I wish I had a Dollar for every time some pro-gun commenter used the argument that the gun violence in Chicago proves that gun control doesn't work. They say this as if it really makes sense. On pro-gun blogs they repeat it so often that they've actually begun to believe it.
Unlike some of our friends, Frail Liberty for example, I put a good deal of stock into the Google-search-engine method of determining statistics. Searching for news results on a particular subject, although not comprehensive by any means, is a good way of obtaining a rough idea of what's reaching the news. DGUs, for example, appear to be about 100 times less frequent than gun misuse. Allowing for the very reasonable argument that DGUs of the brandishing kind don't make the news, one can make the appropriate allowances and come up with a fairly accurate idea of what's what.
About Chicago, there's an interesting thing to be found in Google. Almost every single incident is gang or drug or criminal related. Weekends when a dozen people are killed and scores wounded, you can usually find not one case of lawful gun owners going bad. In other places where gun restrictions are less onerous, domestic violence by formerly lawful gun owners, work related shootings by formerly law abiding gun owners and other like incidents make up a major percentage of the gun crime. Not so in Chicago.
Of course Chicago has some hidden criminals like any place, but due to the strict gun control, they are far fewer and they make the news much less frequently.
This means that Chicago is a good example of gun control working as it should. In spite of the ridiculous claims of the pro-gun folks, we understand that criminals do not obey laws. The gang members and drug dealers in Chicago are no exception. They easily import all the guns they need from Indiana, Ohio and several other states with lax gun laws within driving distance. But among the non-criminal citizens of Chicago, there is an extremely safe and secure environment, thanks to its gun control restrictions and resultant limited gun availability.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I noticed in the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics tool (from the USDOJ) that Chicago does not report their Violent Crime rate (I guess they just don't want us to know). They do report the rate of murder and non negligent manslaughter, so lets compare that for 2010.
ReplyDeleteChicago: 16.0
United States: 5.5
I'm pretty sure that you would agree that firearms are used for a large number of these. Yeah, that's a good example of gun control working as it should.
I meant to add the link to the UCR Table building tool.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ucrdatatool.gov/index.cfm
This is an example of gun control working as it should? I'm astounded. I'm gobsmacked. Mikeb, people are killing each other at a rate higher than most of the rest of the country, but good citizens have so many burdens against owning a gun legally that few make it, and no one is allowed to carry a gun, even though criminals do so anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf Chicago is your example of success, that's a prime reason why your side is losing.
It's worse than that. MikeB's statements say that gun control will not even affect criminals ... so the only portion of crime it might affect are previously law abiding citizens who "snap" and attack their spouses or workplace.
DeleteIf we had proper gun control across the country criminals would be affected too. But the absence of non-gang and non-drug shootings proves that Chicago works.
DeleteBecause no gang would import guns along with the tons of drugs they bring in every year. Try again.
Delete"... other like incidents make up a major percentage of the gun crime."
ReplyDeleteWrong conclusion. Those other "like incidents" may make up a major percentage of the gun crime that you found reported in the news ... but there is no evidence that the news reports on all of the gun crime that occurs or that you found all news reports.
Try again.
So it's a conspiracy of the liberal press that they mainly report "like incidents?"
DeleteMikeB wrote, "DGUs [defensive gun uses], for example, appear to be about 100 times less frequent than gun misuse. Allowing for the very reasonable argument that DGUs of the brandishing kind don't make the news, one can make the appropriate allowances and come up with a fairly accurate idea of what's what."
ReplyDeleteI cannot let this slide. I provided a very reasonable estimate of how many defensive gun uses happen based on news articles. Well here is an even simpler estimate. We have hard data that citizens used a firearm in at least 232 justifiable homicides in 2010. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls) Using that number, we can estimate how many times armed citizens used guns defensively. And the estimate will be reasonably accurate. We simply need to account for four major variables.
The variables are:
(1) How often do people shoot rather than brandish?
(2) How often do citizens actually shoot the criminal (accuracy) when they pull the trigger?
(3) How often are shootings lethal?
(4) How often do people brandish or shoot and neither citizen nor criminal reports to hospitals nor law enforcement?
We can make reasonable estimates for all four.
(1) how often do people actually shoot rather than brandish -- is between 5% and 10%. Studies have reported numbers in this range and it is common sense: most criminals turn and run when an armed citizen flashes or points a gun at them without even having to fire it. This fits first hand narratives from many victims as well as numerous security videos. Armed citizens just don't shoot very often.
(2) accuracy when shots fired -- is at best 50%. Several sources tell us that law enforcement officers only shoot the criminal something like 33% of the time. So assuming that citizens are even better shots than police makes even less desirable numbers for gun rights advocates.
(3) gunshot mortality -- is about 20% according to various sources. Remember a gunshot to extremities is almost never lethal and serious wounds to the torso are often survivable with prompt trauma care.
(4) how often people refuse to report a crime -- is less clear. Using nothing more than intuition, I figure people report crimes in only 75% of events. People in rural areas would report nearly all crimes but most crimes happen in large cities and many people in large cities do not want to be involved with law enforcement.
So how often do armed citizens defend themselves with firearms based on FBI justifiable homicide data? About 30,933 to 61,867 times per year.
How to verify those numbers ...
Low end:
232 == 30,933 x 0.75 (reported) x 0.10 (shots fired) x 0.5 (accuracy) x 0.20 (mortality rate)
High end:
232 == 61,867 x 0.75 (reported) x 0.05 (shots fired) x 0.5 (accuracy) x 0.20 (mortality rate)
The arithmetic is rock solid and undeniable. Anyone who disagrees with the results has to explain why the estimates for the four variables are unrealistic.
First of all, the "2.5 million DGUs a year" crowd won't be very happy with your estimate.
DeleteSecondly, rock solid is nonsense. You were estimating every step of the way. That's not rock solid math, that's speculation.
Thirdly, and most importantly, you did not allow for the false DGUs. Do you really think there are zero incidents of people getting away with calling something a DGU that was really an unnecessary brandishing or actually an aggressive and criminal act?
Mikeb, you're criticizing speculation? When have you ever done anything else?
DeleteMikeB,
DeleteI said that the arithmetic (the formula) is rock solid. I also said that anyone who disagrees with the results has to explain why the estimates of the four variables are unrealistic.
In order to reduce my number, you have to provide sensible arguments or even better data that:
(a) citizens are even more accurate when they do fire,
(b) the mortality rate of all gunshot wounds is significantly greater than 20%, and
(c) armed citizens almost always shoot at an attacker rather than brandish or point their firearm.
Face it ... the estimates are very realistic and you have no sensible arguments -- much less data -- to reduce my number.
As for false defensive gun uses, how could there be any false defensive gun uses when the basis is actual homicides that law enforcement ruled were justified? If the homicide had not been justified (a false defensive gun use), law enforcement would have labelled it as murder, not justifiable homicide. Saying it another way, law enforcement vetted all of the initial data.
Epic fail MikeB.
Do you remember Jerome Ersland? The only reason his actions were not considered a legitimate DGU is that there was video surveillance. Do you really think there are none that get away with murder? Do you really think that every one of those brandishing DGUs were absolutely necessary?
Delete" In other places where gun restrictions are less onerous, domestic violence by formerly lawful gun owners, work related shootings by formerly law abiding gun owners and other like incidents make up a major percentage of the gun crime."
ReplyDelete------
*citation needed
"This means that Chicago is a good example of gun control working as it should."
------
I actually agree with this statement. In the land of strict gun control, only the criminals have guns.
"In spite of the ridiculous claims of the pro-gun folks, we understand that criminals do not obey laws."
------
Saying it doesn't make it so. If you really understood the implications of the statement "criminals do not obey laws", you would not be pushing for more laws.
Moonshine
Look up your own citations.
DeleteOnly criminals have guns when the strict gun control laws are in a tiny isolated place and not in the neighboring states.
I'm pushing for more laws, understanding that they are aimed at the law abiding, since they are the source of nearly every single gun used in crime.
"Unlike some of our friends, Frail Liberty for example, I put a good deal of stock into the Google-search-engine method of determining statistics. Searching for news results on a particular subject, although not comprehensive by any means, is a good way of obtaining a rough idea of what's reaching the news."
ReplyDeleteWow, just wow. Well, I stand by this. Google can be great for locating STUDIES of various things. But it laughable to think you can use it to find individual news reports and somehow get a handle on crime and DGU's in this country. There are over 5.3 million violent crimes in the USA each year! You are totally insane.
Why don't you use the google to search for traffic accidents and see if you can't paint me an accurate picture of the ratio of minor accidents to major accidents - and then intentional accidents vs negligent accidents. Let me know how that goes for ya!!
I'm ignoring your stupid traffic accident comparison.
DeleteOf course you disparage the Google method of ascertaining DGU vs. gun-misuse ratios. You don't like the results.
Why Mike? You claim that I can't compare car accidents to gun accidents for punitive purposes. I don't agree, but I understand your opinion.
DeleteBut this is just information gathering. Why can I not compare them when it comes to using the media and google?
I can use google news right now to search for car accident and get 858,000 results. Should I be able to then get an accurate picture of the situation?
No my friend, you just don't like the analogy because it reveals who silly your whole concept is.
Chicago is in the news today, a bunch of shootings on Friday and Saturday morning. Every one gang and drug related by the look of 'em.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd so are car accidents ... what's you point?
DeleteOn thanksgiving morning, there was a 100 car pile-up on I-10 near Beaumont Texas. Should I assume that is a common occurrence?