What I see in those numbers is that all forms of violence involving firearms are down over the period given. That's at the same time that gun ownership and carry have been on the rise. That shouldn't be possible if the gun control narrative is true.
I also saw that far too many people offer no resistence when threatened by criminals--thus the need for more armed good citizens. You, Mikeb, will naturally take the data that you like here, but the numbers aren't good for your side. That's especially true if we're going to play battle of the studies.
You know why I posted this and it wasn't to discuss the decline in gun violence. You questioned my mention of the half-a-million gun crimes a year, insinuating that I made it up. Here it is, Greg. Read it and weap.
Apologize for what, asking to see your source? There's nothing wrong in that. In fact, it's part of the critical thinking that Dog Gone always demands, but fails to exercise.
What you failed to notice was that this survey makes estimates to reach its conclusion, just as any similar study does. That being the case, you'll have to explain why these estimates are fine to you, but Kleck's aren't. Saying that he concluded something that you don't like doesn't qualify as critical thinking, by the way.
Are you going to call the BJS out for bias for starting at 1993 like you did for us? There is a legitimate reason you hear about 1993 so much, you know.
Actually I thought it was more like 700,000. I must have been remembering that stat from a few years ago.
I don't get why pointing out how many armed criminals commit crimes would compell anyone to disarm, though. It doesn't seem like wanting protection is paranoia when you point out half a million gun crimes, and another million or so non-gun crimes.
Well, for one thing, not all of those crimes are committed by disqualified people. Some percentage is done by lawful gun owners who turn bad or get caught for the first time doing bad things.
And, it's not just "another million or so non-gun crimes." It's another million or so UNREPORTED GUN CRIMES, or perhaps much more than that.
The point being, guns do far more harm than good and since the criminals get their guns from the good guys, restricting the good guys would have an immediate impact on the criminals' ability go get guns.
Just as restricting the good guys from getting psychoactive substances has an immediate effect (not impact) on the criminals' ability to get them--oh, wait...
But seriously, how do you know how many unreported gun crimes occurred?
I was coming at it from a different angle. You're saying the government should restrict good people who want to own guns because there are too many bad people. That's a different message than " you shouldn't choose to be armed because something bad is more likely to happen to you". Contradictory in fact.
As an amusing anecdote, when I just tried to type "government", my auto correct changed it to "hover enemy". I almost left it.
Because he can magically pull a number out of his ass to push crime above even the largest estimates of DGU's. Such wild estimation is hack science when done by pro gun people, but when Mike B does it, it's baptized by the magic of gun control awesomeness, and it is blessed and declared true by a laying on of hands by Baldr, god of disarmament, who locked Mjolnir away from Thor because he didn't have a background check.
I consider statistics untrustworthy in most of these cases because hacks can color the questions, monkey with the assumptions and estimates, manipulate the sample, manipulate other parameters, etc. etc. etc.
That's why I try to avoid using statistics and polling as the basis of my arguments. I'll point out a glaring fault in someone's stats or poll if I see it, but otherwise I don't trust statisticians any more than I trust politicians.
I'm suspicious of estimates as well. I quote them from time to time to show that using the same methods, a variety of conclusions can be drawn. Certainly what we see is that the questions of how many defensive gun uses or gun crimes take place in a given year are not simple ones. But if you admit one set of figures, you have to acknowledge that another set, arrived at using the same methods, could equally well be the answer.
Ahh, you guys are just too cute. Now you're all suspicious of stats. That's not what you were saying when we argued many times about the DGU numbers.
Did I understand Greg's remarks correctly? Are you agreeing with me? If we admit the DGU estimates using a certain method of arriving at them, then we should do the same with gun-crime stats. Fine, start with half-a-million and add, what, another 90% for unreported cases?
After you do that math, tell me again how guns do more good than harm.
I'm saying that if we accept estimates made from population sampling, we have defensive gun uses running anywhere from 108,000 per annum to 2.5 million in that period. That's a huge spread, telling me that the numbers are hard to nail down, but those do suggest that good gun uses are at least on par with the bad.
Mike, I've tried to not get involved in those arguments because I don't base my rights upon stats--especially since I have always distrusted stats.
That being said, when you start saying that 90% of crime goes un-reported, you start to look silly. Anyone who ads 90% to their figures is stretching the bounds of credulity even if they can show good reasons for such an addition. It introduces such a large amount of guess work that the statistic becomes highly questionable to the point of being unreliable.
This data seems incredible, until you look more closely and realize that there was a significant decline early on (as we moved out of a recession and the Brady Bill took effect), then leveled off by 1999, and has barely reduced since then.
Our pal Greg, here, has made the common gunloon mistake of saying "See, see, the numbers are down so we don't need to do anything to help reduce shootings!" without consideration at all to fact that it has remained the same since '99, or the fact that we still lead the advanced world in shootings. 11,000 gun homicides a year are A-OK to extremists like him. Just the cost of "freedom."
U.S. population in 1999: 272,600,000 In 2013: 315, 900,000
Oregonian, you claim to understand statistics. Explain to me how the population can shoot up like that, while the gun homicides stay at the same number, not rate. That number remains the same, meaning a decline in the rate, despite an increase in gun owners and a relaxation in carry laws.
You make the control freak error of thinking that you have the one magical answer that you must impose on the rest of us.
Strange how you guys love to make fun of the idea of the "cost of freedom" in this area, but when someone suggests more surveillance, profiling, various privacy invading searches, etc. you talk about the occasional bombing being the cost of keeping our freedom.
If your blindness to the inconsistency were not so destructive it would be funny.
@ Greg: as to your first reply, you mistake my point, and failed to answer my accusation of you. 11,000 gun homicides a year is A-OK to you. Who gives a shit about the rate when the number of dead are so incredibly high, unless you are blinded by your fetish.
Oregonian, the economy is getting better? What are you, Mitt Romney? I live in the real world and know real people. The economy is limping along. You can quote me all the numbers you like, but for human beings, things aren't a lot better. But you avoided answering the point. How is it that the number of homicides went down during a period of economic trouble and increased gun ownership?
More than that, lay aside the personal attack for a moment, and look at the facts. The trend is downward. I never said that 11,000 gun homicides is A-OK. What I say is that gun control wouldn't improve the situation, and since the trend is going in the right direction, radical solutions don't even make sense.
What you appear to accept, by contrast, is a violation of basic rights for any reason whatsoever, just because you don't like us to exercise those rights.
@ Baldr: I was talking in generalities about your side, hence the use of "You guys." You're right, I don't know all of your thoughts since you haven't been around much while I've been here. My assumption about those civil libertarian beliefs was based on those being commonly held and stated by those on the left--a final redeeming characteristic.
However, if the assumption that you might share at least some of those beliefs is wrong, and if you favor all sorts of invasions of privacy because of the security that they will bring, then I'll salute you for at least being consistent, but the salute is coming from the same middle finger deserved by all who would trade freedom for security.
Another by the way, Oregonian--why do the data seem (not seems!) incredible to you? Could it be that you've arrived at a conclusion before looking at the data?
What I see in those numbers is that all forms of violence involving firearms are down over the period given. That's at the same time that gun ownership and carry have been on the rise. That shouldn't be possible if the gun control narrative is true.
ReplyDeleteI also saw that far too many people offer no resistence when threatened by criminals--thus the need for more armed good citizens. You, Mikeb, will naturally take the data that you like here, but the numbers aren't good for your side. That's especially true if we're going to play battle of the studies.
You know why I posted this and it wasn't to discuss the decline in gun violence. You questioned my mention of the half-a-million gun crimes a year, insinuating that I made it up. Here it is, Greg. Read it and weap.
DeleteHave some integrity and apologize.
Apologize for what, asking to see your source? There's nothing wrong in that. In fact, it's part of the critical thinking that Dog Gone always demands, but fails to exercise.
DeleteWhat you failed to notice was that this survey makes estimates to reach its conclusion, just as any similar study does. That being the case, you'll have to explain why these estimates are fine to you, but Kleck's aren't. Saying that he concluded something that you don't like doesn't qualify as critical thinking, by the way.
Whatever your reason, I'm waiting for you to attack yourself and BJS for perpetuating the obvious lie that crime is going down in the given period...
DeleteAre you going to call the BJS out for bias for starting at 1993 like you did for us? There is a legitimate reason you hear about 1993 so much, you know.
ReplyDeleteAs I said to Greg, that wasn't the reason for this post. I understand why you want to focus on the other thing.
DeleteActually I thought it was more like 700,000. I must have been remembering that stat from a few years ago.
DeleteI don't get why pointing out how many armed criminals commit crimes would compell anyone to disarm, though. It doesn't seem like wanting protection is paranoia when you point out half a million gun crimes, and another million or so non-gun crimes.
Well, for one thing, not all of those crimes are committed by disqualified people. Some percentage is done by lawful gun owners who turn bad or get caught for the first time doing bad things.
DeleteAnd, it's not just "another million or so non-gun crimes." It's another million or so UNREPORTED GUN CRIMES, or perhaps much more than that.
The point being, guns do far more harm than good and since the criminals get their guns from the good guys, restricting the good guys would have an immediate impact on the criminals' ability go get guns.
Just as restricting the good guys from getting psychoactive substances has an immediate effect (not impact) on the criminals' ability to get them--oh, wait...
DeleteBut seriously, how do you know how many unreported gun crimes occurred?
I was coming at it from a different angle. You're saying the government should restrict good people who want to own guns because there are too many bad people. That's a different message than " you shouldn't choose to be armed because something bad is more likely to happen to you". Contradictory in fact.
DeleteAs an amusing anecdote, when I just tried to type "government", my auto correct changed it to "hover enemy". I almost left it.
Because he can magically pull a number out of his ass to push crime above even the largest estimates of DGU's. Such wild estimation is hack science when done by pro gun people, but when Mike B does it, it's baptized by the magic of gun control awesomeness, and it is blessed and declared true by a laying on of hands by Baldr, god of disarmament, who locked Mjolnir away from Thor because he didn't have a background check.
DeleteSince you're a consistent man, I suppose you're condemning ALL the DGU estimates as "hack science?"
DeleteI consider statistics untrustworthy in most of these cases because hacks can color the questions, monkey with the assumptions and estimates, manipulate the sample, manipulate other parameters, etc. etc. etc.
DeleteThat's why I try to avoid using statistics and polling as the basis of my arguments. I'll point out a glaring fault in someone's stats or poll if I see it, but otherwise I don't trust statisticians any more than I trust politicians.
I'm suspicious of estimates as well. I quote them from time to time to show that using the same methods, a variety of conclusions can be drawn. Certainly what we see is that the questions of how many defensive gun uses or gun crimes take place in a given year are not simple ones. But if you admit one set of figures, you have to acknowledge that another set, arrived at using the same methods, could equally well be the answer.
DeleteAhh, you guys are just too cute. Now you're all suspicious of stats. That's not what you were saying when we argued many times about the DGU numbers.
DeleteDid I understand Greg's remarks correctly? Are you agreeing with me? If we admit the DGU estimates using a certain method of arriving at them, then we should do the same with gun-crime stats. Fine, start with half-a-million and add, what, another 90% for unreported cases?
After you do that math, tell me again how guns do more good than harm.
I'm saying that if we accept estimates made from population sampling, we have defensive gun uses running anywhere from 108,000 per annum to 2.5 million in that period. That's a huge spread, telling me that the numbers are hard to nail down, but those do suggest that good gun uses are at least on par with the bad.
DeleteMike, I've tried to not get involved in those arguments because I don't base my rights upon stats--especially since I have always distrusted stats.
DeleteThat being said, when you start saying that 90% of crime goes un-reported, you start to look silly. Anyone who ads 90% to their figures is stretching the bounds of credulity even if they can show good reasons for such an addition. It introduces such a large amount of guess work that the statistic becomes highly questionable to the point of being unreliable.
This data seems incredible, until you look more closely and realize that there was a significant decline early on (as we moved out of a recession and the Brady Bill took effect), then leveled off by 1999, and has barely reduced since then.
ReplyDeleteOur pal Greg, here, has made the common gunloon mistake of saying "See, see, the numbers are down so we don't need to do anything to help reduce shootings!" without consideration at all to fact that it has remained the same since '99, or the fact that we still lead the advanced world in shootings. 11,000 gun homicides a year are A-OK to extremists like him. Just the cost of "freedom."
U.S. population in 1999: 272,600,000
DeleteIn 2013: 315, 900,000
Oregonian, you claim to understand statistics. Explain to me how the population can shoot up like that, while the gun homicides stay at the same number, not rate. That number remains the same, meaning a decline in the rate, despite an increase in gun owners and a relaxation in carry laws.
You make the control freak error of thinking that you have the one magical answer that you must impose on the rest of us.
Strange how you guys love to make fun of the idea of the "cost of freedom" in this area, but when someone suggests more surveillance, profiling, various privacy invading searches, etc. you talk about the occasional bombing being the cost of keeping our freedom.
DeleteIf your blindness to the inconsistency were not so destructive it would be funny.
By the way, Oregonian, if recessions and gun laws are so important, why do we see a drop in homicides over the time the Obama has been in office?
Delete@Greg: because, obviously, the economy is getting better.
Delete@Tennessean: you ascribe beliefs to me without any evidence whatsoever that I believe them.
Delete@ Greg: as to your first reply, you mistake my point, and failed to answer my accusation of you. 11,000 gun homicides a year is A-OK to you. Who gives a shit about the rate when the number of dead are so incredibly high, unless you are blinded by your fetish.
DeleteOregonian, the economy is getting better? What are you, Mitt Romney? I live in the real world and know real people. The economy is limping along. You can quote me all the numbers you like, but for human beings, things aren't a lot better. But you avoided answering the point. How is it that the number of homicides went down during a period of economic trouble and increased gun ownership?
DeleteMore than that, lay aside the personal attack for a moment, and look at the facts. The trend is downward. I never said that 11,000 gun homicides is A-OK. What I say is that gun control wouldn't improve the situation, and since the trend is going in the right direction, radical solutions don't even make sense.
What you appear to accept, by contrast, is a violation of basic rights for any reason whatsoever, just because you don't like us to exercise those rights.
@ Baldr: I was talking in generalities about your side, hence the use of "You guys." You're right, I don't know all of your thoughts since you haven't been around much while I've been here. My assumption about those civil libertarian beliefs was based on those being commonly held and stated by those on the left--a final redeeming characteristic.
DeleteHowever, if the assumption that you might share at least some of those beliefs is wrong, and if you favor all sorts of invasions of privacy because of the security that they will bring, then I'll salute you for at least being consistent, but the salute is coming from the same middle finger deserved by all who would trade freedom for security.
Another by the way, Oregonian--why do the data seem (not seems!) incredible to you? Could it be that you've arrived at a conclusion before looking at the data?
Delete