As the data for 2023 continues to roll in, the evidence is mounting to support the claims of gun rights activists that guns do indeed save lives. This recent article from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) lays out the argument from the most recent data:
Data posted at the Gun Violence Archive website shows 2023 produced fewer homicides, suicides, and gun-related injuries than in 2022, which indicates expansion of permitless carry laws, allowing more people to carry firearms for personal protection, did not result in more bloodshed as anti-gunners predicted.
The CCRKBA noted that GVA data traditionally drives the narrative from the gun prohibition lobby and its allies in the establishment media. The GVA is typically the first, if not only source quoted in news reports when the subject is related to violent crime.
“So far this year,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “there has been an odd silence from anti-gunners who were drowning us with ‘Chicken Little’ predictions of mass mayhem now that we’ve got more states with permitless carry. But the data from their favorite source doesn’t support those claims.”
According to the GVA data, 2023 produced fewer homicides (18,906) than in 2022 (20,396) and fewer suicides last year (24,090) than the year before (27,038). The overall numbers reflect the reductions: 42,996 people died as a result of so-called “gun violence” in 2023, down from the 47,434 victims listed by the GVA for 2022.
Click here for the complete story.
While I generally don’t believe that guns being everywhere necessarily lowers crime it damn sure doesn’t cause it.
Approximately 30,000 firearm related deaths every year. Remove suicide and accidental death and that number drops to about 16,000. About 1/2 that is gang related.
Firearms used in self-defense every year saves over 500,000 people from injury or death. Not my statistics, but the CDC’s. So, Yes, more guns save lives! Fact!
I appreciate, accept and agree with this article. But that is a side-effect. Even if guns increased crime the govt still has no ability to limit them. Outccomes do not determine rights.
Exactly this, 💯%.
I’ve said for years, even if EVERY other person in America voted to do away with the carrying of firearms in public, I would still do it.
What others choose to do is for THEM to decide. It’s a natural right that CANNOT be taken away, so I will choose for myself.
“It’s a natural right that CANNOT be taken away, so I will choose for myself.”
How would one define “cannot”?
I can answer that in four words.
Come and take it.
sambo…perhaps cannot be taken away meant shall not be infringed?
Joe’s favorite three letter word: c-a-n-t.
How many times have you been arrested for carrying concealed?
If the answer is zero, tell me all about it kind Sir.
As for me I proudly state twice, one more time and I’d have been a felon. Lucky for me this state went constitutional carry, however that wouldn’t have mattered because if caught the third time I’d have got out of prison and continued carrying a weapon anyway.
Even though Our Constitution declares we have the Right to Bear Arms the courts don’t see it that way.
Oh I suppose they would drop or reduce the charge if a person where to have enough money, money does get things done in court, right OJ.
Justice is Blind?
Whole lot of people here raked Jennifer over the coals for using GVA numbers. And today it’s crickets. Who would have thunk it.
“A whole lot of people here racked Jennifer over the coals”.
So they had a barbque and nobody invited me.
Typical.
Why bother? We know you won’t show up.
You wait until it gets dark, knock the trash cans over, pull out all the bags, then proceed to strewn the contents all over the driveway and lawn.
Nobody wants to clean that mess up.
Nothing wrong with using the GVA against itself, no different that using Gun Control against itself…When throwing the stones you cite some people on this forum had ulterior motives.
Certainly no rise in shootings just a mile away in Indiana with so-called constitutional carry. I’d think if yer not a total imbecile you’d realize a whole bunch of folks gotta gat. And legally too. Meanwhile in Ill annoy it’s always he!! week. “Safety act” lunacy.
I thought that was because Indiana exported most of their guns to Chicago gangbangers.
Violent Criminals and insane Gun Control zealots are two peas in a pod…
YOU ARE MUCH “LESS SAFE “FROM HOMICIDE OR SUICIDE IF A GUN IS IN THE HOME.
You are 35 times more likely to die of suicide if a gun is in the home and you have almost a zero chance of survival if you do shoot yourself as compared to other forms of suicide. All this has been verified numerous times by the number of people saved by first responders that used another means other than a gun to try and kill themselves with.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
Results:
Of 595 448 cohort members who commenced residing with handgun owners, two thirds were women. A total of 737 012 cohort members died; 2293 died by homicide. Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female.
Conclusion:
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
Did you wash your hands after pulling that out of your rectal orifice?
Next dacian proves having a fire extinguisher makes you more likely to die in house fires.
If you’ve read 4 or 5 of his comments, then you’ve read them all. There must not be enough room in its brain for copying any other ideas.
dacian the demented dipsh*t,
Even if your bogus statistics were true (they aren’t), aren’t you always touting your superior expertise with handguns??? Does this explain why you are an unhappy incel???? Or is it your contention, Mr. Dipsh*t, that only YOU, with your (allegedly) ‘superior knowledge’, should be allowed to own handguns. And is it your contention, Mr. Dipsh*t, that intelligence and skill (even assuming you HAD either of those things, which we all know you don’t) PRECLUDE you acting improperly??? Remember, before you respond, to differentiate between “accidental” (read, “negligent”) shootings and intentional shootings, and then consider which is more likely with an undertrained/inexperienced shooter.
FINALLY, Mr. Dipsh*t, since MOST of the regular commenters on this site (other than you and MajorLiar) regularly, yet casually, talk about the training they’ve received/regularly engage in, WHY ARE YOU PRESUMING TO LECTURE TO US about this?? Shouldn’t you be out there browbeating the noobs???? (And, given that Senile Joe is an even BETTER gun salesman than the Lyin’ Hawaiian, there are LOTS of those out there!)
Or are you just an illogical, uneducated ignoranus??? I think we ALL know the answer to that, you drooling quarter-wit.
@James Campbell
“I can answer that in four words.
Come and take it.”
Seems that if you lose that gambit, all one’s rights would expire. “Cannot” is not synonymous with ” Not constitutionally authorized”.
Yes, “ones” rights would expire.
But NOW, the infringing parties get to deal with all the other people on that hill they stepped onto.
You see Sammmy, this is a hill many people are willing to die on.
Hope they send bachelors. 🤔
“You see Sammmy, this is a hill many people are willing to die on.”
I’ve heard the rumors, but actual incidents seem to be suppressed by all media.
Point in question is the misuse of a term, a word. “Shall not be infringed” is not the same, in meaning and effect, as “Cannot be infringed”.
“Shall not” means lack of authority, or permission. “Cannot” indicates a capability, or lack thereof.
If we want the anti-gun mob to be precise in describing features of firearms, it is on us to be precise in our language.
sambo…Cannot, Shall Not falls along the lines of those wanting to nitpick, Well Regulated.
With over 450 million firearms in circulation, the media is 100 percent INCAPABLE of controlling the signal.
The logistical magnitude of the task will telegraph it to anyone with a brain stem.
How many confiscation agents would be required for that volume of firearms? How many vehicles to sweep the country? How many staging sites?
Every single interaction with the public will result in hundreds of people being informed via the grapvine (family, friends, neighbors). Texas just booted .gov agents off fed land near the border.🤔
Yeah, I stand behind my choice of words.
CANNOT!
Further, how will the .gov pay the MASSIVE group of agents? News flash, they’re broke.
Fiat money? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Or a FedBitCoin? Electronic Fiat money that can disappear by changing a “0” to a “1”.
The fed.gov can’t finance a class trip to the zoo FCS.
I think the media would portray the guy on the hill as a fruitcake arsenal owner and we should thank our lucky stars law enforcement took him out before he really did something bad.
Remember the guy who blew up his house.
That may have been his hill, however when that article was brought to our attention here on TTAG a lot of commenters did just that and arm chair quarterbacked the reason the fruitcake blew up his house.
A one man army doesn’t last to long. And militia’s are evil.
I don’t know if more gunms equal less crime but it certainly does equal the playing field.
I never could understand why criminals could carry weapons and ” The System” wanted me unarmed.
@Debbie W.
“sambo…perhaps cannot be taken away meant shall not be infringed?”
Words have meaning, do they not? Being jailed “can” be an effective method of suspending RTKBA; negating “cannot”.
Hyperbole can sometimes reduce us to the level of the anti-gun mob sloganeering; not a good look.
There are lots of weapons in jail.
“There are lots of weapons in jail.”
As there should be. Everyone has a natural, human and civil right to self-defense, that cannot be taken away.
sambo…you see what you want to see and that is one word, “Cannot.” Reality is there are 4 words chained together.
Being as History Confirms Gun Control is Rooted in Racism and Genocide there has to be a line drawn between tyranny and your Freedom. Instead of focusing on the word Cannot focus on the words Racism and Genocide and perhaps for once weigh what Gun Owning Citizens are up against.
“sambo…you see what you want to see and that is one word, “Cannot.” ”
Indeed I do. The word “cannot” claims an untruth, and is completely unrelated to gun control history (being born and raised in Dixie, the history of gun control is well known and understood; don’t need no schoolin’ ’bout that)
There is a real difference between “cannot” and “shall not”. American english is sloppy enough, without completely misusing it.
@Debbie W.
“…Well Regulated.”
And?
MYTH: Most studies show that more guns mean less crime
Summary:
Researcher John Lott falsely claims that two-thirds of peer-reviewed literature shows concealed carry laws reduce crime.
Lott’s false claim relies on obsolete work and studies in which right-to-carry (RTC) laws are not the variables of interest.
Most studies with a national scope published since 2005 find that RTC laws increase crime, particularly aggravated assaults. In short, more guns in public means more crime.
https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/more-guns-mean-less-crime/
@James Campbell
“Yeah, I stand behind my choice of words.
CANNOT!”
Yet it happens everyday.
I agree with your overall analysis as to the magnitude of attempting to disarm the public, however……
“Cannot” is an all encompassing term, allowing no exceptions. And we all know there are exceptions.
Seems we are at an impasse on the use of words, you are free to say,”to-mah-toe”, while I say, “to-may-toe”.
Cheers
As stated previously. They don’t have the manpower. Even if they did, a significant percentage would refuse to perform confiscations. Scaling it up to achieve the task would result in it blowing up in their faces.
Enjoy that word salad Sammy.👍
“As stated previously. They don’t have the manpower. ”
Tactically, “they” don’t need overwhelming manpower. No one is an island, and tentacles of govt power extend everywhere. The next “civil war” will be fought differently.
However……
We are perceiving things differently. “Cannot” promises large scale operations. I am more focused on individuals, people who have certainly had their “rights” constrained, contained, effectively rendered unavailable.
“Rights” don’t exist in a cosmic vacuum. Govt coercion can end a person’s “rights”. While one may have “rights” academically, such rights are useless when power is the determining factor.
One can have the “right of free speech”, but govt can negate that right through rules, regulations, policy and procedures, all the while not actually binding you from speaking.
To borrow dialogue from a TV show, “On paper, the law is a purer thing.” You have a 6th Amendment right to counsel, not the right to the best counsel, but the entire government has the money to make your right to counsel pointless (as do large corporate entities)
Note: the Waco affair proved there are sufficient numbers of LE and military who would willingly (eagerly?) turn their weapons on fellow citizens, simply because LE and military were ordered to do so. There is no evidence those individuals were hand-picked due to refusals in the ranks to carry out orders.
James,
The one thing your argument lacks is a knowledge of exactly HOW the government works its authoritarian magic. Just to take ONE example, the SEC, even backed by DoJ and the Feebs, doesn’t have CLOSE to the resources to actually control fraud and stock manipulation. BUT, the SEC long ago learned (they were doing it all along, but then along came Stanley Sporkin, who was an expert at it) that the way you played that game is to ONLY pursue the cases that (i) you were pretty sure you could win, and (ii) would get BIG HEADLINES. 99% of the SEC’s effectiveness at enforcement comes from the headlines – like the very public arrest of Sam Bank-Fraud.
NO, the federal government does not have the ability to do a mass disarmament of America . . . nor will they try. There aren’t enough ATF and Feeb goons to make a dent in it, it would be like trying to drain the Pacific with a teaspoon. And, if they tried a MASS disarmament (which, even with our Administration @$$-kissing media) would be obvious to everyone, people WOULD start fighting back (not all of them, and that was part of Sam’s point, and mine – the government ‘enforces’ its edicts far more by publicity and stochastic terrorism than by actual enforcement actions, but those headlines make people hesitate to defend their rights).
No, and I think Sam would agree, the gummint CANNOT come and round up all the guns, all at once. So that isn’t their strategy. They pick off the “low hanging fruit”, make headlines, intimidate the timid, and try to use their Kabuki theater skills to make it LOOK like “normal law enforcement” (with just a hint of thug intimidation), and keep chipping away at our rights.
So, as to the body of ‘American gun owners’ as a whole? They haven’t got a chance. As to continuing their OBVIOUS strategy of going after the low hanging fruit, and continuously chipping away at our rights? Well, that kinda depends on US, dunnit?? So far, I’d say they’re doing better than we are, on a practical level.
To mirror their tactics, having a couple of the more egregious “SWAT-style” raids massacred would definitely put a dent in their enthusiasm for that tactic, but . . . who wants to go first??
to The Lamp that went out in his head
Someday Lamp when you get out of high school you may wake up to reality. The Government will outlaw one category of firearms at a time. Most people have families and jobs and they are not about to go to prison, pay a large fine, lose their jobs and assets and be banned for life from owning any gun. It’s not worth it for a toy in the closet they only shoot maybe once a year at the range. This is reality and easily understood by sane people which of course lets you out of the conversation altogether.
Yes there will be a few nut cases like yourself that will not obey the new law but people like me will turn you in and it will make good entertainment on the 6:00 News when they send in a flame thrower tank and french fry you on the news program.
The Trumpite fanatics on Jan 6th found out quickly that even their own families and neighbors turned them in to be arrested, tried and imprisoned. You will not get that luxury because you are too far gone mentally to come out with a white flag in your hand.
@Dude
“Joe’s favorite three letter word: c-a-n-t.”
Favorite, until you put it on a teleprompter.
The cat has been out of the bag on firearms for a couple centuries. There is no possible way to rid the US or the world of firearms.
Point blank, the old saw about an armed society is a polite society is closer to the truth than the anti gun/disarmament crowd realize.
Crap about preventing suicides or preventing crime is nothing but pure bovine excrement.
Gun control is and always has been about control and not firearms. Just as the claims that giving up rights will somehow keep anyone safe or protect the children.
Perhaps the anti gun/disarmament crowd should read the Constitution and BOR.
As well as the Federalist Papers. Then take an honest look at the actual history and results of the Marxist/progressive crap they’re trying to peddle.
MYTH: Most studies show that more guns mean less crime
Summary:
Researcher John Lott falsely claims that two-thirds of peer-reviewed literature shows concealed carry laws reduce crime.
Lott’s false claim relies on obsolete work and studies in which right-to-carry (RTC) laws are not the variables of interest.
Most studies with a national scope published since 2005 find that RTC laws increase crime, particularly aggravated assaults. In short, more guns in public means more crime.bb
https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/more-guns-mean-less-crime/