No Correlation

Quote of the Day

Illinois, with its restrictive gun laws and comparatively low gun ownership of 22 percent, had 414 mass shootings and a per capita rate of 3.6 mass shootings per million people.

Washington, D.C., despite not being a state, was included in the study and the researchers were shocked to find that the district had the highest rate of mass shootings per capita at 10.4 shootings for every one million people. This is despite the fact that the country’s capital has some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation.

For states, Louisiana had the highest rate of mass shootings per capita at 4.3 shootings per million people – less than half the per capita rate in Washington, D.C. despite the lax gun laws and 52 percent gun ownership.

Hawaii and North Dakota had zero mass shootings from 2014 to 2022. They are followed by New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming, which all had one each, Idaho with two and Maine with three.

Arsenio Toledo
July 28, 2023
Study proves there is NO CORRELATION between gun control laws and mass shootings

I’ve been saying, essentially, the same thing for almost 20 years. That the politicians don’t care about the facts should be used as evidence at their trials.


7 thoughts on “No Correlation

  1. It’s not clear from the narrative you quoted, but in fact a serious study of the subject by such people as John Lott shows that there is a correlation — a negative one. This is captured in the title of his famous book “More guns, less crime”.

    • This was specific to mass shootings, not crime in general.

      I’m almost certain Lott addresses mass shootings in the first edition. I wasn’t certain of the details on mass shootings in the later versions.

      I do know something like 90% of mass shootings happen in “gun free” zones. But that isn’t quite sufficient to say there is a negative correlation, so I refrained from saying that in the post.

  2. Now if only the big crime / stats guys would corelate the crime / murder / mass shooting rates with race.
    Wonder why they don’t want to do that very often? /rhetorical

    • They don’t want to alienate the voters who enable them to keep their Phony Baloney Jobs. Once the secret gets out, they’ll all have to get jobs based on what they can actually bring to a consumer, not a voter.

  3. Yes you have, Joe. (And you can’t be thanked enough!) Many have. John Lott’s book was wrote, when? 20+ years ago? So, it’s not about facts, never has been. It’s all rhetoric on their part. They couldn’t care less about mass shooting. Especially if your the one getting shot.
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun, their words, not ours.
    We should brutally remind them of their folly of being disarmed.
    If you don’t like mass shootings, why are you even thinking about gun confiscation?
    The 2A tells you what to do, not me.
    Whoa, facts really are hard for you morally challenged types, aren’t they?
    Why you pushing that 1800’s Marxist crap? It’s like the 21st century. What next, we going back to slavery? (Your sure importing a lot of blacks.)
    Not that rhetoric will work either. But it’s fun to see the look on their face.
    Tell’em straight up. Why? BFYTW, no one’s buying your commie religious crap anymore.

  4. I’m confused by the numbers, the table in the JAMA link seems to show a total US population of 3.9 billion. Also, there’s an interesting reference discussing the problems with the definition of “mass shooting” in the various data sources (

  5. Irrelevant. The purpose of “gun control” laws is NOT to prevent shootings…mass or otherwise. The SOLE purpose of such laws is to DISARM all of us. It’s difficult and dangerous to force people into the boxcars when they can shoot back.

Comments are closed.