One of the issues I often encounter online is people not believing how many times firearms are used defensively to stop crime.
So, thinking about it I decided to see if it was reasonable or not to believe the numbers.
Dr. Gary Kleck's survey determined that as many as 2,500,000 times a year someone uses a firearms to stop or prevent a crime....is that number outrageous as some people claim?
Let's examine it and see.
There are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in America. Let's assume that each defensive gun use is done by a different person.
2,500,000 divided by 365 days equals 6,850 uses per day.
Sounds like a lot until you consider that 80 million people own firearms.
(6,850 divided by 80,000,000)*100 = 0.0085625%
Okay, so is it reasonable to say that less then 0.01% of gun owners each day use their firearms to stop or prevent a crime? I think it is.
Let's assume that most gun owners never have to use their firearms, or the presence of their firearms never stops a crime...if only 10% of the gun owners use their firearms
(6,850 divided by 8,000,000)*100 = 0.085625%
- that is still less than a tenth of a percent of gun owners per day -- at 2.5 million DGUs. Is it reasonable to say that 0.1% of gun owners might use their firearms to stop a crime each day? I think it is?
I think most people will readily recognize the reality behind the situation. It will be a typical bell curve, most people never use their firearms to stop a crime, some people will use them once or twice, others will use them multiple times a year.
So, is it reasonable to say there might be 2,500,000 defensive gun uses a year?
Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Bob, You're leaving out the ones that are not defensive at all but offensive. Of your 6,000 a day, how many are like that, do you think?
You see, this is where you are forced to do what you hate doing, use common sense because no stats show this.
But, try. And be honest.
I am somewhat skeptical of numbers claimed by either side of the gun debate.
A blog I follow that covers self-defense shooting news reports is
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/
MikeB,
I don't know how many crimes are covered up as defensive gun uses. NEITHER DO YOU.
But let's use common sense, logic and anecdotal evidence eh?
The test of all statistics is should, once established, that they make sense.
So, for covered up crimes-- Do we see massive or constant reports from the family and friends of those shot of cover up?
Do we have constant reports of corruption ABOUT this issue in the papers?
Do we have officers or civilian coming forward, expressing remorse or regret at the coverups?
Would you not agree that commonsense and experience tells us that most law enforcement personnel aren't corrupt? Aren't breaking the law every day?
What you are suggesting is a massive conspiracy because it can't just be the beat cops in on it. The crime scene investigators, the coroners, the detectives, the friends of the people doing the shooting, the newspapers would all have to be in on it, right?
Don't forget that many agencies have internal affairs sections also.
So, does it make sense that a large number of crimes are being covered up? No.
James, I'm skeptical of the numbers also. That is why I wrote the post, is it reasonable to see that many DGUs. I expect that 2.5 million is on the high side but it is within commonsense, reason, logic and PROBABILITY to say that it could happen.
Thing I have to keep remembering is that many crimes stopped may not and probably aren't violent crimes.
James Rummel at the excellent Hell in a Handbasket probably typifies most prevented crimes with this post = http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/2009/06/the-dogs-were-no-help-at-all.htm
How many people breaking into cars to steal a radio, how many home buglaries, how many shop lifting attempts, how many car thefts are prevented and never reported.
Perhaps a very small percentage, but that is
Howdy Bob...
I wrote a piece not that long ago about the numbers in general.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/search?q=math
Kaveman,
I read that back in April, I thought it was a great post.
I would say the vast majority of gun owners have only 1 firearm.
It could be Uncle Bud's old single shot rifle or shotgun. It could be Aunt Tilly's revolver that is kept in the top of the closet. It could be the single firearm used for home protection.
I think the next segment of people own a long gun and a shot gun.
Problem with hanging around with gunnies is they tend to be at the far end of the bell curve. Multiple firearms to Multiple safes of firearms....but when we look at the total population that is a very small segment.
So, that matches up with the DGU, most people won't ever pull a firearm but some people live in a bad neighborhood and use their firearms multiple times.
The numbers make sense and fit with the observable and known facts.
Meghan McArdle had a very good post on this last summer.
It's entirely speculative, since while essentially no shootings go unreported, there's simply no way to know how many home defenses where nobody is shot go unreported.
I think that if you're pro-gun, the answer is that's reasonable. If you're anti-gun, it's not.
I don't know any gun owners other than people I meet tangentially to my social group that only have one or two firearms, or even less than a couple dozen, but I guess we have different social circles. I realize I'm at the minute end of the bell curve as are most of my real live friends that aren't IRC incarnations of people.
As to defensive gun usage. I really don't care about the numbers because I've defensively used firearms 5 times in my life (3 in the US) without a shot fired in any incident.
My five times of benefit outweighs anybody's numbers on either side of the debate in my mind.
It's more convenient and easier on your back and knees to carry a gun around all day than a policeman around all day.
All of my defensive gun uses went unreported but one in Texas. Would have been detrimental to me to report things in the other occasions because they were occasions where defensive firearms usage was legally questionable under the governments running the police forces. If you keep yourself from being mugged in Pretoria or Chicago, you keep it to yourself...
Last September, Thomas had this to say on my blog about personal defensive gun uses.
"Dozens + on three continents. You can read about them in my biography some day. Statue of limitations and all... :-)"
Were you exaggerating then?
Another "Let's nit-pick about minor details, and avoid the general issue" post by MikeB.
You're predictable, sweetie!
I said 5 times where there wasn't a shot fired.
Do you have reading comprehension?
"Do you have reading comprehension?"
This is MikeB, I don't think the question even needs asking.
Like I told him before...he can read my bio when the statue of limitations are up. Some things are better left undiscussed on the internet and third world employments in an odd trade in the past didn't fit in with the context of Bob's post.
His post was related to normal run of the mill defensive firearms uses like would occur in the lives of normal people in first world situations, not people getting well paid to be in more dangerous situations in the third world where all power "comes from the barrel of a gun" as Mao used to say. I'm on the far end of more than one bell curve in life experiences but that doesn't make all of them relevant to Bob's posting. I don't post .30-06 loading data when people ask for .308 loading data either. Ballistically similar, but not the same kettle of fish.
Dear Bob, I heard Weer'd say I'm nitpicking, and I heard Tom and Mike W. jump on my reading comprehension, but please humor me for a second.
Tom was caught in a pretty blatant lie here. You remember the times last year when we talked about our own personal experiences and he wowed us with "dozens +." Would that have been 24 plus a few, or maybe 36 plus a few, something like that.
Now he says 5, and tries to cover up the discrepancy with a quick dance about the ones in which he fired the gun (presumably 20 or 30) and the ones where he didn't. And of course we can't hear those details because of all that statute of limitations crap.
Are you going to support this? Or are you going to call him on it? You remember when we did the Great Gun Survey. Tom's dozens and dozens really "juked the stats." Now it turns out there are only 5.
Bob, you're so quick to call people liars, you're so into that righteous intellectual honesty and all that, do you apply these strict standards to only those who disagree with you? Or do you lay the same rules on everybody.
Hey, maybe this issue sheds some light on how Kleck arrived at his numbers. What do you think?
MikeB,
Why are you focusing on what Tom may or may not have done instead of the reasonableness of the number of DGUs?
Why don't you address that issue?
If you think there are crimes being disguised as DGUs, PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE!!
I have always used reasonableness, logic, commonsense and such in my presentation of statistics. HELL'S BELLS MikeB, that is why I bust your "opinion" so much is because it isn't reasonable.
As far as Tom, I'm sure that you've talked about your "child" upon occasion - note the singular form. Does that mean you are lying one you only mention 1 child or are you lying when you say you have 3 children?
Just because someone doesn't include "all" of something in a discussion doesn't mean that the "all" didn't happen.
I was involved in Scouting for many years. If I mentioned that I had dozens of campouts that it rained during, does that mean I didn't have even more campouts where we didn't have any rain?
Nope. NOT A SINGLE BIT.
You want to call Tom a liar, go ahead. Do it on your own blog. Just remember the Supreme Court even has validated the concept of "fighting words". Tom also has his own blog. Try discussing it there.
Stop trying to distract from the issue.
Is 2.5 million DGUs reasonable or not?
Is there a problem with my math, my assumptions?
Talk about the issue
Some things are campfire tales with trusted friends. The internet isn't a trusted friend. Note I also never post photographs of myself or any other such nonsense on the internet. Projects and toys, yes, Pictures of me, NOPE.
I thought you were a Marine, Mike? Don't sound like it.
What happened in previous employ stays with previous employ. One of my friends spent 13 years in Latin America working for Uncle Sugar and his official records have him TDY Hawaii. As far as the official record goes, he was TDY Hawaii.
You want me to detail incidents of shooting at people on the internet? You're the loon, not I, Mike.
Again, Mike Nit-picks rather than discusses the issue. (Let's just say Tom MAY have told a fib in your survey...he would have been smart too, as you were simply using it as a way to insult polite visitors to your site...you've been caught in multiple BLATANT lies, as well as cooking up MASSIVE conspiracy theories to support your backwards claims...thems aint' equal!)
And of course yet AGAIN you don't discuss the issue at hand.
Bob will call Tom on his *maybe* lie, when you call out your liberal commentators on their profane, rude, and racist comments on your blog. (Comments that oddly don't upset you delicate commenting policy)
"If you think there are crimes being disguised as DGUs, PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE!!"
Haha. MikeB presenting evidence? Yeah, that'll happen about the same time the "Gun Lobby" sends me my wheelbarrows of cash.
MikeB repeatedly makes claims but never backs them up with anytbing substantive.
As I suspected, Bob. You apply different rules depending on which side of the gun argument someone is on.
And i told you what I think about Kleck's numbers. Tom gave us a living example of how it's done and you showed that unique gun-lovers loyalty just like so many do towards Prof. Kleck.
MikeB,
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
Sorry but Tom cited personal information, not published statistics. You want to call him a liar, you call him a liar.
If he explains it well enough for me, what business is it of yours?
I don't question the truth of what the commenters on your blog who have personal knowledge of the various murders, etc. No matter how conveniently they pop up.
You want to show there is a problem with the numbers for Defensive gun uses, show the evidence. Don't point to one anecdote of someone who may be lying or may be avoiding confessing to crimes.
The post is about the reasonableness of the statistics. Show that there is a pattern, show that the numbers are cooked or the lower numbers are MORE VALID.
Stop attacking people and start discussing the data.
I'm also absolutely shocked that you would question my integrity. You expect the benefit of the doubt in every occasion...yet you don't return the favor. Careful, you might hurt my feelings and we can't have that...can we?
Heh, Just for fun, I'll point out he did it AGAIN!
Jeeze Mike, if you didn't want me to point out what a looser you are, maybe you'd stop doing it!
MikeB,
Weer'd has a point, care to address the ISSUES I've discussed?
You moderate off topic comments on your blog, shouldn't I hold you to the same standard of keeping the discussion on point here?
Let's talk about the reasonableness of the statistic.
Then he would have nothing to talk about, because he doesn't have data to support his wild claims.
Of course he can't keep up with us because he's a "Beginner", and he has a "Wife and Kids", and a "Job".
Speaking of all that, Bob, how long you been bloggin'? Who lives in your house with you? Do you spend all your time in that house, or do you go someplace to earn money?
Would you discribe yourself as "Genious" or somehow abmornally skilled in the ability to look at presented data and post it in blogger format?
Leading questions, the lot of them. Where do they lead? Two possible answers.
#1: MikeB is a liar who makes up stats to support an agenda that is wholly incorrect in it's scope.
#2. MikeB is mentally deficiant in such a way that he lacks basic reasoning or thinking skills.
Which is it, Sugar-Pie?
First, to get the nonsense out of the way, I will address the cute little debate here in the comments.
At 1952 on 14JUN09, Tom's exact words were: "...I've defensively used firearms 5 times in my life (3 in the US) without a shot fired in any incident."
At 0102 on 15JUN09, MikeB quoted something Tom said previously at MikeB's webpage regarding the number of defensive gun uses Tom has executed: "Dozens + on three continents. You can read about them in my biography some day. Statue of limitations and all... :-)"
MikeB has since embarked on a campaign to label Tom a liar.
I am not a trained logician, so my following explanation will not abide by the appropriate symbologies. I apologize. However, logically speaking, it is safe to assume that the sets "defensive gun uses without a shot fired" and "defensive gun uses with a shot fired" both are part of the overall set of "defensive gun uses". Additionally, it is safe to assume that the sets "defensive gun uses without a shot fired" and "defensive gun uses with a shot fired" both account for all instances of the set "defensive gun uses" - if an instance does not belog to "without" it has to belong to "with", and vice versa.
Thus, Tom can claim five instances of "defensive gun uses without a shot fired", in addition to "dozens" of instances of "defensive gun uses", and not be a liar - those instances that were "defensive gun uses" but were not "defensive gun uses without a shot fired" obviously and logically fall under the set "defensive gun uses with a shot fired".
From this logical reasoning, three separate conclusions present themselves to me.
First, Tom has used his firearm to defensively shoot people a lot more than he has used his firearm to defensively scare people away.
Second, Tom had a very interesting job in the past, and I would be likewise very interested in reading his biography when he gets around to it / is legally permitted to publish it.
Third, MikeB has absolutely no grasp of rational, logical thought. Whatsoever.
I mean, honestly... how can someone say something that inordinately stupid and expect themselves to be taken seriously by anyone else? I find Tom's numbers a little suspect, personally (nothing against you, Tom, I just do not know you, and I do not know your line of work), but at least I understand that claiming 5 no-shoot DGUs does not preclude him from having "dozens" of general DGUs - it just means the other DGUs involved, you know, shooting the gun.
(Comment broken up due to Blogger's character cap... never knew it had one before.)
That bit of outright stupidity dealt with, I will move on to the topic at hand (which, apparently, MikeB is incapable of)...
Given that, in 2007, there were somewhere around 11,251,828 crimes committed (and recorded) in America, I certainly do not see 2,500,000 crimes discouraged by firearms to be that outlandish - it comes out to about 18% of crimes are discouraged every year by firearm owners, while 25% of Americans own firearms.
Now, on the surface, those two numbers look too similar to be valid... I mean, that would imply that around 70% of firearm-owners have had to use their firearms to discourage crimes, right? Well, as BobS already indicated, the problem is the curve - some people never will have used their firearm, some people might have once, and some people might have many, many times. Personally, I never have had to use my firearm, in any way, to discourage a crime, and I hope never to have to. However, Robb Allen has once, and I am fairly certain that Sebastian-PGP has multiple times.
One out of ten-thousand, every day... Even assuming everyone only has to discourage one crime in their lifetime, it could take you 27 years for your number to come up. And if we remove the assumption, your number could never come up, especially given that some people live in very crime-prone regions of our country, and may have to discourage (and be victims of) far more crimes than average.
So, do I think Kleck's numbers are reasonable, and your interpretation of them is reasonable? Yup. And since "I think" is the only argument MikeB has ever brought to play, I guess that settles the debate.
Linoge,
Great analysis and comment. Never knew you to talk so much, even on your own blog.
I don't mind a bit though, you are welcome any time.
You are spot on in the logic.
I find the 2.5 million number high but not unreasonably high. I would like to see a geographical or legal correlation. Is DGU higher in places with strict gun control laws (people carrying illegally and afraid to report it) or places with liberal gun control laws.
Heh, you must have missed out on my fiskings of the nonsense the Commercial Appeal puts out... I can come nowhere near Kevin Baker in terms of quality, but I might be able to give him a run for his money when it comes to quantity...
I certainly agree that there is a lot of specificity missing from the generic number, and that the full break-down would prove to be interesting. I have my own beliefs as to how it would all fall out, but they are just that - beliefs, which, contrary to MikeB's opinion, matter for naught.
I really do not care what the numbers are. The facts are law-abiding citizens, with those few exceptions, prefer to not be in these type encounters and only react when forced to take a position. That RIGHT is mine and NO ONE is going to alter my mind that I HAVE the RIGHT to defend myself or my loved ones. Or someone who obviously needs help. its just the right thing to do. now as for those career criminals the judical system loves to coddle and protect........just go find some defenseless liberal to deal with.
Last I heard(from the Brady Campaign, no less) was that there are about 40,000 gun murders a year.
Divide 40,000 by 365, and you get just over 109 murders a day.
Guns are used to murder people 109 times out of 6000 each day, which is 0.01816 percent of the time.
This means that 99.89 percent of the time, guns are used to defend, not murder people.
Tai,
That 40,000 is a.) higher than the reported number for all firearm deaths and b.) the actual number closer to 30,000 includes suicides, murders, & justifiable homicides.
The actual number of murders is around 13,000 per year.
If you divide 13,000 by 365 you get 36 murders a day.
36 divided by Total firearm uses against a person(6850 defensive +36 murders)*100 = 0.523%
Linoge, I didn't understand the "subset" to be qualified by "not having fired a shot." I read the "not having fired a shot" as a descriptive phrase, not a limitation on the number.
In rereading Bob's original invitation, it sounded just like the one we all used last Sept.
You guys are nothing if not loyal to one another.
MikeB,
total defensive gun uses = times shots were fired + times when shots were NOT FIRED. right?
So, when Tom says that there were 5 times he used firearms and DIDN"T fire a shot we re-write the formula
total uses - 5 (no shots fired)= times firearms used and shots fired.
that isn't hard, it isn't rocket science, it isn't statistics, just basic math.
I agree with Linoge...If Tom ever writes a autobiography, I'll be one of the first in line to read it. Then I will have to decide if it is biographical or fiction.
Heh, He did it again.
More nits to pick over word uses, meanwhile again no talk about how Bob has just shown with open calculations how Dr. Kleck's (who you deny his research for no given reason) numbers are very belivable.
Modus Operendi
Another anecdote: walking with my wife through a seedy neighborhood, a pickup truck with 3 young male passengers slowly drives past, then turns around a block ahead and slowly comes back towards us. The occupants seem focused on us.
They stop directly across the street from us, and continue looking at us while talking animatedly.
I stopped walking, gave the truck my full attention, faced them squarely, and put my hand under my shirt on my right hip as if gripping a concealed firearm and preparing to draw. I was not armed.
More animated talking, including pointing at us, then the truck drove off.
Were they going to ask directions or mug us? I don't know. Their actions were similar to what I would expect of young muggers. No police report, as no crime was committed or attempted on us.
Was this a defensive "gun" use?
to Mike E:
With all due respect, that was stupid. Here me out.
They were not doing anything illegal. They didn't do anything threatening. It was in your head. The fact you went for a gun that wasnt there was Not Smart, because it pisses people off. And they could have confronted you on it. They would have trid to piss you off to the point of drawing your gun. They would have done anything to get that to happen.
A defensive Gun should be used as such. A defense is what is used when one is on the offense.
Let me add some details:
A similar thing happened to me. I was in a bad neighborhood, being a dumb tourist and taking a "short cut", ended up in gangland.
These guys started following me.. "Hey whiteboy, you lost?". I turned around, did what you did while walking backwards. This PISSED them off. They RAN UP TO ME while saying "WHAT MOTHERF***ER, YOU GONNA SHOOT US NOW!?" Guess who actually had guns?
Long story short, NEVER PRETEND YOU HAVE A GUN! You either do, or you DONT. My dad always told me if you go for your gun, you better use it. He meant that: make sure its a situation that requires the use of your weapon. Never Pretend. Those situations work in the MOVIES.
Mike E (not B),
Great job on your situational awareness. I am glad that I have my CHL so I don't have to pretend.
(by the way, if you are in the North Texas area, shoot me an email. I know an instructor for CHL who's prices are very low).
Great question, is pretending to have a firearm a "defensive gun use". I would actually say no....but it should count as a crime prevented.
Yes, invisible guns count, just ask Dr. Kleck.
IIRC the DoJ did a study and came up with a number that was around 500,000 DGU each year. So the real number is probably somewhere in between.
Regardless, "If it only saves one life.", to quote the opposition, who's to say I ddon't have that right?
And yes, put me in the "did not display but suggested I had one" column.
Bob, You're leaving out the ones that are not defensive at all but offensive..You see, this is where you are forced to do what you hate doing, use common sense because no stats show this.
Except it's not "common sense." If those defensive gun uses were in fact OFFENSIVE uses they would be called crimes and included in crime stats. That's what (non-military) offensive uses of guns are. Crimes.
Mike W., Don't you know what we're talking about? We're talking about false positives, entries on the long list of DGUs which shouldn't have been on that list but, as you said, on the other list. Even Kleck allowed a certain margin for these. My idea is they're much more plentiful than he said or any of you want to admit.
Is that on topic?
Linoge, I didn't understand the "subset" to be qualified by "not having fired a shot."
And that would be why you were wrong - the qualification was clearly made in Tom's original quote. That you misread it sounds like a personal problem. That you continue to misread it, even after having your error pointed out to you by no fewer than three people, sounds like a very significant personal problem.
When we get right down to the proverbial brass tacks, MikeB, you have already admitted to not having a rational, logical, or objective means for accurately and consistently determining facts. Due to that admission, you lost this debate before it even started.
Now, how about you actually bother to address the content of BobS' original post, rather than casting baseless and fallacious aspersions at other commenters? Would that be too much to ask? Do you find Kleck's numbers reasonable? Yes or no? Granted, I already know the answer, and due to your previously-linked admission, I do not care about your answer, but let us try and keep things on-topic, neh? If you do find them reasonable, why? If you do not find them reasonable, why not? And in either case, provide actual, honest, real statistics to support your opinion (not tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories or other such nonsense), otherwise your opinion will simply be viewed as more baseless assumptions, and thus effectively meaningless.
Oh, and for the record, while your most-recent post was on topic, you provided no evidence, information, statistics, or backing to support your baseless allegations and assumptions. Once again, you fail.
"I would say the vast majority of gun owners have only 1 firearm."
Too funny! I know a couple of collectors who have over 300 each. I'd venture to guess that there are a LOT of collectors who have a LOT of guns!
I would guess that a lot of gun lovers have between 5 and 10 guns. I don't know ANYONE who only has one gun. Either they have a bunch or they don't have any.
Post a Comment