban (which the Center for Disease Control and other studies said had no measurable impact), and yet once the ban was lifted, violent crime, and homicide, including firearm homicide still declined. These facts run counter to the claims that less guns equals less crime, or that tighter laws mean less crime. While prominent placement of gun and homicide news stories on news media sites’ homepages and news channels may attract viewership and sell advertising, the truth is that homicide, including gun homicide, and violent crime are going down and have been for several decades. The narrative is disproved by a clear look at the factual data.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication August 27, 2013).

Homicides, Gun Murders, and Violent Crime Drop 50 Percent In The Last 20 Years

by Matt MacBradaigh | Aug 27, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Despite mainstream media reporting, the FBI and DOJ annual reports show that homicide, gun murders, and violent crime have been cut in half since 1993. In the same time period, guns are more prevalent than ever and states have relaxed gun control laws.

The expression, “don’t believe the hype” is perhaps never more true than of mainstream media reporting on homicides, gun deaths, and violent crime. The old media adage is nothing sells like death, injury, and destruction. Add children to the mix and you have the perfect – if not morbidly obsessed – mix for selling media like crazy. Enter the hype about gun control. However, any attempt at honest gun control discussion and debate requires an honest look at the facts. The facts show that homicide and violent crime has dropped significantly in the last 37 years. In fact, homicide and violent crime have been cut by almost 50% in the last 20 years, and gun homicide is significantly down

The facts in this case are official U.S. government crime figures released annually by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), both Department of Justice agencies. The FBI releases Uniform Crime Reports, and Crime In The United States reports annually. We’ll also look at long-range crime data from the BJS to try to get context to homicide, gun homicide and violent crime trends. Looking at the long-term trends help us get an accurate picture of what the data shows and avoids the other “-ism” that statistics lie. All data is linked and publicly available to anyone.

To get a baseline and long-term trend perspective, we’ll start with BJS homicide data going back to 1976, in which there were 18,780 total homicides (p. 137). Firearms made up the majority of them (63.7%) at 11.979, and most of those – 8,561 – were from handguns. Non-Firearm homicides, which include knives, blunt objects, personal weapon (hands/feet), and others were 6,801, still a sizable portion of the total. The homicide rate in 1976 was 8.7 per 100,000 people (p.146).

Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in between 1990-1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A whopping 17,075 of these were Firearms-related (69.6%), and again the majority of those – 13,981 – were from handguns. Non-Firearm homicides were 7,455. The FBI reports the homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people.

That was the peak of violence, homicides and gun homicides in the United States. Since then, the trend has seen these crimes go down.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports show homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011, the last year available. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583, and the majority of those – 6,220 – came from handgun use. Non-Firearms related homicides totaled 4,081 The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people.

Crime In The United Statesreport from the FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. BJS data shows from 1993-2010, non-fatal violent crime (homicides are the fatal kind), firearms are used less than 10% of the time. Handgun homicides dropped by more than half, now at just 44.4% of what they were in 1993 (going from 13,981 to 6,220) The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144) and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). The data are not cute factoids taken out of context, but instead show a trend in declining violence in America – in overall violent crime (which includes homicides among other violent crimes), in homicides, and in firearm homicides – that has been occurring for more than 37 years. In fact, the homicide rate is lower today than the year 1900.

The facts do not support the gun control advocates narrative that gun crime is increasing. We do not owe this to a decrease in guns: gun sales are soaring and there are more guns in the U.S. today than ever, with estimates ranging from 310 to 350 million. Nor is the decrease because of stricter gun laws. Over the last several decades, more states have adopted ‘Right to Carry’ laws, allowing citizens to legally carry concealed guns. And yet, there is less violent crime, and less homicide, including gun homicide. Consider this: in the middle of this 20-year period we had an assault weapons ban (which the Center for Disease Control and other studies said had no measurable impact), and yet once the ban was lifted, violent crime, and homicide, including firearm homicide still declined. These facts run counter to the claims that less guns equals less crime, or that tighter laws mean less crime. While prominent placement of gun and homicide news stories on news media sites’ homepages and news channels may attract viewership and sell advertising, the truth is that homicide, including gun homicide, and violent crime are going down and have been for several decades. The narrative is disproved by a clear look at the factual data.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Aug 27, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.