W
WinterBorn
Guest
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;811026 said:
I like accuracy. I am pleased by the fact that the accurate surveys support my beliefs. But I would not use "made up" nonsense if they didn't.
From: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Crime and Self-Defense
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]"
And the referenced sources:
[11] Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: This table states that 66.9% of all murders were committed with firearms, but this data does not account for all homicides – only those for which a "Supplemental Homicide Report" was filed (correspondence from U.S. Department of Justice to Just Facts, January 15, 2010). Hence, this table shows 14,180 total murder victims, while the UCR states: "An estimated 16,272 persons were murdered nationwide in 2008." Assuming the proportion of murders committed with firearms is approximately the same regardless of whether or not a Supplemental Homicide Report is filed:
16,272 ×.669 ≈ 10,886 people murdered with firearms
[12] Paper: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html
Page 160: "The present survey ... was carefully designed to correct all of the known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys.... We interviewed a large nationally representative sample...."
Pages 160-161: "A professional telephone polling firm, Research Network of Tallahassee, Florida, carried out the sampling and interviewing."
Page 161: "Each interview began with a few general 'throat-clearing' questions about problems facing the R's community and crime. The interviewers then asked the following question: 'Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.'"
Page 172: "While estimates of DGU frequency are reliable because they are based on a very large sample of 4,977 cases, results pertaining to the details of DGU incidents are based on 213 or fewer sample cases, and readers should treat these results with appropriate caution."
Page 163: "An additional step was taken to minimize the possibility of DGU [defensive gun use] frequency being overstated. The senior author went through interview sheets on every one of the interviews in which a DGU was reported, looking for any indication that the incident might not be genuine. ... There were a total of twenty-six cases where at least one of these problematic indications was present. ... Estimates using all of the DGU cases are labeled herein as 'A' estimates, while the more conservative estimates based only on cases devoid of any problematic indications are labeled 'B' estimates."
Page 176: "Another way of assessing how serious these incidents appeared to the victims is to ask them how potentially fatal the encounter was. We asked Rs [respondents]: "If you had not used a gun for protection in this incident, how likely do you think it is that you or someone else would have been killed? Would you say almost certainly not, probably not, might have, probably would have, or almost certainly would have been killed?" Panel K indicates that 15.7% of the Rs stated that they or someone else "almost certainly would have" been killed...."
NOTES: Table 2 on page 184 lists the results of the survey. In keeping with Just Facts' Standards of Credibility, we are using the most cautious plausible interpretations of this data, which is for households (as opposed to individuals) and a five-year recall period based "only on cases devoid of any problematic indications." As shown in this table, this amounts to 3.456% of households or 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year. Accounting for the 15.7% figure from page 176 (cited above): 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year × .157 of respondents stating someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection" = 161,650 such incidents. Using percentages for the same calculation: 3.456% × .157 = 0.54%.
[13] Web page: "Definitions." U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Last revised May 3, 2010. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp
Aggravated assault
(1) Intentionally and without legal justification causing serious bodily injury, with or without a deadly weapon or (2) using a deadly or dangerous weapon to threaten, attempt, or cause bodily injury, regardless of the degree of injury, if any. Includes attempted murder, aggravated battery, felonious assault, and assault with a deadly weapon.
Robbery
Completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury.
Simple assault
Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury (for example, bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or swelling) or in undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted assault without a weapon.
[14] NOTE: The U.S. government publishes two primary crime measures: The FBI's "Uniform Crime Report" (UCR) and the Department of Justice's "National Crime Victimization Survey" (NCVS). The UCR is based upon incidents reported to law enforcement authorities and does not account for unreported crimes. The NCVS is based upon data gathered from extensive interviews, and hence, provides more accurate estimates of crime than the UCR.* The NCVS, however, does not provide data on: murders and nonnegligent manslaughters (because the victims cannot be interviewed), crimes committed against children under the age of 12, and commercial crimes such as robberies of banks and convenience stores.† Therefore, Just Facts uses the NCVS data as a baseline and extrapolates the missing information from UCR and NCVS data.
* Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.
Page 21: "The National Crime Victimization Survey ... is widely viewed as a "gold standard for measuring crime victimization."
Page 30: "Although the NCVS data do many things right, they are, like any such system, beset with methodological problems of surveys in general as well as particular problems associated with measuring illicit, deviant, and deleterious activities...."
† Report: "The Nation's two crime measures." U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ntcm.pdf
The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the Nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each program produces valuable information about aspects of the Nation's crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects of crime, the information they produce together provides a more comprehensive panorama of the Nation's crime problem than either could produce alone. …
The FBI's UCR program … collects information on the following crimes reported to law enforcement authorities: homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. …
[Regarding the NCVS:] Two times a year, U.S. Census Bureau personnel interview household members in a nationally representative sample of approximately 42,000 households (about 75,000 people). Approximately 150,000 interviews of persons age 12 or older are conducted annually. …
[The NCVS] does not measure homicide or commercial crimes (such as burglaries of stores). …
Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but non-identical set of crimes. The NCVS includes crimes both reported and not reported to law enforcement. The NCVS excludes, but the UCR includes, homicide, arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under age 12.
[15] CALCULATION:
4,856,510 NCVS violent victimizations (not including: (a) fatal crimes, (b) crimes committed against children under the age of 12, and (c) commercial crimes)*
+ (a) 16,272 UCR murders and nonnegligent manslaughters (i.e., fatal crimes)†
+ (b) 244,866 nonfatal violent victimizations committed against children under age 12 (extrapolated)‡
+ (c) 222,125 commercial robberies (extrapolated)§
≈ 5,339,773 violent criminal victimizations
* Bulletin: "National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2008." By Michael R. Rand. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
Page 1: "Violent crimes" include "rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault."
Page 1, Table 1 shows 4,856,510 violent criminal victimizations, of which 551,830 are robberies.
† Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Murder." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. … An estimated 16,272 persons were murdered nationwide in 2008."
NOTE: Although the verbiage above could imply that "nonnegligent manslaughter" and "murder" are categorized as separate offenses, this is not the case. As explained in from the U.S. Department of Justice to Just Facts correspondence (January 15, 2010), "These two are counted as one offense, and numbers defining them are not separated." Hence, the 16,272 murders cited above also includes nonnegligent manslaughters.
‡ Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: Extrapolating data from this source (further details available upon request), approximately 4.8% of murder victims were under the age of 12. If a similar percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations occur in this age group:
y = violent victimizations, ages 0-11
y ≈ (0.048 × 4,856,510 NCVS violent victimizations) / (1 - 0.048)
y ≈ 244,866
§ Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Robbery." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html
NOTE: Excluding hold-ups of lemonade stands, it is fairly safe to assume there are few commercial robberies of children under the age of 12. Extrapolating data from this source (further details available upon request), approximately 28.7% of robberies are commercial and 71.3% are private. Applying these proportions to the NCVS data:
y = commercial robberies
y ≈ (0.287 × 551,830 NCVS (private) robberies) / (1 - 0.287)
y ≈ 222,125
[16] CALCULATION:
343,550 NCVS violent victimizations in which the offender was armed with a firearm (not including: (a) fatal crimes, (b) crimes committed against children under the age of 12, and (c) commercial crimes).*
+ (a) 10,886 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in which a firearm was used (extrapolated)†
+ (b) 17,385 nonfatal violent victimizations committed against children under age 12 in which the offender was armed with a firearm (extrapolated)‡
+ (c) 53,310 commercial robbery victimizations in which the offender was armed with a firearm (extrapolated)§
+ 10,706 rapes/sexual assaults in which the offender was armed with a firearm (extrapolated)#
≈ 435,837 violent victimizations in which the offender was armed with a firearm
* Bulletin: "National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2008." By Michael R. Rand. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
Page 6: "An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 20% of all incidents of violent crime in 2008 (table 7)."
Page 6, "Text table 3. Firearm use in violent crime, 1999 and 2008": violent victimizations involving a firearm = 343,550
Page 6, "Table 7. Presence of weapons in violent incidents, by type, 2008":
- percentage of robberies involving a firearm = 24%
- number of rapes/sexual assaults involving a firearm = 0 {Note: Just Facts does not take this figure at face value and instead, extrapolates an estimated number.}
NOTE: With regard to guns and other weapons, this report employs the words "presence" and "use" interchangeably. This is evident by the fact that "Text table 3. Firearm use in violent crime, 1999 and 2008" and "Table 7. Presence of weapons in violent incidents, by type, 2008" cite the same figure (303,880) for the number of violent firearm incidents. Thus, the word "use" does not necessarily mean the offender fired the gun. Instead, the word "use" means the offender was armed with a gun.
† Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: This table states that 66.9% of all murders were committed with firearms, but this data does not account for all homicides – only those for which a "Supplemental Homicide Report" was filed (correspondence from U.S. Department of Justice to Just Facts, January 15, 2010). Hence, this table shows 14,180 total murder victims, while the UCR states: "An estimated 16,272 persons were murdered nationwide in 2008." Assuming the proportion of murders committed with firearms is approximately the same regardless of whether or not a Supplemental Homicide Report is filed:
16,272 ×.669 ≈ 10,886 people murdered with firearms
‡ 2008 NCVS data shows 4,856,510 nonfatal violent victimizations of people ages 12 and over, of which 343,550 or 7.1% involved the use of firearms. Based upon the extrapolation above, roughly 244,866 nonfatal violent victimizations were committed against children under the age of 12. Assuming the proportion of victimizations committed with firearms is approximately the same regardless of whether or not the victims are under the age of 12 (probably a high estimate):
244,866 × .071 ≈ 17,385 nonfatal violent victimizations committed against children under age 12 in which the offender was armed with a firearm
§ Based upon the extrapolation above, roughly 222,125 commercial robberies were committed in 2008. 2008 NCVS data shows 24% of noncommercial robberies are committed using firearms. Assuming the proportion of robberies committed with firearms is approximately the same regardless of whether or not they are commercial (probably a low estimate):
222,125 × .24 ≈ 53,310 commercial robbery victimizations in which the offender was armed with a firearm
# 2008 NCVS data shows zero rape/sexual assaults committed by an offender armed with a gun, and the 2008 UCR explicitly states, "Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses." [Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Violent Crime." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html] Hence, Just Facts extrapolates the number of rape/sexual assaults involving firearms based upon several relatable NCVS and UCR metrics (further details available upon request).
(for further references see the link posted above)
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;811021 said:
why do you only accept your sources and no others? is it because you have a conclusion already formed and will not accept any facts that don't fit your world view?
you do this all the time...you always ignore anything doesn't support your world view.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Did your cyber-mommy finally give you a web-hug, or change your cyber-Huggies?
How do you figure I ignored your post(s)?
I responded every time, and I even counted the number of times you posted and re-posted it, you lil' attention-whore.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Fair enough.
Are you aware that NORC/UOC's GSS is the most widely-referenced social survey conducted in the USA and has been for years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey
You still haven't shown any error. You've claimed their objectivity is questionable, but didn't supply any evidence that is is.
You claim their data is faulty, but I don't see any contradiction of it in your sources.
You called the Brady Center a "hate group" and claimed they were "listed" as such, so I'm not inclined to trust your statements.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Referencing something often does not make it more accurate. That said, it is a wide ranging study and is generally accurate, despite it's small sample size.¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;811047 said:
No, I HAVE shown that the objectivity is certainly questionable.
I was refuting OTHER things in the survey, such as favoring new gun control regulations. This goes to further support the idea that they are not being totally honest with regards to guns or gun ownership, and their statistical errors (such as the rise of single mothers, who are generally unlikely to own guns) are more more likely to result in incorrect results, especially with a small sample size of 1500.
Whether they are or not is irrelevant. Their objectivity in the matter is what matters and they are most certainly not objective.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It's a bullshit study that has at it's foundation a fixed point of survey using cities notoriously strict on gun possession laws. I alone have contributed to increased gun ownership in the home by helping 3 of my neighbors purchase their first gun.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
1) because he's a troll
2) because other sources would debunk his positions, something that would shake the foundation of his world. much like topper thinking that high school graduates are more intelligent than he is.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
According to you. What I haven't seen is any proof that the data is skewed as a result, notwithstanding your suspicions.
What evidence do you have their their methods and sample sizes are incorrect or inadequate? What's the average sample size for a study?
If it is irrelevant, why'd you mention it?
Got any evidence that the results are incorrect?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
You made the claim that the data is wrong. That puts the burden of proof on you.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Anecdotal evidence is always more valid than scientifically-controlled statistical data, isn't it?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Ahhh wonderful argument. Clearly indicative of the intellectual superiority of your position. Please, continue to enlighten us with your brilliance.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;811061 said:
there is no such thing as scientifically controlled statistical data when done by an organization that has an anti gun core.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;811063 said:
please. it's hard enough for me to dumb this down enough for you to understand it now as it is.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Thus your nickname, Smarter than Few?
Explain how fewer gun-owning households rocks your world, will you? What do you fear?
Explain how fewer gun-owning households rocks your world, will you? What do you fear?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;811045 said:
you ignored the data....because it didn't fit your world view. does your mom still change your diapers? or have you moved on to 'depends'?
and i didn't "re-post" legion....i simply 'quoted' the post...unlike you who deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts........until you get the attention you so desperately need.
it is hilarious how you think me quoting my post 3 times means i need a hug or a diaper change, when you repeatedly, (far more than 3 times), delete and re-post your same tired posts until you get the attention you feel you need.
you are the quintessential attention whore and your mimic of me calling you one doesn't really help your case legion.
G