Top Secret

Shhh.  You didn’t get it from me.

Oh, why the cloak and dagger?  Because apparently I’m revealing a state secret.  Or at least that’s how the media’s treatment of the story feels.

It’s the story of the US homicide rate over the past 120 years.  And it elaborates on the bit I wrote about here a while back – that while murder rates are down over the past twenty years by something like 50%, a rate that the media would have hailed as a miracle if it’d applied to drunk driving or cancer deaths.

But 56% of the American people had no idea – because the media made sure they had no idea.

And if they don’t know about the past twenty years, you can bet the last hundred are as opaque as the pit of Michael Moore’s soul.

Murder Rates Since 1900

The graph is based on FBI stats from 1900 to 1991 and from 1992 to 2011. 

But what else does it track with?

Why, gun control efforts, naturally:

The source of this graph is opaque (which is why I ran the first graph at the top), but the numbers generally jibe with the FBI figures.

The first major post-civil-war gun control measures – mostly aimed at immigrants and blacks – were a little over 100 years ago.  Murder spiked during our first big experiment with prohibition.  A second major surge began around the time of the 1968 “Gun Control Act” and the “War on Drugs”, and tailed off as not only the ownership but the carry of guns by civilians became ubiquitous outside “progressive” circles and Demcrat-run crime cesspools.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation, of course.

But that’s a lot of correlation.

A lot.  Of.  Correlation.

12 thoughts on “Top Secret

  1. I know – KNOW – this story will lead all the major metro newscasts tonight!

  2. Even if there was a strong correlation between murders and stricter gun laws, it wouldn’t change the text of the second amendment.

  3. Big Stink-
    I don’t want anyone to fall into the trap of defending gun rights based on stats. We don’t have gun rights because gun rights result in fewer gun deaths (though they may), we have gun rights because the second amendment says:
    “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.”
    Nothing in there about the right being conditioned on keeping and bearing arms reducing the number of gun deaths.

  4. BG – hypothetical question: could it be reasonably argued (which would exclude media) that the Crips and the Bloods are a ‘well-regulated militia” in S. Chicago? Just askin.’

  5. Big Stink:

    There is an obvious conflict between the absolute wording of 2A “shall not be infringed” vs gang thugs committing crimes with guns (and convicted felons committing crimes by mere possession). Do state crime laws trump the federal constitution? I think both legal scholars/precedent, and the spirit of the law would say “prohibition due to committing gun crimes trumps “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    But, I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

  6. It’s worth noting that the “union led” gun control laws in the early 1900s were really led by organized crime, which didn’t want armed victims interfering with their operations. Some of the families involved just happened to run unions, too, which liked to intimidate people without the difficulty of the victims shooting back.

    BTW, side note is that driving deaths are down by about 25% in the past eight years, but the big thing that correlates really well is a lot of people don’t have work anymore. Oops.

    http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html

  7. A gang is a criminal enterprise, not a well-regulated militia.
    If you look at the stuff that was written back in the late 18th century, a militia was a self-organized group of men who rallied to a common defense. Many settlers had their farm fields far from their homes (homes on a highpoint, fields in bottom land). It was not uncommon for a settler’s home to be raided while he was away working. If you came home and found that savages or renegades had raided your place, and killed or carried off your family, you would call up the militia and track down the evil doers. The reason that this has relevance today is that the United States was founded on the notion of individual self defense. The people are the government, the government has no power of its own, it represents the citizens. All power resides in the people, not in DC.
    There is but one federal office holder who is elected by the people of the United States, and that is the president. Every other office holder you vote for, you vote for as a citizen of your state, or city, or county, or congressional district. The idea that U.S. citizens are some kind of generic ‘American’ was invented in the late 19th century.

  8. I see that Obammy is working up his rule-by-decree on guns. It looks like he will widen the definition of who has to get an FFL. Last time I looked, an FFL wasn’t like a drivers permit. You had to designate an address of business, and that address was auditable 24/7, meaning the feds don’t need a search warrant to go into your home and look around (if that is your designated place of business). Also your place of business has to be a certain distance from schools, churches, etc.
    It is safe to assume, after 7 years of Obama, that the new rules wouldn’t have done anything to stop the gun killings Obama claims to care about. It’s just a way to fuck with people who aren’t his constituents, and gain a little favor from the people who are his constituents.
    Normally, a democratic process is the way to handle this stuff. Otherwise people feel like the government is stomping on them, and they have no recourse.
    I guess Obama failed poli-sci 101. I wonder what else he’s failed?

  9. Pingback: LIVE AT FIVE: 01.05.16 : The Other McCain

  10. BG:

    For all we know, he failed everything.

    He is alleged to have at least attended both Hahvud and Columbia universities, but, since his transcripts are sealed, we’ll never know the truth. I have said this before; Barack Obama will eventually be exposed as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public. His persona was completely manufactured by people like George Soros. If we still had a reliable media, (you know, the kind that used to expose fraud and government corruption) he would have been exposed before he finished his first year in office.

  11. Well, we know Obama graduated and passed the bar. I would be very surprised if his grades were below 2.0 and he would have been able to do that, unless of course the bar exams are corrupted, too. I’ve seen no evidence for that, though.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if his grades were marginal, but I think the big reason he doesn’t release college transcripts is the same as why he didn’t release his long form birth certificate; it is politically useful for him to have people trying to figure out his birth/college status instead of watching what he’s doing.

    No matter what his grades were, the guy is a political genius in many regards.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.