(The CDC data almost certainly understates the true toll of gun violence, the researchers wrote.)"Almost certainly"... Yeah.
fell in seven others, as well as in the District of Columbia.No mention that about half of the 'seven' have 'loose' gun laws.
"Could Be?" When were these laws put into place? Oh right, CA used to have one of the highest even w/ all those laws on the books. And using Brady Center numbers? We've seen that their rating has absolutely no value at all when it comes to homicide rates. Plus LA (and Chicago for that matter) have been found to be intentionally fudging their crime numbers.
The researchers said this could be the result of tough antigun laws, including eight aimed at preventing gun trafficking. They noted that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranked California top among all states for its laws on background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on who may own a gun and consumer and child safety.
Massachusetts also earned high marks from the Brady Center for its gun laws, and firearm ownership there “plummeted” after a 1998 gun control law passed, the researchers wrote. Yet both violent crimes in general and homicides in particular became more common in subsequent years. (The researchers speculated that guns may have flowed into the Bay State from neighboring New Hampshire and Maine, where gun control laws are less stringent.)'May Have' because that's what the researchers want to believe yet NH and MA saw NO increase according to them. No explanation there.
“particularly concerning public health problem,”Talking point alert.
“substantial, long-term cumulative health burden,”
may be explained by the lack of access to firearms or low firearm ownership among Hispanics and other races.Right. OK.
Amazing what one can surmise w/ numbers when you have an agenda, isn't it?