Manipulated Statistics

Not here in America....but the land of gun controlled Australia (hat tip to Strange Justice)

SENIOR police say they are being forced to "fudge" reports, and test drivers for drink-driving at times and places they know few offenders will be caught, to manipulate crime statistics.

Officers from at least three Local Service Areas have told AdelaideNow it is common for reports to be manipulated and for traffic blitzes to be held to improve statistics and meet specific targets

It is not just alcohol related traffic incidents that are being manipulated but think about that. We often compare firearms to cars and here is a systematic attempt to lessen the crime rates for drunk driving; that over inflates the impact that firearm related crimes.

Crime statistics are analysed daily from police incident reports (PIRs) and one senior officer has described how reports are commonly manipulated to keep crime statistics lower and apprehension rates higher.

"Say a car gets broken into and something gets stolen," the officer said. "Rather than two charges, illegal interference and theft, it just gets entered as a theft – one charge.

"If we happen to stumble across someone who'd broken into a car, then they would get charged with both, so your statistics show your crime rate lower, but your apprehension rate being high."

In offences with multiple victims, the victims are often grouped or become witnesses and the matter is entered as one incident report

Now, why would the law enforcement agencies want to lower the apparent crime rate? Perhaps it would reflect badly on their performance. Perhaps it would reflect badly on the laws they have passed, including the ones that work to disarm the population. Perhaps if people knew how bad crime really was, they might want to have firearms to defend themselves and their property, eh?

One person told AdelaideNow one management directive was to redirect schoolyard assaults back to the school so they were not recorded as crimes.

"That way the LSA can claim a downturn in assaults," the person wrote.

Hmm, sounds much like what the United Kingdom has been doing for decades with their numbers.

Crime statistics at one of Britain's most beleaguered police forces are being manipulated by detectives, who are under pressure to record burglaries and robberies as lesser offences to meet targets for cutting some of the most feared crimes.

Serving officers in the Nottinghamshire police force have revealed to The Telegraph the techniques they use to help manipulate the headline crime figures, enabling Steve Green, the Chief Constable, to claim that he is winning the battle to combat burglary and robbery....

A former head of CID with Nottinghamshire police has also claimed that incidents of gun crime have deliberately not been logged by the force, effectively halving its number of recorded shootings.

Retired Det Supt Peter Coles said last night: "I know for a fact there have been incidents of gun crime which have not been recorded. People have turned up at hospital with a gunshot wound and told the police to go away because more often than not there is a disinclination among villains to pursue the matter. Despite the fact that there has obviously been a shooting, the crime has not been recorded by the force."...

In a separate development, crimes which would formerly have been recorded as attempted burglaries, and therefore been included in overall statistics for burglary, are now being logged as criminal damage.

Where an effort has been made by a criminal to force an entry, such as by jemmying a door or window, it is being marked down only for the damage caused to the property. The figures for criminal damage are also far less likely to attract adverse publicity than those for burglary, a crime which inspires a high level of fear in the general public.

Mr Coles said: "The offence of attempted burglary is virtually non-existent in the figures now. If someone contacts the police in Nottinghamshire now to say that a burglar has tried to get into their home, with a window broken but nothing stolen, that will go down in the Nottinghamshire figures as criminal damage."...

And yet some people have trouble believing that the crime rate in the United Kingdom is higher, nearly 4 times higher than that of America.

Troll of the Day Award

Folks, we have a first (but I'm sure not to be last) 2, that is right TWO time winner of the coveted TROLL OF THE DAY AWARD.

This win pushes the Candidate ahead in the standings for the first Annual Troll of the Year Award.

Today's winner is once again MikeB302000 -- long time friend of criminals and foe of the law abiding.

How do I reach that startling statement? After reading his blog for a long time, seeing him defend criminals time and time again while attacking the law abiding. Nearly every defensive gun use is meet with derision and doubt, questions about legality and cover ups.


Background information -- MikeB estimates that has many as 10% of law abiding gun owners are criminals or criminals in waiting. That would be about 8,000,000 gun owners folks . Even though the Bureau of Justice Statistics only show a total of 500,000 or so firearm related crimes a year and the FBI estimates that 80% of crime is gang/drug trade related.

This comment puts MikeB over the top for today's award.

mikeb302000 said...

Reputo asked, "So are we to believe that you are under the impression that 10% of police officers shouldn't be police officers?"

Actually I would guess it's far higher among the police.

Your example of how few actually get dismissed misses a point I've made a few times now. The 10% folks are not all committing crimes. These are people who shouldn't have guns because the possibility that they will misuse their guns is just too high. You remember my categories.

(Emphasis mine)

Get that Folks? Instead of waiting for people to misuse their firearms---that is actually commit a crime, MikeB thinks they should be disarmed because the POSSIBILITY that they will misuse their firearms is just too high!!!

Never mind waiting until people break the law, never mind due process, never mind that MikeB pulled his 10% out of a body orifice normally kept concealed from public view-- just the possibility of misuse is enough in his opinion to disarm people.

Debunking availability pt 4

Tell me again how firearms are making America the "most violent" developed country?

Tell me again how gun control will reduce violence.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it is revealed today.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

United Kingdom - worse rate for all types of VIOLENCE than the USA. United Kingdom with just about every imaginable gun control law...and it is more violent than America...how is that possible.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Not just a little more violent....but over 4 times as violent as the gun filled USA.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

In America, it is considered to be simple assault so the numbers are a fair comparison. Since these are rates per 100,000 people, it is also a fair comparison.


As I've said repeatedly, it isn't the tool that makes the difference. Let's work on reducing the causes of violent crime, let's work on keeping those who commit violent crimes in prison, let's work on letting people be able legally defend themselves without myriad of hassles to do so.

Those things will reduce violent crime, not gun control.
(h/t to SayUncle)

Defensive Gun Uses - Reasonableness Test

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.

Increasing Gun violence?

Since I need to post today, I thought I would respond to MikeB302000's post about increasing gun violence.

Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, 1993-2005

Year.........Incidents..........Rate per 1K...............%.........Homicide Rate

1993......1,054,820....................5.91....................11..................10.1
1994......1,060,800...................6.0......................11.....................9.6
1995.........902,680...................4.9......................10.....................8.7
1996.........845,220...................4.6.......................10....................7.9
1997.........680,900...................3.6.........................9....................7.4
1998.........557,200...................3.0.........................8....................6.8
1999.........457,150....................2.5.........................7....................6.2
2000........428,670....................2.4.........................7....................6.1
2001.........467,880...................2.3.........................9.....................7.1*
2002.........353,880...................1.9.........................7.....................6.1
2003..........366,840..................1.9.........................7.....................6.1
2004..........280,890..................1.4.........................6....................5.9
2005..........419,640...................2.0........................9....................not listed

So, does it really look like there is Increasing Gun Violence?


Mike asked:

Is this guy and his newspaper a shill for the anti-gun movement? Do you think these stats are cooked, as they say?

The numbers aren't cooked, there are that many deaths per year, but the population is increasing each year. Firearm related crimes are falling or holding steady each year. So why do the gun control advocates continue to try to scare people with increasing gun violence?

Another point to consider in this is the fact that more and more states are relaxing their restrictions on concealed carry. Now, if firearms are the problem and more people are carrying legally and firearm related crimes are going down.....what does that say about the truthfulness of the gun control crowd?

Debunking Availability Part 1

I suppose if this is supposed to be a gun blog, I might as well talk about firearms. So here goes with what I hope to be the first of a series looking at statistics.

MikeB302000 actually posted some evidence to support his claim of "more guns, more everything".

His contention, and many gun banners like him, is that the more firearms there are the more deaths, accidents, crime, and I think they even claim firearm ownership causes more sunspots and graffiti, but I'm not sure.

So I decided to look at the rates of firearm ownership, poverty level, homicide by firearm rates and firearm related death rates.

All you scientific types out there, please feel free to correct me and help me understand this better.

(bear with me - this is the first time I've tried to post something like this

I created this spread sheet to compare firearm ownership with Homicide Rates, Firearm related deaths for all reasons (suicide, homicide, legal) and a single other factor...the percentage of people living in poverty by state.

Using the M/S Excel functions, I ran the correlation rates for those factor. I make no claim to be an expert (hardly any statistical knowledge) but basic understanding says that if two random factors have an impact on each other, there should be a higher degree of correlation.

			State Homicide Age - Adjusted Rate All Intentions Age - Adjusted Rate Firearm Ownership % % people living in poverty Alabama 7.28 16.07 51.70 15.50 Alaska 3.24 17.20 57.80 9.20 Arizona 6.43 15.68 31.10 13.80 Arkansas 5.60 15.65 55.30 17.60 California 5.22 9.48 21.30 13.20 Colorado 2.58 11.41 34.70 9.80 Connecticut 2.04 5.35 16.70 8.80 Delaware 3.96 8.88 25.50 8.50 District of Columbia 21.58 23.27 3.80 16.80 Florida 3.85 10.01 24.50 12.30 Georgia 4.80 11.83 40.30 12.00 Hawaii 0.43 2.17 8.70 9.70 Idaho 2.03 13.88 55.30 10.50 Illinois 4.40 7.93 20.20 12.50 Indiana 4.22 11.13 39.10 10.20 Iowa 0.93 6.70 42.80 9.70 Kansas 2.30 9.22 42.10 10.70 Kentucky 3.78 12.96 47.70 15.40 Louisiana 9.98 18.66 44.10 17.00 Maine 0.57 7.68 40.50 12.20 Maryland 7.85 11.90 21.30 8.60 Massachusetts 1.71 3.41 12.60 9.80 Michigan 5.05 10.63 38.40 12.10 Minnesota 1.73 6.93 41.70 7.00 Mississippi 6.31 16.05 55.30 17.70 Missouri 5.17 12.90 41.70 10.90 Montana 2.10 16.93 57.70 14.30 Nebraska 1.70 7.70 38.60 9.90 Nevada 5.13 16.32 33.80 10.20 New Hampshire 0.63 6.54 30.00 5.70 New Jersey 3.56 5.14 12.30 8.20 New Mexico 4.29 13.92 34.80 17.50 New York 2.70 5.18 18.00 14.40 North Carolina 5.23 12.78 41.30 14.80 North Dakota 0.45 8.97 50.70 10.30 Ohio 3.74 9.60 32.40 10.80 Oklahoma 4.15 13.18 42.90 12.60 Oregon 1.92 10.64 39.80 11.70 Pennsylvania 4.61 10.82 34.70 10.40 Rhode Island 1.84 3.60 12.80 11.30 South Carolina 5.66 13.81 42.30 14.00 South Dakota 0.91 10.11 56.60 12.50 Tennessee 6.26 16.03 43.90 14.90 Texas 4.39 11.07 35.90 16.40 Utah 1.31 9.66 43.90 9.60 Vermont 1.28 6.72 42.00 8.80 Virginia 4.70 11.51 35.10 9.80 Washington 2.37 8.76 33.10 11.70 West Virginia 3.37 13.80 55.40 16.10 Wisconsin 2.95 8.45 44.40 10.20 Wyoming 2.10 13.53 59.70 9.60
			Mike points out: The States designated "high gun" are eleven with total population of 28.5 million, as follows: Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky. (designated in green above) and The States designated "low gun" are five with a total population of 26.2 million, as follows: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Connecticut. Designated in red above. So what are the correlations: The correlation factor for All Intentions and Firearm Ownership is 0.4438. The correlation factor for Homicides and Firearm Ownership is -0.2295. It seems there is a higher correlation for suicide and firearm ownership then there is for Homicides and firearm ownership. This has been discussed many times; people who are serious about suicide will often chose a firearm because they know it will work. Those that are reaching out or unsure will choose less effective measures. Now for the interesting part. The correlation factor for All Intentions and the % of Poverty is 0.5952 The correlation factor for Homicides and % Poverty is 0.5088. Hmm, maybe it is not firearm ownership that is the biggest factor but something else? Poverty perhaps? I, and most of gun bloggers, realize that correlation is not causation but doesn't it point us in a direction that might actually lead to changes? If we focus on the causes of poverty, might not that lead to a reduction in the reasons for some crimes...including firearm crimes?