Crime plummeted in the US while the number of guns skyrocketed.
Previous Post
Next Post

“For gun control backers, there is a direct link between the number of guns in the country, the strength of the National Rifle Association’s lobbying efforts to keep any further gun restrictions from becoming law and the number of mass shootings in the country. For supporters of gun rights, there is simply no tie between violence committed with guns and the availability of the guns themselves.” – Chris Cillizza in Why mass shootings don’t change the politics of gun control, in 1 Trump quote [via]


Click here for more information about IMI System Ammunition

Entries will be added to TTAG’s mailing list and shared with IMI Systems

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. No statistical conclusions can be drawn from mass shootings, nor can correlation-causation links be established with mass shootings, because they simply are not a statistically significant input to overall homicides (firearm-involved or otherwise) – that is, you cannot demonstrate a statistically significant variance related to mass shootings. They’re simply too rare – too small of a sample size, based on the overall population of data.

    • Sure, as compared to overall murder rates, that is true. In that case the statistical conclusion one can determine is that they are statistical anomalies. Yet, among themselves, I believe there are a host of statistical data which may be derived. Such as the high percentage perpetrated with a rifle vs. handgun or the percentage which occur where others are prohibited from carrying (soft targets) vs. hard targets. And of course, skipping the odd raghead terrorist attack, why are we not looking deeper into the use of psychoactive medications and their long term effects?

      • The data is there on the psych drugs, it’s just that the BIG PHARMA has the Gumit in their pockets to suppress the data. Virtually every mass shooting has that as the common link and the side effects of suicidal / homicidal thoughts on those drugs. Just look at the present catastrophe of opioid addiction! Legal drug pushers.

    • There are certainly useful stats that can be taken from most mass shootings. Primarily…they occur in gun free zones. The majority of shooters (6 out of 10) in the worst (most fatalities) mass shootings in the last decade have not been white (as the main stream media would like you to believe). About the shooters themselves- all are either mentally ill, pure evil and/or Liberal Terrorists™. And finally- most mass shootings (as defined by the fbi, involving 4 or more victims) occur in democrat controlled ghettos, by black democrat voters, using illegally obtained firearms, by prohibited persons and are fully supported (SNAP, welfare, healthcare and section 8) by democrat policies.
      The first step towards eliminating violence in America, ironically, is through the extreme use of violence to eliminate democrats. And yes, I’m serious.

      • “The first step towards eliminating violence in America, ironically, is through the extreme use of violence to eliminate democrats.”

        No need to get *that* drastic. (Yet.)

        First, we invite them to immigrate to countries that share their their values on “gun safety”.

        After all, they are constantly telling us how unhappy they are are here. If this was a marriage, there would be a divorce.

        “And yes, I’m serious.” (Using violence on Democrats)

        Well, if they insist on not leaving and going to where the political climate meshes with their expectations…

        • Not sure why you expect this to be evaporated. I’ve seen literally dozens of comments here advocating war with America’s enemies, all over the world. That would also include calls here at home for Civil War. The real problem is that some of us still consider these people fellow Americans, their neighbors, friends, colleagues, team mates, and even relatives, when they are nothing more than domestic enemies and Liberal Terrorists™ that pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic.

    • A couple replies have indicated that they believe that useful statistics can be drawn from the data collected about mass murders themselves. I would argue that the sample size is too small to draw any statistically significant conclusions from them. Your margin for error will just be way too high to rely on the results for anything important. You can use the stats as talking points, but to try to assert that they represent any sort of ground truth is certainly a misrepresentation of any conclusion’s statistical significance.
      Sure, it seems like they are typically in GFZs, and it seems fairly common for the perpetrators to be on diazepam, for example. But trying to represent either of those as anything more than, effectively, anecdotal conclusions is a pretty big stretch.

  2. There are no dangerous weapons. Only dangerous men. Genocides were conducted before the first ounce of gunpowder came on the scene. In france more than 80 people were killed with a truck.

    Think about that for a moment. The total killed in the church and LV just about equaled the number killed in a single incident with a truck.

    The people backing gun control are on the wrong side of history. They are just wrong. The people at the top of the anti gun movement know this. They are simply playing their followers for fools.

    • There are no dangerous weapons.
      Oh yes there are. But in premise I agree. Came across this little barb which seems apropos.


      I wish we could go back in time and uninvent the gun.
      Because then, bigger stronger men who could swing swords and axes harder than their enemies would go back to ruling the world.
      No more of this bullshit female “empowerment” and all minorities would be enslaved just the way they were meant to be.
      Without having disgusting guns to fight back, the weak and disenfranchised would have never forgotten their place in life, a life they should be thankful they were even allowed to have to begin with.

    • It’s very simple.

      Abolish governments.

      In the absence of “legitimate” institutions using force and coercion to literally steal trillions and kill millions, any group of people who would resort to these types of tactics would immediately be seen for the naked tyrants they are and be able to be put down at the earliest instance.

      This is not “an-cap pants on head retarded”. Every day we wake up and live in a relatively peaceful world because our culture has decided that this is how we want to live and interact with each other. Events like the church shooting show that we live this way not because of police or government apparatus but in spite of it. And furthermore the absence of the institution does not mean the absence of the principles. It does not mean lawlessness. It just means that each man is responsible for upholding the things (liberty) he holds dear and not outsourcing them to a 3rd party who is unaccountable and psychotic.

      • Maybe during Christ’s 1000 year reign this will be true, until then, I will keep my guns. Taking guns will NOT keep Humans, or any other being, from violence. These things have always happened, but in modern civilization, they are not as prevalent.
        Instant news is what makes people believe that the world is more dangerous, but human to human violence is down in our country. If it weren’t guns, it would be something else. The mass killers want their name out there, we need to hide their name like we do victims of sex related crimes.

        • rt66Paul –

          If you were replying to my comment, I just want to clarify that in no way, shape or form would I ever advocate for disarming any private person.

          What I AM saying is to abolish all governments and take away their collective power to steal and kill. That power only belongs in the hands of each individual human being. If a gang of individuals collect together to commit an evil deed against another peaceable group of individuals then it is up to those individuals to eliminate the evil offenders.

          But by erecting “governments” to supposedly carry this out on our behalf all we’ve really done is give the power to the very people who would form the gang to steal and kill in the first place. And now, rather than just being rank criminals, they are given names like “president” and “congressman” and “supreme court justice”. I am arguing that these are merely euphemisms for “murderer”, “thief”, “brigand”, etc.

          If you weren’t replying to my comment then disregard. I’ve made my point.

    • No, all weapons by their very nature are dangerous, and there are some very dangerous tools that are not weapons (ever seen the aftermath of someone letting a router get out of control? Don’t tell me that’s not a dangerous tool). Do not deny that there are dangerous implements abound that can cause carnage if used carelessly or maliciously, regardless of their intended use.

      But that’s not relevant at all. It is up to the user to accept the risk of using a dangerous instrument and the consequences of misuse. Simply denying that there’s no dangerous weapons does nothing.

    • Keep in mind, the anti gunners are calling for banning AR-15 civilian rifles and other models of civilian rifles because they can kill a lot of people in a mass shooting…..then, when that is accomplished, they will go after semi auto pistols…the Virginia Tech killer used two pistols and murdered 32 people….the Luby’s Cafe killer used 2 pistols and murdered 22 people. The exact same argument today against the AR-15 civilian rifle, will be used to take semi auto pistols. I saw an article by an anti gun journalist…he was in a Texas Diner where he stated he saw a man open carrying a revolver….and another open carrying a “Weapon of War”…..what was that weapon of war….a common semi auto pistol…but because it had a magazine..he called it a war weapon….we need to stay ahead of the anti gunner word games….

  3. What changed? All things being equal, guns have always been a part of our heritage. Semi-automatics have been readily available for what, 100 years or more? Yet this sickness is new. Perhaps going back to the mid 1980’s? So what changed? IMHO our society has been transformed from a Judeo-Christian morality base to a liberal anti-God, do whatever feels good, self aggrandizing mess. We are raising generations who have no real world coping skills and utopic expectations (delusions) of self worth without having to work hard for their gains. To me, liberalism is the disease which infests our nation and until we address this issue things will only get worse.

      • Cain is trying to show cause and effect when the relationship is tenuous at best. One doesn’t have to be a Christian, or religious at all, to respect the right of others to live their lives in peace and safety. On the other hand, being a Christian is no guarantee that a person will. I’m sure many, if not most, of the members of the Ku Klux Klan attended church regularly in between terror raids on black people. Ditto for Nazis in Germany during Hitler’s regime.

        • It’s more complicated than your characterization and the author didn’t say what you’re trying to boil it down to.

          Think of it more like vaccinating people. Not everyone has to be vaccinated for everyone in a group to get the benefits of vaccinations. But, if less and less people vaccinate you eventually reach a tipping point where not enough people are vaccinated for the umbrella of vaccination to cover the group anymore. Similarly, while there have always been people who didn’t share the Judeo-Christian ethos that the society in the US has been built upon, the numbers were small enough to not to “derail” things. But, as less and less people buy into the Judeo-Christian ethos you eventually reach a tipping point where things run off the rails.

          Note, you don’t have to be a Christian to believe in and adhere to a Judeo-Christian ethos, nor does claiming Christianity make you an adherent of the Judeo-Christian ethos.

      • It’s an interesting hypothesis, but if you take it seriously it would mean that Europe should have far more violence and mass shootings than happen in the states, and that just isn’t the case.

    • The population size increased to the point where rare events happen more often for one thing. I also suspect that just the fact that people are less busy doing what they need to do to survive also plays a part – “idle hands are the devils workshop” for some people. These probably just account for part of the reason but I imagine that they are significant.

      • Larger population, yes, but there’s another factor (though I don’t have any nice graphic to illustrate it), and that’s the growing disparity in wealth in the country. For people to see a structure such as the U.S. has where wealth generates more wealth without even any work required while the majority work their butts off and get no noticeable change in circumstances, the result is feeling that the system has betrayed people and their futures are being robbed. And that results in anger, often anger with no reachable target, which basic psychology tells us means people will lash out.

        And when we make those who have lashed out in a certain way become famous, that method attracts more people.

        Neither motive is rational, but as the recent winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics has managed to hammer home quite well, humans are not at root rational, but emotional.

  4. The violence problem boils down to mental illness, pure evil and Liberal Terrorists™. It’s no coincidence that Liberal Terrorists™ suffer from both afflictions, without exception. Funny how the NRA gets blamed for these mass murders, but I can’t recall one ever being an NRA member. Ironically, if it wasn’t for an NRA member/instructor and his “assault rifle” with a “high capacity clip” (smh) this God hating, anti-American democrat (he is until proven otherwise) would have continued killing more innocent people.

  5. We also have more cars per capita but not as many car bombs as say Iraq or Bali.

    Does that also suggest anything.

    It’s all political nonsense

  6. Regardless of the argument being made here, allow me to note the glaring problem with that graph: it was intentionally sensationalized to make it look like gun ownership is skyrocketing through the roof, when in reality the gun ownership went up five tenths (from 0.94 to 1.45) while the homicides dropped 34 tenths (From 7.0 to 3.6). Someone sneakily overlaid two graphs with completely different scales (one side rises by a tenth per section and the other side rises a whole digit per section) and tried to form comparisons between them. If they were placed on the same X and Y axis with the same scale, you’d see the gun ownership line barely crawl upward, while the homicide line steeply plummet. A 1.45 should end up much lower than 3.6, but here we are, staring at a trash graph.

    • “but here we are, staring at a trash graph.”

      Wait – Are you telling me someone would *deliberately* mis-interperate data to mislead (read, *lie*) to push a political agenda?

      This is my (not in *any* way) shocked face…

    • So gun ownership went UP 50% from original number (at least, most gun owners will NOT admit it when asked by poller). Meanwhile murders went DOWN 50% from original number. The graph is scaled to showcase this fact. Why would you try to use the same scale?

  7. I can fix this.

    “For gun control backers, there is a direct link between Shannon’s Sugar Daddy’s dollars, democrat party politicians exploiting tragedies for political gain and their moronic belief in their own moral superiority. For supporters of gun rights, there is reality.”

  8. It was not and never has been about firearms it’s about control and the desire for some to cede their safety to others because they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves.
    Why should I assume that I can depend on other for my personal safety when I know it’s a numbers game. What are the odds that I will be able to call for help and what are the odds that an officer will arrive in time to stop the attack not just take a report and move on the the next call.
    People are generally bad at looking at the odds, when you have a 1 in 292,201,338 of winning at power-ball people think maybe it could be me. In my area there were 334 violent crimes for every 1,000 people (2012 data) which has more likely odds of affecting me? You see people lines up to get their “winning” numbers every time the jackpot get above a certain point all the while thinking it could be me but when someone gets beaten in the streets or raped it’s that never happens here or it only happens to someone else.

  9. Everyone agrees that it’s wrong to attack another. Where people differ is the response to an attack. Pro-gunners believe that it’s right to fight back. Anti-gunners don’t. In their minds, fighting back is just as wrong as attacking. That’s a philosophical rift I see no way to bridge.

    • That’s the trouble with civilization. There just isn’t enough dangerous things around to eliminate those who are unwilling to defend themselves, preferably before they procreate. They keep polluting the gene pool with their weakling non-thinking.

      We, humans, didn’t get to the top of the food chain by being non-violent pansies. And since we don’t grow sharp teeth and talons, we need tools to defend ourselves. Best tools our overgrown brains could design.

  10. Why do you all keep pointing to statistics and numbers? You do realize leftists don’t wage wars with reason or logic. This is why all of their beliefs appeal to morons.

    You need to get some crying women on stage 24/7 and talk about how guns empower minority groups to not be victims, how it stops rapes and murders, how only racist bigot misogynists would dare try to implement gun control because they want to stop minorities and victims from defending themselves.
    Nevermind that this all may be true, you need to have a bunch of whiny cry-babies saying all this and shout “won’t anyone think of the children [that we didn’t abort out of our hedonism]!?!”

    If it works for libs when they lie, then it should work fairly well for the rest of us telling the truth.

    You need to use arguments that are manipulative, emotional and routinely use logical fallacies like the left learned to do. You need arguments which appeal to your gender-questioning retarded blue haired whale family member.

    The new puritans are the left.

Comments are closed.