We’ve known for some time that the math supports the assertion that more guns in civilian hands means less crime. Now, arriving a little late to the party — but still welcome to join us — is none other than the plugged-in trend trackers at CBS News. A recent report cites the MASSIVE increases in Golden State firearms ownership corresponding to a significant decrease in injuries and murders committed with firearms . . .

California gun sales have steadily risen from 350,000 in 2002, to last year’s record. Recently, some gun owners became worried that President Obama’s reelection and the Newtown shooting will lead to more gun control. Military style weapons have become popular for target practice and self-defense.

Yet despite the rise in gun sales in California, there has not been a corresponding rise in gun deaths or gun injuries. Hospitalizations for gun injuries have actually dropped nearly 28 percent and gun deaths by 15 percent.

Despite? We’d say “because of” but that’s just us. It’s good to see the mainstream media is finally starting to actually do the math instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction and sensationalism we typically see. For once.

Recommended For You

43 Responses to CBS News: More Guns in California, Fewer Dead Bodies

  1. While correlation does not equal causation, it’s good to see that some in the media are noticing that there is not even a positive correlative effect with gun ownership and gun related deaths.

    But what’s the deal with CBS? They were the only news source outside of Fox that reported on F&F and now this report. Is it possible that they’ve broken from the rest of the mainstream media and are now reporting news like a true unbiased newsroom?

    • The problem is that the media is still sticking to it’s bias. Even Fox whiffed on the Mayan 14 theater shooting in San Antonio and the Clackamas mall shooting in Portland. Both of those cases had an armed person confront and the gunman and stop the attack. Still no real coverage.

      And that’s just major stories. We won’t even talk about the daily stories of people protecting themselves. This was in my Facebook feed today and it’s a report of DGU’s during December. Definitely worth a read.

      http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/2423/December-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html

    • CBS had to poison their story though. They just had to finish up with another political… a police chief… stating how he felt such ownership was a danger to his boys in the field.

  2. Could someone hold DiFi down and force her to read this? I suggest a chair like the one in Clockwork Orange with the attachment to hold her eyelids open until she’s read it at least 10 times.

    Oh, and make a looped recording of it and play it outside the congressional offices non-stop for the next week.

    • DiFi’s entire career is founded on opportunism. It is how she got into office, it is how she has stayed in office, albeit with a smaller percent of voters each year. Her agenda has nothing to do with rights or lives or preventing violence, it is about DiFi doing what she thinks will win the next election. Beyond that it’s the usual mix of “power corrupts” narcissism, obsession with control politics, and half-baked new-age spiritualism mistaken for liberal intellectualism.

      • Her entire legacy is based on the AWB. She will be over 80 when this term ends, so her entire career (and ego) depend on this legislation which she is about to introduce.

        • I really dont like to wish harm on people just for sake of doing it but at her age I cant help but wonder if her body can withstand the stress of her current ban, FAILING!

        • I think Hitler and DiFi and Obama have more in common than most think in there thoughts in how to rule over your people.

  3. I was at Big 5 last night. All the tactical looking stuff was pulled from the shelf, but if you wanted it you could still buy it. You just had to talk with the manager. Apparently the company as a whole decided to not sell scary looking stuff. To that end though they had 2 M1 Carbines on the shelf, go figure lol

    • My local Big 5 (in Denver) never carried scary looking rifles except in .22 and of course air rifles. They did have some Mini-14s but are all sold out. However, they still have a very nice selection of tactical shotties.

      They’re sold out of 5.56/.223 ammo except for a couple of boxes of Remington that are even too expensive for panic buyers. I’m sure they’ll be gone before long.

  4. Is there any chance that logic will prevail?

    Just today, the Wall Street Journal ran an article with the headline “We, Too, Are Violent Animals”. This is about the work of Jane Goodall and others which finds “human aggression is an evolved trait”. It also states that lions kill their own and 40% of adult wolves die from attacks by other packs.

    In other news, the Wall Street Journal also asks in a headline, “Have We Lost the War on Drugs?” Right. Because prohibition works so well and laws are such a disincentive to criminals. Just like gun bans. Not.

    History shows that the strong will always prey on the weak. Animal science shows the same. How can it possibly make sense to disarm the weaker among us for the advantage of the criminal and/or stronger?

    While we’re at it, please explain why some want to ban salt, fatty foods and sugary drinks yet allow legal marijuana, alcohol and other substances. There is simply no logic here.

    Most frustrating, anyone who wants to have a reasoned discussion about “reasonable” gun control is now branded unreasonable.

    Will logic prevail? Everyone hoping to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment is hoping not. No questioning allowed, just feelings.

    Don’t you feel better?

    • People want to ban some types of foods because the leading cause of premature death in the US is heart disease at nearly 600,000 in 2009 (the most recent year with complete data from the CDC). Marijuana does not count for anywhere near that number, but of course neither do gun.

      But will prohibition of certain foods work? Of course not. It does not work for marijuana, it did not work for alcohol, it can not work for guns. Laws can not prevent behavior that is socially accepted.

      • Kinda makes me think of all the flak that Paula Dean caught when people found out about her health and realized her cooking is contradictory to it.

        Its kind if like evil black assault cooking shows with high capacity fat contents are forcing diabetics to cook like her

        • Yeah, because I needed revelations about her health to tell me her cooking is bad for me.

          Here’s the thing: I don’t care.

    • Funny thing is, my grandma was required to drink Gatoraid for the sodium content, by her Dr. My wife’s doctor has also instructed her to intake more salt. Reason is, we NEED some in our diets in spite of everyone who would rather see it disappear completely from our dietary intake because it is “unhealthy.”

  5. But didn’t you read the article? The statewide drop in gun injuries and deaths is all because the LA po-po is working so hard:

    “[LAPD Chief Charlie] Beck credits a five-year police crackdown on gangs for the drop in shooting deaths. Gang crimes account for half the homicides in Los Angeles.

    Also, gun buyback programs have taken nearly 10,000 guns off of Los Angeles’ streets since 2009. “

    • Also, gun buyback programs have taken nearly 10,000 guns off of Los Angeles’ streets since 2009.

      More lying with statistics. Irrelevant without knowing how many guns were sold in Los Angeles during the same time frame.

      Oh crap, there I go thinking for myself again.

    • True, the gun buy back programs did take off 10,000 1901 revolvers that the gang members stole. Now they have the money to illegally buy full autos form a little more south of the country.

    • I look at this way:

      Yes, gun buy back don’t work, but why do we really care. Second, if what the PD is saying is true, then it supports our case. Enforce existing laws, go after the bad guys and leave our guns alone. That’s the real fact — if the police do their effing job, gun owners are not the ones to worry about and throws out Fienstien’s entire argument

  6. You guys do know that facts don’t matter when it’s control of the people is what they’re really shooting for. They’re hoping to get enough emotional people to back them and agree and get all guns banned. This is tyranny by the majority if I’ve ever seen it.

    • Reminds me of that time two wolves and sheep went out to lunch. They started by voting on the menu…

  7. “Recently, some gun owners became worried that President Obama’s reelection and the Newtown shooting will lead to more gun control.”

    They live in the Republik of Kalifornia and they’re just now starting to worry about gun control?

    • We have a protest scheduled for January 9th.
      Just look up guns across America on FaceBook.
      Yes even here in California..

    • Are you kidding? California residents know better than most what it means to fight against idiotic gun regulations. We’ve been doing it for decades, at levels of intensity the rest of the country doesn’t begin to match.

      For example, did you know that we have a detailed flowchart explaining exactly how to build a fully CA-legal AR-class rifle, without ever having the rifle in an illegal configuration at any point in the process?

      Did you know that CalGuns Foundation is one of the most active and successful legal-action organizations, on par with the NRA and SAF?

      Yeah, we know a little something about THIS kind of fight. And we don’t at all like what we see.

  8. “When I see that the sales go up, I don’t like that,” said Charlie Beck, chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. “My officers have to face these guns on the street.”

    No, jackass, these are law-abiding citizens buying guns. These are NOT the guns the cops face on the street. I reject the argument that a gun bought legally by a citizen is a gun that ends up pointed at a cop.

    What Beck fails to realize is that prior to the surge in legit gun ownership here in California, the proportion of people who possessed firearms was heavily skewed towards criminals. What has been happening here is that we are finally reestablishing the balance of power between lawful citizen vs criminal, after YEARS of hysterics-fueled media and legislation telling folks that guns were the problem.

    Chicago and other nexuses for violent crime argue that their assault and homicide rates are because criminals can buy guns from surrounding states. Well, millions of Californians have figured out that if only cops and criminals have guns, the way to stop ending up at the bottom of the food chain is to restore the balance by owning guns themselves.

    • Chicago and other nexuses for violent crime argue that their assault and homicide rates are because criminals can buy guns from surrounding states.

      You know the other thing that’s always really annoyed me about this argument? If “lax gun laws” are the problem, why is it that those effects are geographically offset? Why aren’t those demonic guns wreaking havoc where the laws are lax? It would seem to me that if the “easy availability” of guns where really the problem, then it would be the places where you could easily get guns that would be having the 500 murders a year, not the places where it’s virtually impossible.

      Instead, it’s like the guns “commute to work” into Chicago or DC.

    • The only way that math works is if you somehow managed to ensure a 2:1 ratio of criminal-owned guns to law abiding owner guns when you started taking them away. And even then I’m not sure. Maybe 3:1.

    • No, correlation doesn’t imply causation, but certain causal explanations are more or less plausible in light of existing correlations. Crime has gone down to large degree while legal gun ownership has gone up massively. Which causal hypothesis is more plausible: legal ownership of guns reduces crime, legal gun ownership does not affect crime, or legal ownership of guns increases crime?

      Options 1 and 2 are more plausible than 3, especially given what we know about places with very low legal gun ownership (DC, Chicago, etc). And even if 3 is correct, and legal gun ownership does increase crime, it means that other factors are overwhelmingly overpowering it that it, since we’re seeing very large decreases despite it. That means that in none of these possible explanations is there a case for limiting legal gun ownership. In the first case, you’re removing a public good. In the second and third cases, you’re wasting time on an irrelevant issue. In all cases, you’re trampling on a civil right.

      • There are many factors that go into a crime reduction or increase. Gun availability is just one of them, and it tends to increase crime.

        If crime goes down while gun ownership goes up, imagine how far down it could have gone if gun ownership had also decreased.

        • Mikeyb#’s

          Hang on to your pipe dream.

          It’s a stated fact that the old west required bandits to choose their targets carefully, as everybody was armed. When everyone is armed, the bad guy knows the risk of not making it out alive gets too high if they choose to start something.

          It’s a stated fact that gun slingers rarely faced off in the streets. To do so would ensure a very short career. Hollywood’s idea of the old west, or even everything blowing up in more modern action movies is all lie just to build excitement for the viewer.

          These facts are IGNORED by those who don’t care to acknowledge them… Ignoring, however, doesn’t change the facts.

          Another problem with your pipe dream is, criminals will be the LAST to give up a weapon. Law abiding citizens will be at a severe disadvantage.

  9. My stomach went into knots when I read the key where it says “regular citizens.” Might as well just substitute it for the more accurate term, subjects.

  10. How about getting together a group of gun owners in your county and have each one pick a trial of someone in the same who alledgedaly used a gun in an illegal way during a felony. If the perp is sentanced to all crimes charged and does more than 1/2 the time, the member who draws the short straw will hand a firearm over to be destroyed, no gun buyback money needed. We will continue to do so as long as no gun buyback programs are run in our county.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *