The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects and publishes all manner of criminal data. Of course it lags a little bit because you have to wait for the year to end, then allow time for data collation. Nevertheless, there is no bias, no agenda, just pure data from the .gov.

And we can trust the .gov, right?

In May 2013, they published their Firearm Violence, 1993-2011 report.

Let’s look at some of this data.

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.

Of course, if you listen to the “news,” you’d think it was at an all-time high.

About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.

So why then do they want to ban rifles? Something doesn’t add up.

From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide.

What’s going on with these populations that cause them to have the highest rates? Maybe we should examine some deeper social issues?

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.

So if they didn’t follow the laws we have now, how will bans, background checks, and other regulations and limits stop anything? Perhaps we need to look for real answers, not knee-jerk reactions, not solutions that don’t stop crime but do stop good, law-abiding citizens?

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source (table 14). This was similar to the percentage distribution in 1997.

Further data on the above. So they talk about the evils of the gun shows and make them out like a Wal-Mart for criminals, yet gun shows are barely a statistical blip. Most are getting them off the street, through theft, drug deals, or obtaining from people they know. So they’re already committing an illegal act to obtain their guns. How will making it more illegal do anything? They aren’t regarding the current laws.

Persons living in urban areas had the highest rates of nonfatal firearm violence

Basically that means they stuck a gun in your face, you gave them your money, and they left without killing you (still maybe harming, maiming for life, but you lived). This also means that if you live in the city, you’ve got more chance of being the victim of a violent crime than if you live in a rural area.

In 2011, higher rates of nonfatal violence occurred in areas with a population of more than 250,000 residents than in areas with a population under 250,000

That further backs up the above: live in a big city? greater chance of being victim of a violent crime, than if you live in a small town.

In 2007-11, the majority of nonfatal firearm violence occurred in or around the victim’s home (42%) or in an open area, on the street, or while on public transportation (23%) (table 7). Less than 1% of all nonfatal firearm violence occurred in schools.

Actually the summary is a little deceiving and you need to look at the table itself. The upshot? Yes, violence can and does happen in the home. But the majority of violent encounters happen outside the home: open area, street, public transportation, parking lot or garage, or near your home (but not in it). The implication? As Tom Givens like to say, “Carry your damn gun, people.” People seem to have no problem preparing for a home break-in’, or want to carry a gun in their car. But when the data shows that most violent crime happens in not-these-places, what are you doing to be prepared for those violent encounters?

As well, firearm violence in schools? It’s marginal. It might grab the most headlines, but that’s the only thing it has a lot of.

Anyways, you can read the report for yourself.

Yes, the report also contains some things that “pro-gun” folks might not want to tout. For instance:

For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002

That somewhat coincides with the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (through 2004). So did that ban work? Hard to say, but I would think it had no effect because if the vast majority of crimes were committed by handguns (which really weren’t the target of the ban, and if you look at the firearms used in crimes again it doesn’t mesh with those firearms targeted by the AWB). Then from about 2002 to 2011, numbers have remained about the same.

Really, what a lot of this says to me? The common tactics of addressing “gun violence” are not addressing gun violence at all. They might be trying to address the symptoms, but they are not addressing the root causes. It’s like taking a cough drop: sure you stop coughing, but you’re still sick.  It’s evident the common tactics of bans, restrictions, checks, etc. are ineffective because those things have been in place and are still in place, but yet they make no impact towards the end of “reducing/eliminating gun violence”.  So why are you continuing to seek solutions in answers that have been proven ineffective? Or do you not understand the definition of insanity?

Or maybe you use “stopping violence” as a front, and your goals are more nefarious.

But let’s assume you mean well and truly want to stop violence. If so, you need to stop taking cough drops and get some proper rest. You need to work at the root causes. Again, why are young black males the overwhelming majority of perpetrators? What is going on to bring that about? What’s different in the Hispanic populations that has brought about the largest drop in that group? Maybe we should be looking at deeper social issues, economic issues, etc. to see what’s causing people to turn to guns and violence as the way to proceed in life.

I know it won’t give instant results, nor easy answers. In fact, it may be rather a tough pill to swallow because it might not be very politically correct. But if you want real solutions, you’ll face the Ugly Truth and work to make things truly better… else, things will only get worse.

The following is a copy/paste of an email from the Texas State Rifle Association giving an update on how gun-related bills fared in this past Texas legislative session.

Governor Perry Signs All Gun Bills Last Thursday, Governor Perry added conservative issues to the last two weeks of the Special Session but the list did not include gun-related bills.  While this is disappointing, all the pro-gun bills passed during the regular session have now been signed into law and will take effect September 1st.   The list includes some major streamlines for concealed handgun licensees.SB 1907 by Sen. Glenn Hegar/ Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt allows CHL-students to have firearms in their personal locked vehicle when parked on a private or public university or college parking lot.  A CHL-student could not be prosecuted but they were subject to the rule-making authority of the school and could be expelled.   Passed and signed by Governor Perry. SB 299 by Sen. Craig Estes/Rep. Kenneth Sheets provides language to clarify the unintentional display of a firearm by a concealed handgun licensee. The language changed from “failure to conceal” to “intentional display of a weapon in a public place” when force or deadly force is not authorized.  Passed and Signed by Governor Perry SB 864 by Sen. Donna Campbell/Rep. Dan Flynn reduces the number of hours for the initial CHL class. The bill does not touch the required materials, the written test, or firearm proficiency exam. Range qualification is still in place but no counts toward the required hours.  Passed and Signed by Governor Perry HB 48 by Rep. Dan Flynn/Sen. Donna Campbell creates in statute a process for renewing your CHL online without taking a renewal class. Passed and Signed by Governor Perry 6/14/13  HB 698 by Rep.Springer/Sen. Craig Estes requires access to digital fingerprinting not more than 25 miles from the applicant’s residence and is limited to counties with a population of 46,000 or less.  This is specific to rural Texans who are forced to drive hundreds of miles for digital fingerprinting.  Passed and Signed by Governor Perry 6/14/13 HB 3142 by Rep. Cecil Bell, Jr./Sen. Craig Estes repeals the SA/NA designation for the CHL license.  No more gun categories.  Passed and Signed by Governor Perry 6/14/13 HB 1421 by Rep. Perry/Sen. Craig Estes provides law enforcement agencies an option in statute to sell confiscated firearms to a federal firearm dealer (FFL) instead of destroying. After the cost of the sale and any other related charges, funds could stay with that law enforcement agency.  Passed and Signed by Governor Perry HB 333 by Rep. Guillen/ Sen. Hinojosa requires hotels and motels to provide advance notice if they prohibit firearms.    Passed and Signed by Governor Perry

Check out more bill status at www.tsrapac.com  or check directly at the state site www.legis.state.tx.us      Please help rebuild the PAC!~.  Political Action Committee funds help pro-gun candidates.  We need to support those who support us.   Go towww.tsra.com or call 512-615-4200.  Make a donation, join the association or up-grade your membership.   Keep the Faith,   Alice Tripp Legislative Director

Some of my comments:

SB 1907 – baby steps

SB 299 – I think the intent of the law was always clear, but it’s nice to have it explicitly clear.

SB 864 – I have some mixed emotions here, but I think the end it doesn’t matter much. There’s no change to curriculum or requirements, merely accounting. The way it was made for a long day often with much filler and ways to meet the required hours. Now things can be more direct, concise, with less time wasted on everyone’s part. There will always be someone willing to abuse this tho, so vet your instructors carefully.

HB 48 – it’s good to embrace the Internet

HB 698 – reduction in burden is always good.

HB 3142 – good. This was silly.

HB 1421 – options are good

HB 333 – good. A little annoyed at the hassle, but hopefully winds up making things better for everyone in the end.

In a lot of ways, what I’m happy about is how these new laws remove things that didn’t make a lot of sense. It’s not really adding, it’s taking away, and that I can deal with.

Finally, if you like these laws, then you should be a member of the TSRA and support the TSRA-PAC. These laws don’t just magically happen. Yes, the NRA gets all the press and likes to take all the glory here, but Alice Tripp deserves so much of the credit for her work to make these things happen. If you are a Texas resident, if you appreciate and benefit from the laws of this state, show your support. (disclosure: I am a Life Member of the TSRA, and only “lobby” for their support because it’s one way I can add my voice to the legislative process… and you can too).

PoliceOne.com did an extensive survey on guns and gun violence, and as a part of that tried to ascertain what the causes are for the violence.

There’s no one answer, and this question was fairly divided with no overwhelming majority. But if you look at the reasons, a lot of it points back to our state of mind.

The degradation of our family and social structure, of kids growing up without much family so they look elsewhere for family… like to gang culture. Or the lack of parental filtering on things like TV, movies, music, and video games, to help a child put them into proper perspective.

We can even look at general social degradation, with how “news media” works to be another form of (morbid) entertainment, sensationalizing, driving and motivating copycats to achieve a higher body count so their names will be remembered forever.

Most shooters suffered from mental illness, but look at how we treat mental illness and those who suffer from it. And the prevalence of drugs like Xanax… it all goes together.

So really, much of it comes back to our state of mind.

Think about it.

We’ve had guns all along. We didn’t always have horrific shootings and violence. So guns are a common denominator in both situations, so we can factor it out. What are we left with? That’s where we should be looking.

Catching up, clearing things out of my queue.

I know the gun debate isn’t the hottest thing on 24/7 “reality news TV”, but it’s still around and won’t go away any time soon.

I wanted to share a few things worth reading.

First, a gentleman named Rick has a series of “thoughts on the current gun debate”. Last I checked he had only 4, but as of this writing he’s up to 9.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
  • Part 4A – Correcting some stuff about comparing US and UK murder rates.
• Part 6 (I guess he considered 4A to be 5)
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9

It does appear part 9 is the end, since it says “summary”. I admit I have not read all of this because I’ve just been swamped. But what I did read seemed like a deep investigation of the topic, looking at data, at arguments, at debate. If nothing else, it seems like a meaningful read.

Second, a blogger named Kontra writes a letter, “Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument“.

I write this letter as someone who is politically far left of center. You and I have a lot in common, though you may not want to admit it by the end of this article. I think it’s time we had a talk….  But I’ll be honest with you: I watched the Senate votes live on Wednesday, and when these gun-related bills were defeated, I literally celebrated. Obviously, you and I have a lot in common, but plenty to differ on. And that’s kind of what I want to talk to you about.

This isn’t about gun-control per se, but more about public relations and communication. It’s about why the “Democrat gun-control agenda” failed — and will continue to do so — because you are sending the wrong message, have the wrong marketing. Really, it’s a good read regardless of topic or “side”, because it’s really about communication… and why yours has failed and no one believes you any more.

Hopefully you have a little more time on your hands than I do. Read on.

The Hunt Independent School District  (Hunt is about 120 miles west of Austin, in the Texas Hill Country) just approved a measure to allow certain people to carry concealed firearms on HISD grounds.

Naturally, some people object.

“I feel it is a really strong overreaction to what happened at Sandy Hook,” said Clayton Rascoe, parent of a Hunt pre-kindergarten student, referring to the Connecticut elementary where 20 children and six staff members were shot dead in December. “Clearly teachers and staff are not trained to carry firearms and take care of crisis situations,” Rascoe said.

So were Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein’s actions not a strong overreaction as well?

Teachers are not trained to take care of crisis situations. What about bullying? What about troubled students? depressed students? There’s all manner of crises that teachers have to deal with. Violence in our schools is nothing new, from the “schoolyard fight”, to now students getting quite aggressive and physically violent with teachers over things like requests to put away mobile phones. Should teachers not be able to handle a crisis?

“There are police and military personnel who train their entire lives for such a situation and they unfortunately get it wrong sometimes,” he said. “I don’t think it is going to solve anything. I think it will introduce more problems than it could ever cure.”

How? What facts and evidence can support your claim? Firearms ownership has risen. Concealed carry has risen. There are more people walking around you today that have guns hidden on their person. And just-released BJS data shows that firearm homicides have decreased. More guns, less firearm homicide. How is this a reduction in violent crime a problem? Is that what you want?

“We teach kids implicitly with everything we do,” he said. “By doing this we are teaching them that violence is a viable solution.”

I hate to say it, Jack, but sometimes violence is not just a viable solution, it’s the only solution. I used to say that to, that violence is not the answer. But now I know that sometimes it is. Oh sure, you cannot make it your only answer, and you must consider if it is the best solution to the given problem. I mean, look at what women’s “rape prevention” seminars are all about — kick him in the groin, palm strike him in the nose, kick, bite, punch. That’s the offered — and socially and culturally acceptable solution — and it looks a lot like violence to me.  Are you saying we shouldn’t teach rape prevention, because that would be teaching violence as a viable solution?

“I own guns. I hunt with guns. I teach my kids to use guns,” he said. “But this is a place of education and safety.”

It should be a place of education and safety. Alas, it is not. Granted, mass shootings are rare and on the decline (despite the media and political hype), so you should look at the mundane. I mean, bullying is pretty common at school. Schoolyard fights happen. A school is no magic bubble that somehow prevents bad things from happening. But I can think of things that can further deter and prevent bad things from happening.

A gun owner himself, Moseley said he didn’t vote for the measure because letting guns in school is not the right answer.

“Teachers are trained to be nurturers, not protectors,” he said.

To nurture is to care for and encourage the growth of development of. If you care for these kids, isn’t their safey important? If you want to see them grow, shouldn’t you want to also ensure they can live to see another day? We put fire alarms, extinguishers, and suppression systems in our schools. We have the kids go through fire drills so they can know precisely how to evacuate the school in the event of a fire. Depending where you live, you might have tornado drills. And the teachers and staff run these drills, maintain the order, and help to deal with the crisis.

Why shouldn’t we enable our teachers — who we entrust with the future of this country — to be able to fully care for their students?