Saturday, December 29, 2012

As Firearm Sales Jump in California Injuries and Deaths Related to Guns Fall...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

In sorting it all out as the nation continues the debate on firearms, high capacity magazines and the rest, I thought the following information very pertinent and germain to the discussion.

It seems that while firearm sales have significantly increased in California (2002 - 2011) the number of gun related injuries has declined 25% during the same period.

The Sacramento Bee - Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General's office.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime.

The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.

Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.

These charts show gun injuries, deaths and sales trends over the last ten years. {Continue Reading, Charts Follow}

In any reasonable discussion of firearms control these stats need to be recognized and discussed. As much as the advocates of stricter and tightened gun control laws may not wish to acknowledge these facts they are relevant and therefore need to be included in the discussion. Which is not to say we should do nothing. By the same token the nation should not over react.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. This mirrors the data from D.C.. When they got rid of the gun ban in that community, the murder rate went down.

    1. I know Will. What I find most interesting is the partisans on the left, especially those like Ema and others, who seem to overlook facts that don't neatly fit their template. Thankfully there are those on the right, in the middle, and on the left that are thinking clearly. Therefore it is likely something reasonable and positive will emerge improving firearm safety even further.

    2. It would just be so nice if politicians occasionally provided some empirical data to support their actions and/or got rid of a bad/ineffectual law/program once in a while. Not that I ever expect them to, mind you.

  2. Here's the problem with looking at this issue in this way: When you look at crimes involving firearms in general, and you look at such crime in specific states or cities at any given time with any new or old "gun control" laws, and you look at the various firearm markets, and you compare all these things in every which way, you see that it's very difficult to attribute firearm crimes to the percentage of armed people. Nor can you

    No one is saying that firearm ownership is in itself an evil.

    The problem is that we have an untraceable firearms trade, a pointlessly violent drug war, no national health care - let alone mental health care - system, and almost no federal oversight of a massive interstate and international firearms market. No other market with anywhere near that significance is so publicly ignored.

    This isn't about how many people own guns. There are plenty of examples of the exact opposite results than you guys are pointing out here. It's not an argument that can go anywhere, and there isn't much we can or even want to do about it.

    But we do have to read the friggin' Constitution and realize that our Founders assumption of a well regulated militia means something. We have a massive firearms market that is obviously irresponsible, dangerous, and in many ways corrupted.

    We should be paying attention to that and not squabbling over relatively anecdotal evidence that doesn't at all deal with the causes of the ultimate horrible consequences of all this in the first place.


    1. "We have a massive firearms market that is obviously irresponsible, dangerous, and in many ways corrupted."

      Did you mean the firearms industry or our Federal government?

    2. Bla bla bla. More insipid anti-government idiocy.


  3. Good facts Les. Notice how Jersey avoided them?

    1. Yes, I did tale note.

      I must appologize as I believe I inadvertently deleted your last comment. Either that or blogger had one of its moments.

    2. You took note of what?

      Silver and Les, you are urinating on the Constitution. We have a recklessly unregulated militia, and you guys are fine with that. Like crazy dogs in the woods.


    3. jmj, perhaps you ought to take a look at all the post I have done on this subject. Read them REAL slow if you need to. Let my full words REALLY SINK in.

      Then, speaking only for myself... Take this comment and stuff it where the sun don't shine

    4. Oh, for Christ's sake, get real. Will you conservatives ever be able to make an argument without sleazy, buffet parsing?

      And Les, grow some skin. How did I so offend you with my post?


    5. Like I said jmj, learn to read and comprehend will ya?

      As to growing skin, ya got me laughing at ya really good on that one. After being in supervision and management for 36 years, and listening to the sleazy and profane comments from certain slime ball progressives I'll lay odds I've got a lot thicker skin than you'll ever acquire or grow.

      Ya just don't get it do ya jmj? Oh well, not my problem. Have a Happy New Year.

  4. The issue arises from the conflation, in the interest of brevity, of the two rights into one amendment, and the fact that Congress reversed the order of their inclusion from Madison's original wording.

    ""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

    Of the five states that specifically demanded recognition of the right to keep and bear arms, four of them ( NY, NC, RI, VA ) referenced it first, before any mention of militias. The fifth, New Hampshire, separated it completely by phrasing it as; "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." Two other states, Pennsylvania and Vermont had already ensconced such a right in their state Constitutions.

  5. "Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked."

    Well, lets see, more gun sales does not equate to more gun owners. Logically, gun sales can go up dramatically and gun violence can go down (more guns in the hands of fewer people).

    So, guns sales peaked in California at the same time violent crime peaked. Hmm, that is a statistic everyone seems to gloss over.

    So, exactly what is the purpose of this discussion?

    1. So the peak of gun sales coincided with the high water mark of violent crime which has been in decline ever since. I wonder why?

    2. viburnum,

      No, no, has nothing to do with evil gun sales or ownership. You see people in California are just nicer and more civil than the rest of America. Guns matter not. It's all about peace, diversity training, understanding, and lots of hand-holding. The days of the macho man meanie, with his barrel-chested macho-osity, are over. Now is the era of love and joy and gayness. A kinder, gentler, and more sensitive time has come upon California.

  6. But they lost that debate (individual/militia) and that's not how the 2nd amendment reads.

    1. Did they? As I said on the previous post here, I can find no record of any debate regarding an individual right to 'keep and bear arms' per se. While there is an extensive discussion of militias noted in Madison's notes on the Convention, it took place in the context of delineating the powers of Congress under Article 1 section 8 , the "enumerated powers", and has no bearing on the Bill of Rights which came later.

      If you have other information, please enlighten us.

    2. Anon,

      I am part of this militia. I am part of this invisible army. The Second Amendment empowers me and my kind. But at the end of the day I'm just an individual American.

      Oh my. Has my individuality defied the Second Amendment in that I *gasp!* own legal firearms?

  7. True, and debate regarding individual gun rights is hard to find, because that was not an issue back then. A strong militia was. I have given some instances which shows the intent at the time the amendment was written, the issue was militia, not individual. Please show me some evidence that individual gun rights were more important to the founders, than militia gun rights.

  8. Anon gets it wrong again. The right to bear arms is a preexisting one, and it shall not be abridged, so that is why there is so little to be found about it. It was axiomatic, and therefor not a point of productive debate.

    The bed-wetting gun-grabbers have tried to read an abridgment of our rights into the 2nd Amendment, but they have failed. Don't like it? Amend the constitution.

  9. I would submit to your consideration that it wasn't an issue simply since it was assumed by all that it already existed, and didn't need to be addressed. The men who fought a revolution, in effect to preserve their rights as Englishmen, could hardly be expected to foreswear a right that Blackstone had included as one of "The Absolute Rights of the Individual"

    "The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.: " In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense". "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate 97th Congress February, 1982

    1. Hmm. I am following this thread with great interest and I would like to opine and submit this for consideration.

      Much talk is being made about the Founders and the life they had years ago. I would say that it was not uncommon for men to be in possession of a firearm for hunting, since I would guess back then there weren't exactly grocery stores abundantly found. So here I am, back in the 1770's, in possession of a musket for hunting, but not necessarily for fighting. However, I may have been fighting the British, using said musket. So here's the gist: It is acceptable to own a firearm for hunting (and no one blinks), but to own one for fighting, one must be part of a militia, and if not, then folks give you the hairy eyeball? What separates these two? Mindset and purpose.

      I read the 2nd Amendment telling me I am allowed to possess and bear firearms. It is my right 'of the people'. Simple. Whether I use it for hunting or for the defense of a Free State, it is mine to own.

  10. The problem was automatic weapons easily obtained by anyone Les. Making mass murder convenient is not a good idea. Nobody that can actually do anything is calling for all guns to be outlawed.

    1. Yes Joe, I realize this. My position has been for some time the following.. "In any reasonable discussion of firearms control these stats need to be recognized and discussed. As much as the advocates of stricter and tightened gun control laws may not wish to acknowledge these facts they are relevant and therefore need to be included in the discussion. Which is not to say we should do nothing. By the same token the nation should not over react."

      The key for reasonable conservatives and liberals to focus on is... "Which is not to say we should do nothing. By the same token the nation should not over react."

      Perhaps there is a better chance in crafting sensible and seasonable firearm law than has been the case with regard to the fiscal cliff fiasco.

      (Going off topic here )In this case neither side is really interested in a permanent long term strategy to stop hemorrhaging and start rebuilding. Neither side has the political "balls" to do so. But they will no doubt plug it with a wad of gum and then kick the can down the road a piece like always. Thus saving it for the next congress or next generation.

  11. Yesterdays responses answer all your observations.

    1. Do they?

      What I find most troubling about the view espoused here by you, and elsewhere by many, is the amount of weight given to the positioning of the various clauses in the amendment, as if the mere mention of the militia first automatically subsumes the right to bear arms to existing only within the militia.

      No other right is held to that standard. By that logic the free exercise of religion would take precedence over freedom of speech, and all the atheists who are constantly decrying expressions of faith in the public square should be silenced.

      An absurd example to be sure, but inescapable if mere precedence is the only criteria by which we may judge.

  12. What I find most troubling, is you have no support that the amendment means an individual right, yet, I gave evidence from those who wrote it, that it meant a militia right and protection. The 1792 Congress had a special Act to define and support the militia idea. Do you have similar evidence, that it was not? NO. I asked you, if you disagree, to present similar evidence. You did not. You quote the amendment, but leave out the part (first part) about militias. Simple English tells us about sentence structure, which the founders knew very well. You need to do more reading on the issue, your job , not mine. You righties (you, SF, Don) want to paint me as liberal and against people owing guns. You need to reread my comments from yesterday. You all must have missed the part where I stated I would not support gun bans, nor would the founders. If you are so serious, where is your supporting evidence to oppose what I said, using Congress and the words of the founders as I did. Are we looking to the founders and writers of the Constitution, to define an amendment, or Scalia?

    1. Well, let’s look at the record. In your first comment yesterday you asserted that;
      “There was great debate on whether or not "personal" right was the aim of the amendment. That "personal" right lost out in favor of creating a strong militia.”
      When I later pointed out that the only record of a debate that I could find pertained to the rights of contentious objectors and asked you to cite the source of your statement you did not respond. When again today I pointed out the dearth of evidence for your claim you replied:
      “True, and debate regarding individual gun rights is hard to find, because that was not an issue back then.
      So which was there, great debate or a non issue?

      As for not quoting the Founders I did reference the resolutions of those states that insisted on recognition of the right and you may read them for yourself here
      As for the state Constitutions I mentioned:
      As for not offering any extensive justifications of anything in the Bill of Rights from the pens of Messrs. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, I shouldn’t need to remind one so well versed in American history that you could hardly expect to find them there. Quotations from others abound, Henry, Lee, and Adams spring to mind.
      As for your other assertions, I have not accused you of anything other than insisting that your interpretation is the only one permissible.

    2. As for those quotations from the Founders you were asking about here's a representative sample:

      “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”.
      --- Richard Henry Lee writing in letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

      ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788;

      As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
      --- Trence Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal
      Gazette, 18 June 1789

      Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
      --- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution, 1787

      The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
      --- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution

      That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
      --- Samuel Adams

      " Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

      The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government.
      --- Thomas Jefferson

      The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
      --- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

      Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
      --- James Madison, The Federalist Papers 46

      . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...
      --- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper 29

    3. @viburnum - JOB WELL DONE!! Good links and info. Therefore this sites administrator gives check and checkmate to you. Sorry Anon the preponderance of current evidence overwhelmingly favors viburnums position.

    4. Thanks RN. I thought you might find them interesting and informative.

    5. Those are some of the quotes of the gun debates that I mentioned. Again, they lost out to the militia debate, thus the wording of the 2nd amendment.
      Nice to see you finally are talking serious instead of falsely accusing me of being some liberal gun hater

    6. RN,
      Interesting how the debate you love is to pit us against them now, but not what was said at the time. It's a "Gotcha" point only, for you; not a serious investigation of the facts. I DID mention these kind of statements were debated at the time. You seem to think my point has no varsity, because I would not do the oppositions homework. My point wins. The final decision by the founders was to write a 2nd amendment that reflected the militia argument, which they did. I'll move on to a site that engages in serious debate, not partisan attacks.

    7. RN said yesterday:
      "Your points are most cogent, they carry great rational though.
      RN today said:
      "Sorry Anon the preponderance of current evidence overwhelmingly favors viburnums position."
      All her statements only prove what I said to be correct. There was a debate and the founders sided for the militia wording. The the 1792 Congress backed up that wording by passing the "Uniform Militia Act", not a uniform individual gun rights act.
      Good luck with your blame game discussioins.

    8. It gives me no pleasure to say this; You are nuts, a complete study in instability. Having been banned from other rational sites you are on your way here as well.

      You have no conception of reasonable and are satisfied only when you receive total and complete agreement with your positions. Good luck. You won't find it here. Likely you won't find it anywhere.

      Have a great New Year, and grow up.

    9. Banned from other sites? What sites?
      You are the nut. You are the dishonest debater.
      Now you are an outright liar.

    10. Really? Weighing all of the evidence produced, I have to conclude that they wrote an amendment that protected two rights: That of the states to form militias to defend themselves, especially against the encroachments of the Federal government, which at the time was the greatest fear; and that of the people to possess the means not only to protect themselves, but make the first effective.

    11. And now, to prove my point, you refuse to print my response. Thank you. Would you mind citing the sites you claim I have been banned from? Thought not. Thank you againg, for proving me correct. Now on with your delusional "serious" debate of the issues.

  13. I think that there's a lot of confusion on this issue. a) Real assault weapons are NOT available to the public. b) Semi-automatic weapons sometimes ARE used for hunting. No, you don't need them for a deer but you do for a wild boar, a bear, a moose, or a wolf (cocking a rifle takes time and it causes you to have to re-aim - 2 very dangerous requirements). c) Weapons such as the Bushmaster aren't all that appreciably different from your average hunting rifle. They just look different on the outside because some people like having a weapon that looks like a military weapon. d) 100 round magazines are rarely loaded to capacity because they jam and the military itself actually uses 30 round magazines. e) Semi-automatic rifles are used in less than 2% of all American gun crimes.......People like Ema say that they like facts. Here are some facts.

  14. Les,

    Totally off-topic here. May you and yours have an amazingly incredible wonderful and fulfilling New Year! I shall be eating Chinese food, sitting on the couch with my bride after putting the young-uns to bed, and watching the ball drop. Yes, my life IS that exciting. ;)

    See ya next year.

    1. Back at you my friend! The wife and I will be doing the same. With the exception of the young-uns of course. Grandma and Grandpa took our young-in home this afternoon to Mom and Dad.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.