Real numbers?

[Guy B. Meredith]

My personal direction is to expose the anti gun types as bigots in that they are smearing firearms owners for the sins of the few.

So what I am looking for is an accurate or objectively justifiable number of the people who use firearms in a criminal or violent manner: gang members, drug culture, domestic violence, simple career criminals, mental health issues, etc.

When talking about the number of homicides I've used the old numbers of 30,000 homicides and 60 million firearms owners to come up with the idea that the number of people committing homicides is .05% of the number of firearms owners, stating that the number of homicides includes suicides and legal homicides as well as criminal so that the figure is actually puffed in favor of the anti gun type.

I am looking for current and more defined numbers. I've seen figures like 2 million crimes where firearms are present, etc., but this does not break down as to how many individuals are involved, no solid figures or support. I have looked at the current DOJ Uniform Crime Report until I'm dizzy, not yet seeing any summaries that would be useful.

Anyone had better luck putting something together that is meaningful?

 

[Warp]

My personal direction is to expose the anti gun types as bigots in that they are smearing firearms owners for the sins of the few.

So what I am looking for is an accurate or objectively justifiable number of the people who use firearms in a criminal or violent manner: gang members, drug culture, domestic violence, simple career criminals, mental health issues, etc.

When talking about the number of homicides I've used the old numbers of 30,000 homicides and 60 million firearms owners to come up with the idea that the number of people committing homicides is .05% of the number of firearms owners, stating that the number of homicides includes suicides and legal homicides as well as criminal so that the figure is actually puffed in favor of the anti gun type.

I am looking for current and more defined numbers. I've seen figures like 2 million crimes where firearms are present, etc., but this does not break down as to how many individuals are involved, no solid figures or support. I have looked at the current DOJ Uniform Crime Report until I'm dizzy, not yet seeing any summaries that would be useful.

Anyone had better luck putting something together that is meaningful?

The problem with homicides is that it includes suicides. This makes "homicides" rather misleading.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Yes, that is correct.

I point out that, between the suicides and repeat offenders, the numbers are puffed in favor of the anti stance so considering how dismal the figure is for their point of view, it is even more dismal when the puff is removed. All their stats for homicide are based on a group of people something less than .025% as large as the responsible firearms owner population, but we are all being blamed for the actions of that few.

I think I should have used a different thread title as the real intent here is to cut the legs off all of the "statistics" going around.

Instead of throwing statistics at each other, my stance is that all their stats are worthless in regard to the general population of firearms owners as the stats come from that tiny number of easily identifiable culprits. Easier to just point out their stats are trash each time they open their mouth.

 

[holdencm9]

The problem with homicides is that it includes suicides. This makes "homicides" rather misleading.

Yes the OP's 30k stat is high. Actual homicides are more in the 10k range. But you have to imagine that many people who commit murder also commit more than one. I am not sure how you'd fine tune that value, but let's say 6,000 people account for the 10,000 homicides. Using your 60 million gun owners value (I think it may be higher but am not certain). That is 0.01%

Yes, one hundredth of one percent.

 

[Ed Ames]

The problem is that you are dealing with an area where people have adopted the "no matter what it costs" paradigm.

No sane person wants preventable deaths, but most people acknowledge that preventing deaths has a cost. Usually there is a balance point at which point it just isn't worth the extra cost for the additional lives you will save.

But in this case they don't care what it costs because the costs are all in forms they don't see themselves paying. Dollar costs come from taxes on the rich. Freedom costs...well they don't own guns now so they won't be sacrificing if they make it so nobody can own a gun. Safety? Nobody really thinks they are going to be mugged or raped until they are. So there is no trade-off for them. Every death is unacceptable, and the costs are not worth acknowledging. The fact that only 6000 people, or whatever, are causing those costs doesn't matter.

This is in contrast with automobiles where people do care about the costs because they want to benefit from cars, which means they must be able to afford them, must be able to qualify for a licence to drive, etc.. Even though people would agree that a highway fatality is just as fatal as a firearm fatality, they see the cost of preventing more highway deaths as something they will have to pay so they accept the risk.

It doesn't matter if all the homicides are limited to 6000 people a year, or even if it was 3000 a year, unless you can do one of two things:

1) come up with a way to concentrate all of the costs on the 6000 people, or

2) convince everyone (not just gun owners) that there is a benefit to having guns, and therefore the cost is something everyone will have to pay if the rules are too strict.

The NRA tried to go down rabbit hole #1 in the '80s and 90s, encouraging laws that force stricter sentences for possessing a gun during a crime, encouraging background checks, etc., and the results haven't been all that impressive. I guess they are still doing it...didn't Nevada just pass an NRA backed law forbidding those convicted of domestic violence from buying or posessing firearms? (Already forbidden by federal law so it is just a feelgood.)

 

[poboy6]

What we do know is record numbers of firearms are being sold. We know that record numbers of NICS checks are occurring, which means that more and more people are arming themselves (not just the same old "gun nuts" buying more guns). This means that the 9-10k homicides per year are committed by a smaller and smaller percentage of gun owners. I would think 80 million gun owners would be on the low side, but we don't (and will never) have accurate numbers on that.

Sure, you'll get some hippy dems that say "suicide is illegal so that counts as a homicide". Just ignore them, as these are the same people that support abortion. 20k suicides by firearm are indeed sad, but we have over 400k people dying of drug overdoses each year.

 

[Prijador]

Yes the OP's 30k stat is high. Actual homicides are more in the 10k range. But you have to imagine that many people who commit murder also commit more than one. I am not sure how you'd fine tune that value, but let's say 6,000 people account for the 10,000 homicides. Using your 60 million gun owners value (I think it may be higher but am not certain). That is 0.01%

Yes, one tenth of one percent.

Also please don't forget "homicide" statistics include things like police shooting a suspect, and justifiable homicides by a citizen defending themselves from an attacker.
In fact, fatalities due to police shooting turn out to be much higher than previously thought (more than double) after analysis by both the Washington Post and another paper.

"Criminal homicide" is the term that includes murder.

 

[burrhead]

Here are the 2014 FBI crime statistics.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...ses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense

To get to the tables click on the "Violent Crime" button. There are about 14K homicides per year by all means, about 8.5K by firearms. Interestingly, rifles of all types account for less than 400. The vast majority are by handguns. So much for "assault weapons" bans.

Spend some time on the site and poke around. There's a huge amount of info.

 

[MedWheeler]

I thought the number of lawful firearms owners was closer to 110 million..

 

[hso]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...murder_by_victim_offender_situations_2014.xls

11,961 murder victims in 2014. The facts are available in the FBI UCR and there's no need to argue since the information is published by the very government proposing draconian restrictions on law abiding citizens.

That's 12,000 murder victims by all means vs. 320,000,000 people in the U.S.

Here's the breakout by type of weapon.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
Note only 248 involved a rifle of some sort while shotguns were involved in 262 murders. Hands and feet were involved in 660 murders.

 

[gbran]

HSO

Note only 248 involved a rifle of some sort

Yet there is always a huge push to ban so-called assault rifles. Just further proof most laws are emotion, not fact based.

 

[JSH1]

What we do know is record numbers of firearms are being sold. We know that record numbers of NICS checks are occurring, which means that more and more people are arming themselves (not just the same old "gun nuts" buying more guns). This means that the 9-10k homicides per year are committed by a smaller and smaller percentage of gun owners. I would think 80 million gun owners would be on the low side, but we don't (and will never) have accurate numbers on that.

There is no way of knowing if the recent spike is gun sales in new people purchase their first gun or current gun owners buying additional guns. The data does not exist.

 

[Pushrod]

There is no way of knowing if the recent spike is gun sales in new people purchase their first gun or current gun owners buying additional guns. The data does not exist.

No, but the anecdotal evidence from gun shop owners is that they are seeing a lot of people new to gun ownership purchasing a firearm for the first time. So it is a valid supposition to say that gun ownership among the general population is increasing.

 

[mdauben]

There is no way of knowing if the recent spike is gun sales in new people purchase their first gun or current gun owners buying additional guns. The data does not exist.

There was evidence of record numbers of FOID applications in IL during the last gun surge a couple years ago. The FOID is an ID card required in IL to buy firearms. That would indicate record numbers of *new* firearms purchasers at that time. I have not heard any recent numbers from IL so I'm not sure if they are experiencing another surge.

 

[buck460XVR]

My personal direction is to expose the anti gun types as bigots in that they are smearing firearms owners for the sins of the few.

Has always been the case, regardless of what we are talking about....the old "a few bad apples" thingy. If there was only one murder a year by firearms in the U.S., it would still be one too many for the antis, and they would still attempt to make the rest of us responsible gun owners look like blood thirsty murderers.

 

[stonecutter2]

Yes, that is correct.

I point out that, between the suicides and repeat offenders, the numbers are puffed in favor of the anti stance so considering how dismal the figure is for their point of view, it is even more dismal when the puff is removed. All their stats for homicide are based on a group of people something less than .025% as large as the responsible firearms owner population, but we are all being blamed for the actions of that few.

I think I should have used a different thread title as the real intent here is to cut the legs off all of the "statistics" going around.

Instead of throwing statistics at each other, my stance is that all their stats are worthless in regard to the general population of firearms owners as the stats come from that tiny number of easily identifiable culprits. Easier to just point out their stats are trash each time they open their mouth.

Why would suicides using guns be considered "puffing" the numbers in favor of the anti stance?

They used a gun to kill themselves, right?

Do you want statistics, or just statistics that support your theory.

 

[hso]

Stonecutter,

Even the CDC recently pointed out that suicide numbers should be treated differently from murders and accidental shootings because most suicides that used a firearm were expected to use alternate means and no regulation would alter the numbers significantly.

 

[Warp]

Why would suicides using guns be considered "puffing" the numbers in favor of the anti stance?

They used a gun to kill themselves, right?

Do you want statistics, or just statistics that support your theory.

Well, I think many/most people who commit suicide will commit suicide, even if they don't have a gun.

Nothing the antis propose is really going to do anything to prevent people from committing suicide anyway.

All the antis ever talk about when trying to restrict or ban, is violent crime committed against other people. When they use the numbers and the term homicide, murder is what they want you to think they are talking about.

Magazine restrictions, difficult to obtain carry permits, off limits locations, restrictions on certain types of rifles, restrictions on certain types of handguns (or any firearm type restrictions that AWB type things have), silencer/machine gun/SBS/SBR laws, limits on ammunition purchase quantities, tracking of who buys guns, straw purchase laws, none of these things are goign to do anything about suicide

 

[stonecutter2]

Stonecutter,

Even the CDC recently pointed out that suicide numbers should be treated differently from murders and accidental shootings because most suicides that used a firearm were expected to use alternate means and no regulation would alter the numbers significantly.

Yeah, I know. Thanks for adding that in though. The statistics could certainly be better categorized.

But, someone did use a gun to take a life...albeit their own. Perhaps they could have used alternate means, but they didn't. They used a firearm.

I suppose I don't see some major conspiracy in how anyone grouped this, just a statistic measure that could be revised for some additional clarity.

I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's usually a bad idea to go after "real numbers" when trying to prove something statistically...especially when it's something you've already decided about. You're going to gravitate to anything to prove your perspective, which is just what is accused of the anti's a lot.

 

[Warp]

Yeah, I know. Thanks for adding that in though. The statistics could certainly be better categorized.

But, someone did use a gun to take a life...albeit their own. Perhaps they could have used alternate means, but they didn't. They used a firearm.

I suppose I don't see some major conspiracy in how anyone grouped this, just a statistic measure that could be revised for some additional clarity.

I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's usually a bad idea to go after "real numbers" when trying to prove something statistically...especially when it's something you've already decided about. You're going to gravitate to anything to prove your perspective, which is just what is accused of the anti's a lot.

Basically, you have no point here.

This isn't cherry picking stats we think are better, this is using the most pertinent information available, rather than information that is less relevant.

 

[stonecutter2]

Well, I think many/most people who commit suicide will commit suicide, even if they don't have a gun.

Nothing the antis propose is really going to do anything to prevent people from committing suicide anyway.

All the antis ever talk about when trying to restrict or ban, is violent crime committed against other people. When they use the numbers and the term homicide, murder is what they want you to think they are talking about.

Magazine restrictions, difficult to obtain carry permits, off limits locations, restrictions on certain types of rifles, restrictions on certain types of handguns (or any firearm type restrictions that AWB type things have), silencer/machine gun/SBS/SBR laws, limits on ammunition purchase quantities, tracking of who buys guns, straw purchase laws, none of these things are goign to do anything about suicide

But...they used a firearm. Not another method. Hence the statistic, right?

Admittedly, the use of "homicide" is misleading/incorrect and bears review.

I'm simply questioning the concept of seeking "real numbers" when approaching something with a bias.

 

[Warp]

But...they used a firearm. Not another method. Hence the statistic, right?

Admittedly, the use of "homicide" is misleading/incorrect and bears review.

I'm simply questioning the concept of seeking "real numbers" when approaching something with a bias.

Yes, they used a firearm...hence the statistic...but it's not particularly relevant to gun control law proposals. Do you understand that?

You seem to be looking for an argument while suggesting we intentionally use information/statistics that are less applicable to the situation just-because.

Example Should we ignore the fact that rifles are only used in ~400 firearm homicides per year vs many thousands with handguns, when the topic is rifle restrictions or bans? Or should we just let somebody use "firearm homicides" when trying to ban rifles, even though almost all of those are with handguns? The statistics of firearms homicides IS correct in that scenario as rifles ARE firearms...would you consider it bias to use the more accurate and pertinent info?

 

[stonecutter2]

Basically, you have no point here.

This isn't cherry picking stats we think are better, this is using the most pertinent information available, rather than information that is less relevant.

Sorry, I do have a point.

The OP says:

My personal direction is to expose the anti gun types as bigots in that they are smearing firearms owners for the sins of the few.

So what I am looking for is an accurate or objectively justifiable number of the people who use firearms in a criminal or violent manner: gang members, drug culture, domestic violence, simple career criminals, mental health issues, etc.

In other words - this is what I want to prove. How can I get numbers to justify this?

Not the best way of approaching data for pertinent information, is it?

I think a better way to approach this would be to say - "where is there data appropriately broken down, so I can see if my theory/perspective holds true that antis are just full of it. Does it exist?"

 

[stonecutter2]

Yes, they used a firearm...hence the statistic...but it's not particularly relevant to gun control law proposals. Do you understand that?

You seem to be looking for an argument while suggesting we intentionally use information/statistics that are less applicable to the situation just-because.

Example Should we ignore the fact that rifles are only used in ~400 firearm homicides per year vs many thousands with handguns, when the topic is rifle restrictions or bans? Or should we just let somebody use "firearm homicides" when trying to ban rifles, even though almost all of those are with handguns? The statistics of firearms homicides IS correct in that scenario as rifles ARE firearms...would you consider it bias to use the more accurate and pertinent info?

That's not what I'm saying.

If you'd read my replies, perhaps you'll see what it is I'm trying to get across. I caution anyone to seek data to vehemently prove their point, and recommend rather that people review data to see what conclusions can be drawn from them and see how it compares to their hypothesis.

If I've failed to convey it properly so far, then that's okay. I've failed. I'm not always the most articulate in such matters. I can move on and hope everyone else does, too.

 

[buck460XVR]

Basically, you have no point here.

I got Stonecutter's point. His point is that folks on both sides fudge numbers in attempt to make their point. This is why so many folks don't trust polls or the statistics given from the other side, i.e. the point of this thread.

Should suicides by guns be included? This thread shows which side you are on may influence your decision subjectively. Objectively, if folks used a gun, and suicide is considered a homicide, then it is correct to include it.