Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGuns are Rarely Used to Kill Criminals or Stop Crimes New VPC Analysis Reveals
Washington, DCGuns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes according to the new Violence Policy Center (VPC) report Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf). The report analyzes national data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Programs Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
VPC Executive Director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann states, The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines. This new data exposes the fallacy of such arguments and clearly demonstrates that the frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.
<...>
Firearm Justifiable Homicides by Private Citizens Occur Rarely
In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. This ratio does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1304self.htm
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I personally do not feel that a 19-round 9 mm is anything extraordinary. And I hope to hell I never have to use it ever. But if I ever do, I hope to hell I have it, and screw the VPC if they think they know better than I.
Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #1)
Common Sense Party This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... swarming all over Watertown with 30-round mags in their ARs? They were only after one man.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Because, with the able assistance of the NRA and people like you, you've created a national Rambo complex.
You think the only possible answer to violence is more violence. Um how did that work out for you in SE-Asia (Pick your conflict and nation)? How's it working out in Iraq and Afghanistan?
How's it bloody working in America?
You've militarised your police to the point where, they're more heavily outfitted than the actual armed forces of many nations, and whilst that might have had some inhibitory effect on ordinary crime, extra-ordinary crime just gets worse and worse.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... are you saying I didn't see the Boston PD with thirty-round magazines in their ARs? Because then it would be a straw man.
I'll take exception to your saying that "I" militarized the police. I assume by your diction and spelling that you're from the British Isles -- am I correct? If so, you have no right to be lecturing anyone on military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan after what "you" did there in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
"Extra-ordinary crime"? What, pray tell, is that, and how is it getting "worse and worse"?
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)... along with the rest of Europe for creating the situation which America has been trying to exploit to it's own benefit, ever since Europe developed a conscience and renounced colonialism. Europe gave up it's colonies. The USA has been interfereing in the governance of most of them ever since.
Oh, and I note with some interest you (singular) managed to correctly (in a lingusitic, if not factual sense) use the collective "you" (as in "your nation" in your criticism of me.
Oh I don't know. Minor little matters that might have escaped your attention. Insignificant things like Sandy Hook and the Aurora Movie theatre. Gabby Giffords, and Dr Tiller. Kids who think the sollution to problems at school is to bring a gun and start shooting.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Here's the thing: when you begin your address with "people like you" and "you think," you're clearly conflating the individual and the collective. I reject your conflation, thank "you" very much.
... along with the rest of Europe for creating the situation which America has been trying to exploit to it's own benefit, ever since Europe developed a conscience and renounced colonialism.
I see -- Europe renounced colonialism because it "developed a conscience." And here I thought it was because a Pyrrhic victory in a little thing called the Second World War made it impossible for the Motherland to maintain its dominance over the colonies. It was conscience after all -- what a beautiful little morality tale!
I see. So crimes have to be bizarre before they catch your attention. Yet murder rates have fallen drastically in recent decades.
hack89
(39,171 posts)don't think so - we have cut our murder rate in half over the past 30 years. You have go back 50 years to find a lower murder or violent crime rate.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's still better that ours, but the ratio went from about 11:1 to about 3:1.
Our non-gun homicide rate is about as high at the UK's total homicide rate.
spin
(17,493 posts)Crime Drops to All-Time Low
JUN 12, 2012 02:30 PM ET // BY SHEILA M. ELDRED
Kids today may not be running around the neighborhood without fear like Beaver Cleaver, but the country is in the midst of low levels of crime not seen in decades, according to a report released this week by the FBI.
Violent crime, which has been falling for five years, decreased 4 percent in 2011, according to the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report. Murders are at the lowest point in 40 years. Violent crime, according to the FBI, includes murder, rape, robbery and assault.
Property crime, which has been in a decline for nine years, also continued to drop, albeit by 0.8 percent, notes Reuters. The peak of violent crime and property crime came in the early '90s. The 2011 report represents a 30.6 drop in property crime since 1991, and a 38 percent drop in violent crime since 1992
http://news.discovery.com/human/violent-crime-statistics-120612.htm
I would say that our nation is doing quite well in our efforts to reduce crime. Of course we can do better.
Much of the violent crime in our nation is due to our long lost War on Drugs. A high percentage of gun violence is the result of drug gangs fighting over turf in cities like Chicago.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...can be linked to population demographics.
Basically fewer young bloods = less machismo.
spin
(17,493 posts)rate has fallen dramatically. It could be better policing, it might be more cameras on the street, it might be a change in the drug of choice used in the drug culture.
It could even be the fact the sale of firearms has skyrocketed in recent years and "shall issue" concealed carry has been implemented in forty states.
In reality the drop in crime is due to a number of factors.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)American civilian firearm ownership soared.
So much for "more guns = more crime."
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I posted the following this morning in another thread.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]The NYC crime rate began to plunge at the same time the other urban centers, as well as the overall crime rates, plunged. Starting in about 1990. In about 1994, federal funding put about 50,000 more cops on the streel, and NYC Mayor Dinkins (spelling?) had put in a major program to expand the NYPD, which came to fruition under Mayor Nine Eleven.
Our common liberal values caused the crime rate to plunge nationwide. Not gun-control laws, but environmental and woman's-rights laws.
In the early 70's, fuel-efficiency standards and automotive pollution limits went into effect; catalytic converters became standard equipment. Because of the converters, leaded gas became obsolescent almost immediately. The US switched over to unleaded gasoline, and within a short period of time the air being breathed by children and pregnant women was pretty much free of lead.
Lead, as you know, causes brain damage that increases anti-social behavior and a laundry-list of other developmental problems.
Also that the same time, abortion was legalized, and only a few years before hormonal birth control had become widespread. Women could now control when then gave birth, resulting in fewer instances of children being born into situations where they were more likely to become violent criminals.
So, with birth control widespread and airborne lead sharply diminished, the generation born in the early-to-mid 70's (my generation) came to about age 15 (15 to 24 are the prime violence-crime-committing years of a criminal's life) with much less of a tendency to be violent criminals.
And the crime rate plunged in half in a decade.
The opposite is true as well. In the post-WW2 era, the population exploded, as did the highway system and the number of cars on the road. Kids born in from, say '47 to '60, were breathing in lots of lead as the American car culture spread in lockstep with the expansion of the middle class and suburbia. 15 years later, say '62 to '75, you can see the violent crime rate start to climb. It more than doubled, actually, as the Baby Boomers hit adulthood.
None of this had to do with guns or magazines or protruding pistol grips or anything... it had to do in huge part with the tendency of the most violent-prone segment of the population (people age 15-24) to commit violence.
Now, of course there were other things that affect the rate as well... the War on Drugs, Prohibition, the economy, but again, none of that happens to do with hardware or Mayor Bloomberg, the Wall Street mayor.
There is probably a correlation between the percentage of the population between the ages of 15-24 and the violent crime rate. But the leaded-gasoline pollution make the population as a whole more violent, which means there is a multiplier effect from that.
Reproductive choice also adds to that, in that a larger percentage of the population between the ages of 15-24 will be born in situations where they will fall into gangs or other criminal lifestyles.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)One bullet always takes the bad guy down, and everyone is a perfect shot, even in bad light and in motion.
You bloody well need to stop confusing fiction with reality.
And you can bloody well stop dictating to me what I can and cannot use to defend my home.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)on criminals who decided not to initiate an assault because he thought he might get shot?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Then again, the VPC and their ilk would prefer that you not think about that too much...
DemDealer
(25 posts)accounts for only around 2%, IIRC, of estimated defensive gun uses. The remaining 98% see the criminal flee when the weapon is threatened (which is a GOOD THING, since it means that nobody died).
The VPC is very well known for using that sort of "fill in the blanks" omissive propaganda. Please don't use them as a source.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the 01 in the fourth set indicates type one license, which is a dealer. Take the number to a gun store or ATF office and have them look up address of that FFL.
What I find interesting is that they are re releasing something that has been debunked years ago.
The number in the UCR is correct as it stands, but does not take in account
the number determined to be justifiable by a court at a later date
the number of attackers wounded but not killed
number of attackers simply changing their minds when faced with a gun
The data that does exist varies widely. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers, each year between 1987 and 1992 about 62,200 victims of violent crimes used guns to defend themselves, while another 20,000 annually used guns to protect property. According to the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in 1993, Americans used guns 2.3 million times a year to defend themselves between 1988 and 1993.
Thats a pretty big spread. As a 2012 Congressional Research Service report on gun issues points out, law enforcement agencies do not collect self-defense information as a matter of course, and the available research thus depends on limited numbers of surveys and other self-reported information.
While a large body of research has considered the effects of firearms on injury, crime, and suicide, far less attention has been devoted to understanding their defensive and deterrent effects, concluded an in-depth 2005 National Research Council study of the state of firearms and violence data.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0130/Gun-control-101-Do-Americans-often-use-firearms-in-self-defense
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Patiod
(11,816 posts)there might be less debate over the veracity of the statistics. But the gun-fuckers won't allow it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they are only not allowed to lobby or advocate for gun laws.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)What kind of weapon is used in homicides, and how often it used. For example, do you know that -3% of homicides are caused by rifles? And that the so-called "assault weaoin" is just one type of weapon in this category?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I looked at the numbers a few weeks ago during a discussion.
(I KNOW!!! Shocking, right???)
Of the homicides where the weapon was a gun AND the type of gun could be identified, rifles and shotguns were at about 5% each. The other 90% were handguns.
Something like a quarter or a third of gun-related deaths are of "type unknown", so I'm assuming it's cases where the bullet is unrecovered, or maybe they were .22 LR and they couldn't tell if it was a rifle or a handgun.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Or Mayor Bloomburg, for that matter... he's loaded and there are plenty of first-class research universities and such in his jurisdiction.
I'd be curious to see why this hasn't been done. I would assume it a funding issue; nobody has to get politically involved or organized or donate to NOT own a gun.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Because he's 'progressive' or something like that...
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)-see below for why it should be viewed as less than complete-
There are several things we can glean:
-counting bodies, as VPC likes to do; no contest. There are far more criminal homicides than justifiable.
-counting potential bodies, which VPC typically ignores; over the five years- criminal homicide 45,328(Table 2), DGU 338,700 (Page 8). That is a ratio of 7.47/1 DGU to criminal homicide. While it is impossible to estimate how many cases DGU prevented criminal homicide the relationship of 13% (45,328/338,700) implies that criminal homicide could double without stretching credibility
-the report only gives suicides and accidental deaths for one year (2010) totaling 19,998. If this is assumed typical, we extrapolate a five year total of 99,990. Adding that total to criminal homicide is a total of 145,318. Compared to DGU the ratio drops to 2.33/1 DGU/death, non-justifiable homicide. The relationship of 42.9% makes it unlikely that if DGU=0 this total would significantly rise. The decrease in suicide would be largely offset by increases in criminal homicide. Accidental gun deaths would factor in, but are essentially negligible compared to the other numbers
-The oft repeated meme of white racist gun owner looking for a chance to kill is blown out of the water by the VPC stats.
Table Seven: Race of Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 20062010
White 53.1%
Black 40.8%
Table Nine: Race of Shooter and Person Killed, Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 20062010
Shooter Person Killed
White White 65.1%
Black 32.7%
Black White 7.2%
Black 92.2%
There is a far stronger correlation in justifiable shootings to the same race than other. The only exception is in the case of Asian shooters, black accounts for 61.8%; this is partially explained by the relatively few cases of justifiable homicide by Asians 34 of 1006 cases.
Now to the NCVS numbers. Their total in 1993 was 103,000 DGUs, now increased to 338,700. This tripling is quite surprising in light of the decrease in crime overall in the last twenty years and indications of less individuals owning guns. These factors would be expected to lead to a lower number of DGUs.
In 1993, the year of Kleck's 2.5 million estimate, there were thirteen other surveys that had estimated DGUs from the high 700k range to over three million. Out of fourteen surveys only one, the NCVS, stands out as drastically different than similar studies.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...the number of times guns have been used just as non-lethally to OFENSIVELY intimidate victims into compliance with a criminal's wishes. You know, minor little matters like rape and armed robbery.
London to a housebrick you come up shorter than Garry Coleman.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)230 x 50 = 10k more or less.
8%-20% of 1.25 million viloent crimes (est.) = 100k - 250k.
Keep digging.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The DoJ puts it closer to 62K while criminologists have done studies that put it in the 1-3 million range.
Of course, that is assuming the criminal would have blew the whole thing off for lack of a gun, which is very unlikely.
Keep digging.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Your shovel.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but you knew that since I didn't mention the total violent crimes. I mentioned defensive uses.
Do you prefer a shovel or post hole digger? Backhoe perhaps?
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)short like Mel Brooks 5'5", not Gary Coleman 4'7"
Nonfatal firearm-related crime has fallen significantly in recent years, from almost 1.3 million incidents in 1994 to a low of 331,618 incidents in 2008. Since then it has risen; in 2011 there were 414,562 incidents.[6]
As a percentage of all violent incidents (i.e., rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault), between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crime has ranged from a high of 8 percent to a low of 5 percent. In 2011, firearm crimes comprised 8 percent of all violent crimes.[7]
ileus
(15,396 posts)Thanks anyway...it's a chance I won't take.
Stay safe and carry on.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Breathtakingly inept methodology fail...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...with brevity and completeness is talent.
Thanks for that.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Gun suicides.
It is true that having a convenient means to commit suicide does increase the suicide numbers. In the UK, in the 1950s, laying your head in the oven and turning on the gas was a popular method of suicide. The kitchens became more electric and suicide numbers dropped. So fewer guns will reduce the suicide numbers. However, that is a risk that I choose to accept for myself, just as others choose to accept the risk of other types of behaviors. Protecting me from myself is not something that I wish to government to do, and that extends to not wanting the government to supervise me when I eat or drink.
Accidents.
We are a nation of 310+ million people. 606 gun accidents annually is not a large number.
3,443 died of drowning.
29,846 died of accidental poisoning
1,138 died from walking
1,449 died from Natural/Environmental (Whatever that is.)
So 606 isn't going to get me excited.
Justifiable homicides
That number excludes "excusable homicides" and does not include homicides that are first reported as murder and then are cleared later by the justice system. The actual number of legal homicides is about two or three times as high.
Criminal homicides.
If someone is going to illegally kill, does anybody here really think that they will obey a gun law? It is very rare for a legal gun owner to become an illegal killer. (Note: Rare does NOT mean never. Rare means rare) Usually illegal killers will already have a record of criminal violence. That fact is well know by criminologists, but is almost unknown by the general public. (Murder mysteries are boring if the killer is a street thug. The culprit has to be a trusted person to be interesting.)
Violent crimes.
This category isn't listed, but it is the reason why I have guns and carry one. According to the FBI there were 1,203,564 reported violent crimes in the U.S. in 2011. (2012 stats aren't out yet.) Violent crime is greatly underreported because many victims don't bother to let the police know, either because they are afraid, or because they believe that it won't make any difference. While that number is another decrease in a long continuing trend, it is still a high number. Being a victim of violent crime isn't a completely random event. Criminals select their victims for several reasons, some of which I can control, some I can't. So if a criminal does select me, he will find that I am not an easy victim. Of course, I will be happy if I am never put to that test.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jessica-Fletcher-the-worlds-craftiest-serial-killer/136881216328741
rdharma
(6,057 posts)When do you actually admit to "reductio ad absurdum"?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I will just have to hope that the FBI or Homeland Security catch Islamic terrorists before they act. Since I am not Islamic and don't believe that 72 virgins are waiting for me if I martyr myself, then that type of suicide won't appeal to me.
If I should suffer from such a condition that I may wish to end my life, then I will breathe pure nitrogen to end it. Such an end is cheap, fast, painless, and doesn't leave a mess. (Remember to void bowel and bladder just before leaving.) It is MY life, and if I ever choose to end it, that is will be MY choice.
beevul
(12,194 posts)One could lay an unpopped bag of popcorn in their proximity, and the radiation from them cooking books would pop it.
They are as bad, and likely worse, than the nra.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)krispos: Our common liberal values caused the crime rate to plunge nationwide. Not gun-control laws, but environmental and woman's-rights laws.
Nationwide I won't argue, but statewide guncontrol efforts have made a discernible contributing difference in lowering crime in particular states, not that much maybe 10-20%, but worth it to them.
Here is a report which somewhat backs you up in that it contends guncontrol has had little to no effect on lowering of crime to 2002, along with concealed carry having little to no effect.
first, krispos wrote: The US switched over to unleaded gasoline, .. the same time, abortion was legalized, Women could now control when then gave birth, resulting in fewer instances of children being born into situations where they were more likely to become violent criminals.
the chicago report (bit dated, 2002/3) also backs you up on abortion, but nowt to do with lead:
Note (edit) - all figures are negative, thus 'increase prison pop' figs are -12, -12, -8, thus reflecting a perceived drop in crime due that factor.
Percentage change in crime that factor accounts for over period 19912001:
Factor ...............Homi .....Violcrime.. Propcrime.. Certainty level
Strong economy .............0 .........0 .........2 ............High
Changing demographics 0 .......2 .........5 ............High
Better policing strategies 1 .....1 ........1 ............Low
Gun control laws .........0 ........0 .........0 ............Medium
Concealed weapon laws 0 ........0 .........0 ............High
Increased usage of {DP} ...1.5 ....0 .........0 ............Medium
Increases number police ...5.5 ....5.5 ......5.5 ...........Medium
Increase prison population 12 ...12 ........8 ............High
The decline of crack ............6 .....3 ........0 ............Low
Legalized abortion .............10 ....10 .......10 ............Medium
Total of all factors ......... 36 .....33.5 ......31.5
change in UCR reported crime ..43 ..34 .......29
change in NCVS victimization n/a...50 ......53
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Instead of allowing a crime/felony in progress be halted by the threat of force in self defense, or ceasing fire when the threat is withdrawn, the VPC would kindly like you to simply skip directly to opening fire, and also please aim accurately, so the statistics will reveal the true self-defense rate by only looking at excusable homicides or justifiable homicides, and no other data.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Howzit
(967 posts)Just a glance of these reported cases calls into question the use or meaning of the word "rarely"...