Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Interesting read regarding guns......

2 posts in this topic

Another Brady hallucination: More guns, more ‘gun violence’ (Part 1)

4 comments February 15, 4:54 PM

by Howard Nemerov, Austin Gun Rights Examiner

« PreviousNext » A recent USA Today article discussed pending legislation on the open carrying of holstered handguns. It also afforded the Brady Campaign’s president an opportunity to display his knowledge of the situation:

Says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which opposes open-carry laws: "We don't want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence." [Emphasis added]

The following series examines various government datasets to test Helmke’s “more guns, more violence” theory.

Examining the 2007 Brady report card

Nearly every year since 2001, the Brady Campaign has published an annual report card, grading states on how well they have implemented what Brady calls “sensible gun laws.” Curiously, most of these report cards ignore Washington, D.C., which consistently owns the highest violent crime rate in the country: It is included here because its population exceeds Wyoming’s and D.C. has enough autonomy to enact its own gun control laws, like any state.

Brady’s 2007 Scorecard contains detailed criteria for determining a state’s score. Using their criteria, Washington, D.C. would have scored around 83, higher than any state, because it has the strictest gun laws in the country. It deserves note that in 2007 (latest final FBI crime data available), this closest model of Brady’s gun control utopia had 3.0 times the violent crime rate and a 5.5 times higher murder rate than the entire U.S. Therein lies the introduction to Helmke’s dilemma.

The first hint that Brady’s scorecard effectively identifies a state’s anti-self-defense environment is Brady’s definition of “common sense gun restrictions.” For example, states earn two points for not enacting what Brady calls a “Shoot First Law” (aka Stand Your Ground), which Brady interprets to mean that law-abiding citizens can use deadly force “as the first resort” when confronted by criminal attackers. Curiously, there are no corresponding points for how well states punish criminals who use deadly force, a criterion that clearly signals a state’s intention to reduce gun violence.

Further evidence of the pro-criminal bias appears when comparing Brady scores to FBI violent crime rates. Including the District of Columbia, nine of Brady’s “Top 10” states restricted concealed carry for law-abiding citizens. Brady’s “Top 10” averaged a violent crime rate of 505.1 (incidents per 100,000 population) and a Brady score of 55.5. Brady’s “Bottom 10,” all right-to-carry [RTC] states, averaged a violent crime rate of 380.3––38.2% lower than Brady’s “Top 10”––and a Brady score of 4.1. More interesting is that Brady’s “Top 10” had an average murder rate of 7.0, while the “Bottom 10” averaged 5.5.

Looking at the entire dataset, RTC states averaged a 400.5 violent crime rate in 2007, a 4.9 murder rate, and an average Brady score of 9.7. Non-RTC states averaged a violent crime rate of 525.0 and a murder rate of 6.8; 31.1% and 38.5% higher, respectively, than RTC states. Helmke considers non-RTC states much safer from “gun violence” because they average a Brady grade of 48.6, five times higher than RTC states.

Some might argue that the non-RTC states might have had even worse crime rates without their restrictive gun laws. Between 2001 and 2007, the national violent crime rate dropped 7.4%. During that same time period, RTC states saw a 7.6% rate decrease, while non-RTC states saw a 6.7% drop. Between 2004 and 2007, the U.S. saw a 0.8% increase in the violent crime rate; RTC states saw a 0.7% increase while non-RTC states experienced a 1.2% increase.

With “more people carrying guns,” right-to-carry states have become safer relative to states with restrictive laws. It would be interesting to see Helmke’s dataset, but in the meantime, part 2 will examine additional government datasets to test his “more guns, more gun violence” hypothesis.


FBI crime data compiled into spreadsheet; email request for Excel workbook.

Every dataset tells a story. For in-depth analysis of anti-rights politicians, see chapter 4 in Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Brady hallucination: More guns, more ‘gun violence’ (Part 2)

3 comments February 19, 9:43 AM

by Howard Nemerov, Austin Gun Rights Examiner

« PreviousNext » In part 1, we cross-referenced 2007 FBI crime data and Brady report card scores, and found that the higher the Brady grade––more “common sense gun restrictions” according to Brady––the higher the murder and violent crime rates.

While this correlation impacts Brady’s credibility as a reputable source for policy advice, the FBI data cited does not directly correlate gun prevalence to violent crime rates. Fortunately, there is a dataset cited by Brady which addresses this issue.

In a previous article, Brady made much of a 2001 survey by the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, as part of their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [bRFSS], which asked respondents from all over the country: “Are any firearms now kept in or around your home? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car, truck, or other motor vehicle.” This article showed that Brady’s “best” states have low levels of gun ownership, and high levels of violent crime and murder, while Brady’s “worst” states have high levels of gun ownership and low levels of violent crime and murder. There is also fatal injury data from the Centers for Disease Control [CDC], which was cited by another pro-gun control organization. Because the BRFSS and CDC are cited by anti-rights groups as credible data sources in determining the value of gun laws, they will be used here to determine if the relative availability of firearms has anything to do with rates of what Brady calls “gun violence,” which means criminals using guns to commit violent acts.

The CDC fatal injury data enables researchers to divide state-level homicide data into firearms and non-firearms causes. Correlating the CDC and BRFSS data highlights any relationship between levels of gun ownership and homicide rates by mechanism. After sorting states by gun ownership rates, the more guns, less homicide correlation remains with the 2001 FBI data, and is confirmed by the CDC data (see table below). There is also a negative correlation between gun ownership and homicides where the murderer used a firearm: more guns, less firearms homicide. What is more interesting is the negative correlation between gun ownership and non-firearms homicide rates: more guns, less non-firearms homicide.

States with the lowest levels of civilian firearms ownership averaged higher non-firearms homicide rates than the total national rate! Their non-firearms homicide rates alone were higher than the TOTAL homicide rates in states with more firearms!

Finally, correlating with the 2001 Brady report card­––they used letter grades in 2001––confirms that states with higher Brady grades have lower firearms ownership rates and do not trust citizens to carry concealed handguns in public.

So the next time somebody suggests to you that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has our safety and well-being at heart because they are the country’s leading proponent in “common sense gun restrictions,” remind them of the following:

· States that Brady considers the safest, based upon their level of restrictive laws, have the highest rates of violent crime and murder, whether that murder is committed using a firearm or not.

· Brady’s definition of “common sense gun restrictions” means that law-abiding citizens have a harder time buying and owning guns, though criminals still use guns more often to kill those same citizens.

· States with the most “common sense gun restrictions” have the highest non-firearms homicide rates in the country because the victims are already disarmed, making other methods more lethal.

· States that Brady says are the most dangerous because there are “more people carrying guns either openly or concealed” have the lowest homicide and violent crime rates, and the lowest levels of firearms homicide.


FBI data compiled into spreadsheet; email request for copy.

Every dataset tells a story. For in-depth analysis of anti-rights politicians, see chapter 4 in Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Posts

    • Best of wishes Bryce! You got this   buddy reporting absolutely bonkers action up in mid Saskatchewan right now. They're still a long ways away boys
    • Made it out again Saturday. The water had turned but the muskies didn't seem to mind. Found them in similar but different locations (baitfish seem to be patrolling the shallows searching for food). Stuck a small one myself and my brother got a nice 41.5" that was thickening up for fall. A lot of people dragging suckers, and buoys are starting to disappear from the lakes so be careful navigating.
    • Went out and grabbed a trail cam today that I left on a piece of public I haven't hunted before. Bucks showing up around that first 30 min of daylight in the last week or two. Rubs and scrapes are showing up everywhere.
    • A D.A. sander and 220 grit. Clean off with the cleaner after, now you just preped the boat for paint as well.
    • That's because you aren't bored sitting in a dorm room having a few beers thinking hey lets put some breast augmentation craap on a fishing forum and see what kind of replies we can get!
    • In my first post.....stressed REPUTABLE poll trackers. Trump twitters everyday about polls saying he is ahead. If you think he is right ....fine .....on topic.....give us your number line.
    • I have been looking at houses for the last five years.  Only thing close to what I want is a Yetti and still not totally sold on them.  Two reasons why i have not bought one,  quality and price.  I cannot justify $20k for one especially if its built with poor craftsmanship.  I will buy someday but I can still catch fish out of my portable.   I think you could get into the market if you can produce a quality product at a fair price.  A lot of good business advice here also.   Unless you have a pile of cash you can afford to lose,  start small and grow as business dictates.
    • That's not what the stories at the time said.  There was definitely a surprise factor there.  And note in the Washington post piece that only 3 of 10 polling organizations called the result within the margin of error.  So, nice try but incorrect. Here's why the majority of Brexit polls were wrong     Why were polls so wrong about Brexit?   Monday, 4 Jul 2016 | 12:17 AM ET | 01:54   It was a result that forced the ouster of the British Prime Minister, sent shockwaves across financial markets and raised doubts over the fate and composition of the European Union. Just how did experts get it this wrong? The U.K. EU referendum vote prompted a global massive market selloff as markets were priced in expecting a remain outcome. More than two trillion dollars were wiped out globally, the largest drop on record. Leading up to voting day, the vast majority of polls predicted the remain side would prevail, however the final results gave the leave side a victory margin of more than one million votes. According to SurveyMonkey's Chief Research Officer, Jon Cohen, young voter turnout and the death of Lawmaker Jo Cox are the likely largest factors in the discrepancy between polls and the final outcome. "The Remain campaign was heavily dependent on support among younger voters and they simply didn't show up," Cohen told CNBC. The murder of Cox in the days leading up to the vote, triggered new challenges in polling, even though it was difficult to determine how the tragedy would influence polling. "After the assassination, the Remain side became more vocal and were willing to share their opinions about Brexit than were leave voters," Cohen said. "It was a very difficult environment to gauge an opinion in." John MacDougall | AFP | Getty Images A poster featuring a Brexit vote ballot with 'out' tagged is on display at a book shop window. Yet many are wondering, how in an age of unprecedented information and data, could the majority of polls predict a wrong outcome. "The polls really showed a close-in contest until the very end," Cohen clarified. "But I think we still need to dig in on what happened in those final days to show such a strong movement for Remain that ultimately dissipated on election day." The inaccurate Brexit prediction is just one of multiple misses over recent years, including last year's U.K. general election, the Scottish referendum in 2014 and most recently during Bernie Sanders' upset over Hillary Clinton during the Michigan primary......   Here’s why pollsters and pundits got Brexit wrong By Chris Hanretty June 24
      A European Union flag, with a hole cut in the middle, flies at half-mast outside a home in Knutsford Cheshire, Britain. (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images) Late Thursday night, voters in the English city of Newcastle chose to remain in the European Union. Pollsters had predicted that voters there and elsewhere in Britain would have voted Remain by a considerable margin. In the end, Remain won by the tiniest of margins, taking 50.7 percent of the vote in Newcastle. Over the next six hours, results from across the United Kingdom showed that British voters were tearing up the script and starting again. Not only did they turn out to vote at higher rates than in any previous U.K.-wide referendum, they also voted to Leave at higher rates than most had predicted. In the end, almost 52 percent of voters chose to exit the European Union.   Before we move on to discussing the consequences of this shock vote, it’s important to think about what this says about our ability to predict, and render intelligible, referendums of this kind. There are four main points to make. First, we did not see this coming. For some weeks now, Stephen Fisher and Rosalind Shorrocks have been tracking referendum forecasts. They consider a wide range of sources, from forecasting models based on polls, to citizen forecasts, to betting markets. None of these methods saw a Leave outcome as the most likely outcome. Ordinary citizens came closest, putting the probability of ‘Brexit’ at 55.2 percent, closely followed by an average of polls at 55.6 percent. The least accurate forecasting method was to infer probabilities from betting markets. Fisher and Horrocks, on their morning of poll update, reported an implied probability of just 23 percent. Ninety minutes after the close of poll, this market-derived probability had fallen to just 11.3 percent. Second, this was not a systematic polling failure of the same magnitude as last year’s U.K. general election, where opinion polls badly underestimated the Conservatives’ chance of victory. There are very many ways to combine polls, but a simple average of the last poll released by each polling company predicts that Remain would get 51 percent, three percentage points off the final result. Three of 10 polling companies published final figures which were within the margin of error of the final result. Two of these companies conducted their polling online, and generally online polls — which had provided lower figures for Remain throughout the campaign — were more accurate. Although the polling industry would have preferred to have nailed it “on average,” they have not performed as badly as they did last year, and remain acutely aware of the potential ways in which their polls can fail.
    • BlackLundPro gets his 4th weekly win of the year this week. 3rd, 9th, 11th, and 19th place along with 5 qualifying points from Keselowski earned his team 319 points. Congrats BlackLundPro!   BlackLundPro - 319 Huckfin - 310 juneau4 - 288 Fishin-Novice - 282 Jar Jar - 239 88fan - 223 cat-man - 223 musky999 - 219 jwhjr - 217 mnwildman - 217 gregg52 - 205 fishing star - 204 yaggie - 190 Rip_Some_Lip - 189 Airjer - 149 SwivelDigger - 137 Moose - 11   Total Points 1  Fishin-Novice  9,068 2  musky999  8,903 3  gregg52  8,852 4  jwhjr  8,767 5  Rip_Some_Lip  8,702 6  mnwildman  8,648 7  88fan  8,607 8  BlackLundPro  8,546 9  yaggie   8,499 10  Huckfin  8,487 11  fishing star  8,400 12  SwivelDigger  8,357 13  juneau4  8,318 14  cat-man  8,308 15  Jar Jar  8,280 16  Airjer  8,195 17  Moose  6,783
    • Were the stories different?  Or just the headlines?   Sometimes stuff changes during a press run at any newspaper.  What was the date?  And who pointed it out?   Putin? 
  • Our Sponsors