Bob Costas, famed sports announcer.
Gun dot com reported that the NRA is willing to accept Bob Costa's wager. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox translates the terms of the bet from athletes to civilians at large and to make his point uses the extremely faulty CDC report that came out after Newtown. In it, DGU estimates start with 500,000 per year. This is incredibly deceptive - even our daily commenter Greg Camp is more honest and accurate than that.
But, DGU estimates are, after all, estimates. Where they really go off the rails is in saying that in 2008 there were 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms. This is something that can be fact-checked using FBI hard numbers.
Is it possible that Chris Cox and his people didn't do that fact checking? Or was it purposely deceptive to talk about DGU estimates of half-a-million a year and up, as well as low-balling the 2008 numbers of violent crimes committed with firearms by 25% (or whatever the difference really is - TS can tell us).
Putting the ratings matter aside, and speaking to the statistical point Cox is making, the CDC put out a study in 2013, commissioned by the president in response to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” stated the study.
FBI
- Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
murders with firearms in 2008 = 9,528
Aggravated assaults in 2008 = 843,683 of which 21% = Aggravated Assaults with firearm = 177,173
Robberies in 2008 = 443, 563 of which 41% = robberies with firearms = 181,860
Forcible rape ion 2008 = 90,750 but for some reason it's not known how many were at gun point.
The total for murders, robberies and assaults committed with guns is 368,561.
Figuring that some of the 90,000 rapes in 2008 were done at gun point, we have about 400,000 violent crimes committed with guns, not 300,000.
Another problem with the NRA argument is what we always run into when re-hashing the DGU thing. Those estimates of DGUs, even the lower ones which were conveniently omitted in this article, include things like brandishings and shooting at animals. In order to make a fair comparison, you can't compare that number to ONLY violent crimes committed with guns, you'd have to compare the DGUs to gun crimes NOT limited to murder, robbery, assault and rape. We'd have to include the lesser offenses too, illegal brandishings, domestic abuse involving guns that doesn't rise to the level of aggravated assault, lost and dropped guns. In order to be really fair, we'd have to ESTIMATE how many illegal and improper uses of guns take place every year.
In other words, when counting DGUs, the gun nuts are all inclusive. But when counting gun crimes for comparison purposes, they have very specific criteria.
This brings us to a familiar question. If the gun-rights movement truly had right on its side, why would it continually resort to such underhanded trickery when making its point?
Figuring that some of the 90,000 rapes in 2008 were done at gun point, we have about 400,000 violent crimes committed with guns, not 300,000.
Another problem with the NRA argument is what we always run into when re-hashing the DGU thing. Those estimates of DGUs, even the lower ones which were conveniently omitted in this article, include things like brandishings and shooting at animals. In order to make a fair comparison, you can't compare that number to ONLY violent crimes committed with guns, you'd have to compare the DGUs to gun crimes NOT limited to murder, robbery, assault and rape. We'd have to include the lesser offenses too, illegal brandishings, domestic abuse involving guns that doesn't rise to the level of aggravated assault, lost and dropped guns. In order to be really fair, we'd have to ESTIMATE how many illegal and improper uses of guns take place every year.
In other words, when counting DGUs, the gun nuts are all inclusive. But when counting gun crimes for comparison purposes, they have very specific criteria.
This brings us to a familiar question. If the gun-rights movement truly had right on its side, why would it continually resort to such underhanded trickery when making its point?
You should get your own tricks in order, Mikeb. You criticize estimates when you make wild guesses and insist that we use "common sense" in place of facts?
ReplyDeleteIf gun control weren't such a crock of shit, you wouldn't have to keep boiling it and pouring in spices to call it a stew.
Since real gun control hasn't been tried in this country for over 100 years, your statement is, as you say, full of shit. You might even be right, but you have no basis to make that claim. Try real gun control and then we will see.
DeleteAnonymous, why must you tell such obvious falsehoods? We've had gun control. It peaked in the 80s and 90s. And it failed. The residents of some states are still suffering, but we're working on getting rid of the remaining vestiges of gun control.
Delete"NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox translates the terms of the bet from athletes to civilians at large"
DeleteI think that's what I suggested a couple of days ago when you said I was full of it.
Right GC and just a post ago you were saying how gun restrictions have loosened since the 1980 with a stronger gun lobby, proving you side is winning. Which one is it?
DeleteGreg, in this post I did research and posted the FBI data to back up my point. Yet, your response is that I'm "boiling it and pouring in spices to call it a stew."
DeletePlease explain.
Anonymous, stop lying. The date is closer to 1990, plus or minus a couple of years.
DeleteMikeb, you refuse to accept the reasonable estimate that defensive gun uses total in the hundreds of thousands per annum. But if you're bringing in crimes outside of murder, you also have to include all the hunting, target shooting, and collecting in the good side column. Gun rights still wins.
Since your opinion that gun crimes are down since regulations were loosened decades ago, has been proven wrong by the statistics of gun abuses and gun killings, are you saying that you are backing off that false opinion because I misprinted a date? NO. You are sticking with an opinion that has been proven wrong. It's humorous to see your tactics of pointing out misspellings, or date errors is the only come back you have to try and salvage your misjudgments on serious issues.
DeleteSo who is the arbiter? Who will decide the definitions on both sides? Unless clear definitions are decided on and what process will be used to come to the numbers, which both sides have to agree on, five years from now one, or both sides will claim it's a bogus count and no clear winner.
ReplyDeleteGee whiz, Mike. Number one not to mention that the guns.com pussies didn't really accept Bob's bet which would have been easy to track and prove one way or the other. I click on the guns.com thing about the wager and it has another hypertext that I click on that takes me to the so-called study in 2013, it’s another guns.com story that says "DGUs Common, Mass Shootings Not." Yay! Is that some kind of joke? Let’s all be happy together that mass shootings are not common. Kumbayah!. Then I click another hypertext that takes me to the study they are supposedly quoting. It takes me to a some page offering for sale the study, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence ( 2013 ). So there is nothing that is accessible to the public. Then I finally click on these 23 executive orders issued by Obama, I see # 14. "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." Where the hell is the actual research?
ReplyDeleteSince when does CDC have the NSA doing its paperwork? WTF! This is total fucking bullshit. There is no study quoted. Huge waste of time. It would be a bigger waste of time to entertain such a ridiculous notion. How about some of your readers share all of their memorable and exciting DGU exploits and triumphs?
Let's note how Mikeb has nothing to say about FJ's sexism.
DeleteC'mon guys, I'm waiting to hear your response. Greg gave us a typical non-response. Only silence from the rest of you.
ReplyDeleteI responded. I reminded you of how you misuse numbers.
Delete"Only silence from the rest of you."
ReplyDeleteThere isn't much to say Mike. The President used his executive powers to make something happen that gun control advocates have been complaining about ad nauseam and now you're complaining because the study doesn't validate your contentions.
I'm sure there are other studies in the pipeline that may or may not support stricter gun laws. However, the citizenry have become increasingly reluctant to give up their freedoms in return for government assurances that "its for their own good" because actions by the government are resulting in a loss of their credibility.
This is what led to the explosion of shall issue permit systems. The public is much more demanding being kept informed of what is happening and want more than just assurances. To quote President Reagan when dealing with the soviets, "trust, but verify".
"Doesn't validate my contentions?" Are you shittin' me? I was hoping for some nice compliments for having looked up the FBI stats and showing how bad that CDC report was. That's a little different from not liking what they said because it didn't validate my contentions. This is facts and evidence.
Delete"I was hoping for some nice compliments for having looked up the FBI stats and showing how bad that CDC report was. "
DeleteNice stats Mike. However, you've also gone to lengths at times to dispute statistics in FBI crime reports when used to argue against your assertions. So how come all of a sudden they're "good" statistics when they support your side of the debate?
MikeB, your argument appears to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that one must include all improper uses of guns, not just criminal uses of guns. If that's the case one must also include all proper uses of guns which would include target practice and hunting as well as the DGU of the display of the firearm and informing an attacker that your armed nature. You can't balance improve uses of guns against strictly uses of guns in self defense which to your way of thinking appears only to include the gun being fired. If you are going to include all improper uses you much include all proper uses, which, unfortunately for your way of thinking out of necessity has to include every gun owner who doesn't have an improper use.
DeleteMikeZ
Nice twist, Mike, with a trick lie thrown in. I don't exclude DGUs that do not involve firing the gun. I understand there are brandishing type DGUs, but I don't believe they number in the millions like you fanatics say and I object to your insisting on proof and evidence from me while accepting all those brandishings with none.
DeleteAbout counting all the proper uses of guns in the comparison to the improper uses, that's just more obfuscation and diversion. Defensive gun uses are compared to offensive gun uses, in other words criminal uses. It's about crime and the prevention of crime. That's why I like to throw into the mix the half-a-million guns you guys allow to be stolen every year. They go directly into the criminal world.
You wanna count every time someone legally shoots at a target, go ahead. To me it sounds pretty silly.
ss with a weak gotcha:
Delete"However, you've also gone to lengths at times to dispute statistics in FBI crime reports when used to argue against your assertions. So how come all of a sudden they're "good" statistics when they support your side of the debate? "
The times I've questioned the FBI stats it was about under-reporting. My idea is that some of the data is not collected. This case is about reporting MORE than the CDC people quoted. Get me?
Here's the problem, to support your argument you claim that lost or dropped guns must be included but neither of those are crimes. In one sentence you talk about all improper uses but when I call you on it you go back only to criminal uses of guns. And where exactly do you get the half million that we "allow to get stolen"?
DeleteMikeZ
Mike, I sometimes like to count the things that SHOULD be crimes like when you guys drop your guns on the ground and when you leave your guns in the glove compartment and the car is broken into and the gun taken.
DeleteBut, since there's no way to know how many times you guys do things like that, I don't need them when comparing to DGUs. Half-a-million gun crimes a year is more than enough in and of itself. We don't need to count the other ways guns are misused like the hundreds of thousands of times each year one of you guys gets a gun stolen from your home because you didn't lock it up in a safe.