CCW Holders have a homicide rate 87% LESS than the general public despite VPC claim.

[Statistical]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. The VPC knows all 3 very well. The Violence Policy Center released recently a damming report on violence by CCW holders ( http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf ).

Handgun Permit holders (more commonly called CCW) killed 51 people over a 2 year period. Sure 51 people is bad but we are a country of 300 million people. Without a comparison it is difficult to see this as more than a sensationalized headline.

Here is my attempt to put this in perspective.

I concentrate on Florida. Why Florida? Florida is a "shall issue" state which means anyone meeting the requirements MUST be issued a CCW permit. Also Florida provides substantial statistics. National CCW statistics are difficult to find since permits are issued on a state basis and some states don't provide statistical data.

In the VPC report (pages 11 to 15) CCW holders in Florida killed 10 people (2 also committed suicide) that resulted in criminal charges (or shooter was dead from suicide). 10 people killed but that is 10 people over 2 years (nice way to double the number) or an average of 5 per year.

Now the Florida department of Licenses reports that there are currently 585,544 class W licenses ( http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/licensetypecount.html ). Florida issues a separate licenses for judges, retired cops, and security guards. There are actually 591,863 licenses in Florida but since none of the offenses include judges, retired cops, or security guards I will use the smaller general issue class W number.

So 5 homicides per year out of a population of 585,544. The number is actually larger than 585,544 because some persons would have a license expire and not renew during that 2 year period. Florida has about 70K licenses expire without renewal each year. Florida has also issued nearly 1.5 million permits in the last 20 years. The VPC used newpaper reports to "confirm" the license status. It is possible some of the reports were mistaken or the licenses had been revoked or expired. For the sake of argument we will use the best possible scenario (for the VPC) of 5 incidents per year out of 585,544 persons.

That works out to a rate of 0.86 per 100K residents. To put this number in perspective it is comparable to Japan (0.6) and substantially less than Canada (1.80), France (1.59), the UK (1.37) or average for Western Europe (1.5). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate For the sake of honesty I would like to point out that homicide numbers are not available for every country for every year so most recent number available was used.

The FBI reports that in 2007 (latest year available) Florida had a homicide rate of 6.6 per 100K (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html) which is moderately higher than the national average of 5.6 per 100K.

We know that there were 1201 homicides in Florida and only 5 were by CCW so 1196 non-CCW homicides. The population at the time of FBI stats was 18,251,243 - 585,544 CCW holder = 17,665,699. The homicide rate in FL for non-CCW holders is 6.8

CCW holders in FL: 0.86 homicides per 100K
UK 1.37 homicides per 100K
France 1.59 homicides per 100K
Canada 1.80 homicides per 100K
US 5.6 homicides per 100K
Florida non CCW holders 6.8 homicides per 100K

So do CCW holder commit homicide? Of course. If you give a permit to 500K+ people statistically some will commit crime. Do they commit homicide at a higher rate than the general public? No, not even close. The homicide rate for CCW in Florida was 87% lower than the non-CCW population.

Another way to look at it is if the entire state had a homicide rate comparable to CCW it would be about half that of Europe and would result in 1045 less homicides per year. If the same stats applied to national average it would result in 13,920 less victims of homicide.

CCW Holders are no danger to society. The only ones who think so are those who want the bar to be set at 0 (a simply unacceptable standard as homicide occurs even where guns are banned). Nobody is saying CCW holders NEVER commit violent crime but rather they are commit crime at a substantially lower rate comparable to rate by law enforcement.

The majority of crime is committed by repeated offenders and related to the drug trade (the business side not casual use side). Focusing on CCW holders as a "threat" despite being substantially more law abiding than the general population is a canard. Sensationalizing 25 homicides per year out of a population of 3 to 10 million CCW holders nationally (which is about 50% to 85% lower than the national homicide rate) shows how weak VPC position has become.

[L0oniX]

1. K & R & thanks n/t

[brendan120678]

2. K&R!

Thanks for posting!

[bowens43]

3. completely meaningless.....

bottom line, fewer guns fewer gun deaths. Trying to argue that allowing concealed weapons is in any way a godd thing is ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

6. Please provide some facts to support your assertions

Got facts?

[michreject]

15. SWAG

Me thinks.

[Gman]

24. Have you ever heard of a country called England? They don't own handguns there

and they have virtually no handgun crime.

[eqfan592]

25. Yeah, but what about the violent crime rate?

Because THAT's the important stat. Otherwise it's like saying a nation without cars will have no car related deaths. It's ignorant to think this proves any sort of point.

Compare violent crime stats and you'll see that they aren't nearly as "wonderful" over there in the UK as you would like to think they are.

[iverglas]

37. yeah, eh?

Compare violent crime stats and you'll see that they aren't nearly as "wonderful" over there in the UK as you would like to think they are.


Because HAPPY SLAPPING is the precise equivalent of HOMICIDE IN THE COURSE OF AN ARMED ROBBERY.

Absolutely.

[Gman]

47. No! The important stat is THEY HAVE NO HANDGUN CRIME!

Get it? There is no retort to that fact. None.

[iverglas]

48. you do know that's not true, right?

Just playing the straw guy, or is there some chance you actually believe this?

[eqfan592]

50. Yes there is.

So basically what your admitting is that your problem isn't with violent crimes. It's with people committing violent crimes with guns. So if a person is shot, it's all about the evil guns. But if a person get's stabbed, beat with a blunt object, hit by a car, strangled, pushed out a window, etc, etc, THEN it's A - OK and no new anti blunt object laws are necessary.

You CANNOT deny the above argument and still maintain that what you just said in your previous post is true.

So you either have to admit that the important stat is the violent crime rate, or you have to admit that you simply hate guns or only feel that crimes committed with guns matter. Your choice. One makes you look at least rational, the other doesn't.

Also, I sincerely doubt that they have "NO HANDGUN CRIME" anywhere in the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. 39 dead people last year, and over 800 injuries disagree with you.

And that's just Handguns they will admit. Something funny going on with the 'other' category.

Don't let the crazy rhetoric get away from you.

[Gman]

59. There was that many in the last 2 months in Houston

[AtheistCrusader]

60. You said 'no' handgun crime, not 'less'.

Clearly they have less. Saying 'none' does not help your position. They certainly do have some.

Edit: Quite a lot if you include all 'firearms', however the home office classifies 'firearms' (air rifles get their own category, and roll up to total). That 'other' column is pretty fat. I wonder what's in there?

[iverglas]

63. twice now

That 'other' column is pretty fat. I wonder what's in there?

Can you at least link to what you're talking about?

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Oh, sorry.

Thought it would be common knowledge for someone claiming the UK doesn't have gun crime. It's called the British Home Office crime statistics. Roughly analogous to our Justice Department I guess.

I found the key to understanding the 'other' column, which amounts to the longest winded 'someone didn't fill out the crime scene report correctly' explanation I have ever seen.

Anyway the whole thing is an amalgam of reported crime via the Police (data is totally messed up) and the British Crime Survey.

I suggest just the excerpt for "Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2007/08 Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2007/08"

http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rds/s?rds.hosb0209pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf>

Table 2a I guess.
This raw data shows two fewer deaths by handguns than the Home Office Crime Statistics Summary I was citing earlier.

In 2007/08, 4,164 firearm injuries were reported, two per cent higher than the previous year.
Firearm crimes which resulted in injuries more than doubled in seven years to 2005/06 and the
largest rise was seen in crimes involving non-air weapons. These injuries reached their peak in
2004/05 at 5,398.
Injuries to police officers
One police officer was killed and three seriously injured by a firearm while on duty in 2007/08. CS
gas sprays accounted for 15 injuries or 63 per cent of the total. The overall total of 24 is the
highest since figures first appeared in the Home Office’s gun crime statistics in 1988. However,
the figures are still very small, and some variability from year to year is to be expected (Table 2c).
Sounds like they still have some firearm and handgun crime.

[iverglas]

70. try again

Thought it would be common knowledge for someone claiming the UK doesn't have gun crime.

I'm the one who asked, and I didn't claim any such thing.

If I click on my "recently closed tabs" I'll find the document. What I want to know is what bit of it you are talking about.

I am inquiring about the specific assertions/insinuiations you made:

Quite a lot if you include all 'firearms', however the home office classifies 'firearms' (air rifles get their own category, and roll up to total). That 'other' column is pretty fat. I wonder what's in there?

39 dead people last year, and over 800 injuries disagree with you.
And that's just Handguns they will admit. Something funny going on with the 'other' category.

I have no idea what you are on about. What "other" column, and what do you wonder about?
What "funny" is going on?


This raw data shows two fewer deaths by handguns than the Home Office Crime Statistics Summary I was citing earlier.

That Table 2a shows 36 deaths by handgun.
(36 deaths by handgun in a year in a population of 53 million.)

I don't know where the other figure you cite appears.


Table 2a I guess.
This raw data shows two fewer deaths by handguns than the Home Office Crime Statistics Summary I was citing earlier.

Here's what Table 2a says about "others", which was what you were on about:

Rifles/others(2)

(2) Starting guns, supposed/type unknown, prohibited firearms (including CS gas) and other firearms.

If you could explain what's "funny" about that?

I'm afraid I still have no idea what you're talking about.

What does this mean: "And that's just Handguns they will admit"? They admit that it's just handguns? Those are the only handguns they admit to? ...?

[AtheistCrusader]

72. I made a terrible mistake.

I relied on the summary provided by a UK pro Gun Control group, rather than wading into the HO data myself.

"Injury by being fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat"
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

These numbers do not correlate to the source data it cites, and I just linked in the previous post.

Anyway, the whole thing is largely moot, beyond the simple fact, the England still has handgun crime. People are threatened, beaten and shot with working firearm-pistols, firearm-shotguns, firearm-rifles, air guns, and other projectile-firing weapons.

[Euromutt]

62. A few problems with that claim

First, as others have pointed out, the amount of handgun crime in the UK is by no means zero. And while it may be low, it was lower when handgun ownership was still permitted, indicating that the increase in crime cannot be attributed to the availability of legal handguns. There are other factors at work here, and the example illustrates that legal availability of firearms doesn't cause crime.

[iverglas]

64. maybe

the example illustrates that legal availability of firearms doesn't cause crime

... if anyone had ever said it did ...

[Euromutt]

79. Iverglas, assuming that's you, I have you on "ignore"

Frankly, there's no fruitful discussion to be had with you, and nothing you have to say is worth the increase in my blood pressure. So don't bother responding to my posts; I'm done with you.

[iverglas]

81. will someone please inform Euromutt

that I don't give a flying fuck what he does, and that if he has me "on ignore", or says he has me "on ignore", he is now required to stop speaking to OR ABOUT me in this forum?

What I do is no longer his business. And I will do what I bleeding well like.

His bed. He made it. He gets to lie in it. (:rofl:)

Thanks in advance.

[Statistical]

30. Well they do have handgun crime and they have even more knife crime.

Violent crime rate in UK is now higher than the US.

[iverglas]

65. and yet

they have even more knife crime

The HOMICIDE rate is still a fraction of the rate in the US.

I wonder whether it could be because one is less likely to get killed by someone wielding a knife ...


Violent crime rate in UK is now higher than the US

Statements like these call for substantiation. Please provide it.

And no apples and oranges, if you wouldn't mind.

[E-Mag]

69. Is kidnapping a violent crime?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_kid-crime-kidnappings

While not violent crimes here are total crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Or how about Number of Known Terrorist Organizations Present (most recent) by country
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_num_of_kno_ter_org_pre-number-known-terrorist-organizations-present

Looks like you don't have such a good rape per capita there in Canada over 2x that of the US
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

[iverglas]

73. how many fucking times? (ed.)

Looks like you don't have such a good rape per capita there in Canada over 2x that of the US

THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE. I don't care what source you're looking at, YOU have an obligation not to make or repeat false statements.

My post from ONE MONTH ago, about the same FALSE STATEMENT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230951&mesg_id=231348

I summarized the TRUTH:

The ranking of Canada at the link given in this thread for the crime of "rape" is complete and utter bullshit.

It is plainly based on figures for reported sexual assaults, since there is no way to determine the rate for the crime of "rape" in Canada, there being no such crime.

There IS NO criminal offence in Canada called "rape". THIS is the relevant legislation in Canada governing sexual offences, and it has been SINCE 1983:

Sexual assault

271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

There are also aggravated sexual assault (involving injury) and using a weapon/threats in the commission of sexual assault.

Any comparison between the rate of rape anywhere and the rate of rape in Canada is FICTIONAL. In the case of police-reported figures, what it will be is a comparison of the rate of rape somewhere else and the rate of SEXUAL ASSAULT in Canada. For starters, the Canadian offence includes sexual assault on MALE PERSONS. It also includes ANY assault of a sexual nature - any sexual activity without consent.

Facts about police-reported sexual offences in Canada, 2008:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090721/t090721a1-eng.htm

Sexual assault, level 3, aggravated: 139 - 0/100,000 (down 3% from 2007)
Sexual assault, level 2, weapon or bodily harm: 352 - 1/100,000 (down 10%)
Sexual assault, level 1: 20,992 - 63/100,000 (down 1%)
Sexual violations against children: 1,379 - 4/100,000

Sexual assault, level 1, is obviously INCLUDED in the figures you cite (73/100,000, by survey), or else the survey is saying something completely fucking bizarre and unbelievable.

I have no idea what survey idiocy would produce this sort of wildly wrong figure for this category, but I assure you, it is simply wildly wrong. There simply is NOT some widespread tendency on the part of women in Canada, way beyond the tendency of women in other countries, to refrain from reporting rape to the police. Really. There is not.

And what I can simply never understand is why anyone would be so eager to open their head to such obviously, on their face, bizarre and unbelievable "facts".

You do NOT get a survey-reported "rape" rate that exceeds the number of police-reported low-level sexual assaults in a country, without something being seriously screwy somewhere, for pity's sake.

EDIT - I erred in my interpretation of "survey" - I had just glanced at the source for the nationmaster figures. It is:

Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

i.e. it is taken from official figures; it is not a victimization survey. My first interpretation is obviously correct - the figures for Canada include ALL SEXUAL OFFENCES and are therefore FALSE as a representation of the rate for "rape".


Is that clear now?

Whatever Canada had to do with anything ...


Or how about Number of Known Terrorist Organizations Present (most recent) by country

I dunno; how about it? Is that a violent offence?


Is kidnapping a violent crime?

You see a rate of 3,261/100,000 kidnappings in the UK -- over 6 TIMES as many as in PERU -- (and 2,933/100,000 in Canada) and you aren't just the tiniest bit suspicious about the validity of those numbers??

Give me a break. You don't imagine that maybe people in some places in the developed world were reporting custodial interference situations as "kidnappings", just for instance? Maybe even some misplaced decimals? Some sampling error? That figure is one kidnapping for every 33 Canadians. You actually think that there might be nearly A MILLION KIDNAPPINGS a year in Canada and I wouldn't have noticed?? Good bloody grief.

Here is the real police-reported figure for Canada for 2008:

Forcible confinement or kidnapping: 4,671 - 14/100,000 (down 1% from 2007)

14 per 100,000. Not 2,933 per 100,000. Or maybe 995,000 people were kidnapped and the police were never told about it ...

Use a tiny shred of common sense, if you don't want to look like a stereotype, totally ignorant of the world around you.

[E-Mag]

75. Believe it or not I dont

read every post on every topic here. I guess I missed you rape explanation earlier. I do find it interesting though that it seems to match with the rapes that occur in Alaska at 73/1000.



I would assume that you have a website that you use for world wide per capita crimes that you trust more that I can use or at least verify against. Good to know that the UN is an untrustworthy source for information though. I would have thought that they would have proofread their figures. :shrug:

[iverglas]

77. nope

I would assume that you have a website that you use for world wide per capita crimes that you trust more that I can use or at least verify against.

I go to the horses' mouths.
For Canada, it's Statistics Canada's many yearly reports on crime.
For England & Wales, it's the Home Office. Etc.


Good to know that the UN is an untrustworthy source for information though. I would have thought that they would have proofread their figures.

Well, once again, I'd go to the horse's mouth. The nationmaster site is a secondary source at best.

It cites: "Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems".

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pct.pdf

For Canada, that document cites:
"Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Report and Homicide Survey, Statistics Canada".
That's the relevant branch of Statcan.

And indeed, it says, for Canada:

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

Total recorded rapes: 25,553(1998) 23,859(1999) 24,049(2000)
Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 84.61(1998) 78.23(1999) 78.08(2000)

For comparison, there were 2,625 "major assaults" in 1998.
On its face, it doesn't make sense that there were nearly 10 times as many rapes as major assaults.

For the US, the figure is reversed: there were more than 10 times as many major assaults (976,580) as rapes (93,140).

I suspect that the comparison is apples to oranges in both cases.

Canada had about 1/10 the population of the US during the period in question, but:
The US had fewer than 4 times as many rapes as Canada;
The US had 372 times as many major assaults as Canada.

Makes no sense at all.

Meanwhile, England&Wales had twice as many major assaults (14,006) as rapes (7,636).

Here's the questionnaire:
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/InstrumentE.pdf
and instructions for completing it:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Seventh-United-Nations-Survey-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html

The tables to be filled out by the reporting officers use the term "rape". No Canadian official would have entered the totals for sexual assault in that category without an explanatory note to indicate that the figures included other types of offences:

5. “Rape” may be understood to mean sexual intercourse without valid consent. Please indicate whether statutory rape is included in the data provided. If, in your country, a distinction is made between sexual assault and actual penetration, please provide relevant information.

If that was done and the UN has gone ahead and published figures that suggest that Canada's response is comparable, in terms of the offences covered, to the responses of countries where only the offence of rape ("actual penetration") is included, that is indeed utterly appalling.

And y'know, I may just use a bit of the spare time I've found myself with this summer to address that question to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

I'm also quite sure that a whole lot of different fruit ends up in the various "assault" baskets for different countries:

4. “Assault” may be understood to mean physical attack against the body of another person, including battery but excluding indecent assault. Some criminal or penal codes distinguish between aggravated assault and simple assault, depending on the degree of resulting injury. If such a distinction is made in your country, please provide the relevant data for aggravated assault under the category “Major assault”. Under the category “Total assault” should be included data on both aggravated assault (i.e. major assault) and simple assault. Please provide the main criterion for distinguishing between aggravated assault and simple assault if such a distinction is made in your country.

I'm trying to find whether individual countries' original responses are available ...

Here are the comments by country on the formal aspects of the questionnaire (courts, sources of stats, definitions of adult and juvenile, etc.):
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7scc.pdf

Canada's bizarre outlier status on the offence of "rape" can also be seen in figures for
"Persons brought into initial formal contact with the police and/or criminal justice system by type of crime, where initial formal contact might include being suspected, arrested, cautioned etc."
at page 68 of this one:
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sv.pdf

But I can't find any doc with the individual countries' notes about definitions of offences.

The instructions for completing the questionnaire (link above) do say, however (my emphases):

The UNODC Crime Programme has confined itself to reproducing the figures as received on the questionnaire forms.

The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc. Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.

If we want to know what the UN says about its figures, we need to ask the UN.

I think that answers a lot of our questions.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

49. ooh, that's so charming

we don't expect our citizens to live like pussies

There's them true colours again.

Men, having to act like women. (Of course it's not a true statement, but that's neither here nor there.)

Fate worse than death.


We give them guns to repaint the walls with an attacker's brains, as opposed to expecting women lay there and giggle with glee as she's being raped as is custom in the UK.

You're a foul-mouthed nasty piece of work, aren't you?


Their government has disarmed them

Will you tell us the date when this happened, and how it was achieved?


Acting like a "good citizen" means sitting their and taking your beating or your robbing or your raping and enjoying it. Another post refered to this as "happy slappings"

No, I didn't refer to that as "happy slapping", so would you like to retract this lie?

If you say "dog", are you referring to elephants?

When I said "happy slapping", I was not referring to beating or robbing or raping, and it is a lie to say I was. Quite simply.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Erm... vile content aside...

Edit: Nevermind, reviewed the original post. That was some amazingly disgusting sleight of hand.

[iverglas]

56. oh Deadric, we hardly knew ye

But we knew ye quite enough ...

[krispos42]

14. The US homicide rate dropped 40% from 1990-2000 with no change in gun ownership

Same guns, fewer deaths.


Regardless, the implicit assumption you're making is that if gun deaths go down, the total number of deaths will also go down. That the murders that would have been committed with guns simply won't happen with another weapon.

As the Brits can attest, less gun deaths do not translate into less homicides.

[iverglas]

38. really??

As the Brits can attest, less gun deaths do not translate into less homicides.


US, rough annual figures:
15,000 homicides, 10,000 of which are by firearm.

Divide by 6 for what the rough equivalent for England&Wales would be at the same rate:
(it's slightly less than six, at about 53 million population, but we're being rough)
3,000 homicides, 2,000 of which would be by firearm.

Real figures for England&Wales 2007-2008:
763 homicides, 53 of which were by firearm (in one instance used as a blunt instrument)


Two thirds of homicides in the US are by firearm.

If we take the non-firearm homicides in England&Wales -- 710 -- and add 2/3 of that figure -- 473 -- we get 1183. Still only about 2.2/100,000 total, but a significant jump.


And nope, I see no basis for assuming that the homicide rate would have remained stable, merely with substitution of method.


I actually have no idea what your statement was intended to mean, but I do have a request.

Fewer gun deaths, fewer homicides. Not "less". Doesn't that sound infinitely better now?

[Statistical]

43. No that simply proves UK has fewer deaths.

Compare the death rate prior to the ban with death rate after.

Now compare that drop in homicide rate with drop in homicide rate in the US despite an increase in the supply of guns.

Homicide was never a large problem in the UK at any point in the last century.

To take a country with low homicide rate, ban guns and they use proof of an unchanging homicide rate as "proof" that less guns = less death is bankrupt.

Homicide in US and UK have been declining before, during, and after the UK gun bans. The only difference is they declined more in the US and less in the UK.

[iverglas]

45. why don't you try to learn what you're talking about?

Compare the death rate prior to the ban with death rate after.

Compare the rate of legal handgun ownership before the "ban" to the rate of legal handgun ownership in the US.

Actually, compare the rate of legal handgun ownership in the UK to anything you like.


Homicide was never a large problem in the UK at any point in the last century.

And legal handgun ownership never involved more than a tiny fraction of the population.

I don't doubt that you don't know this, and in fact have never made any effort to find out anything about it.

Apparently, your wilful ignorance makes it acceptable for you to spew shit like this:

To take a country with low homicide rate, ban guns and they use proof of an unchanging homicide rate as "proof" that less guns = less death is bankrupt.

I have no idea what country you're talking about, but it sure ain't any part of the UK.


Homicide in US and UK have been declining before, during, and after the UK gun bans. The only difference is they declined more in the US and less in the UK.

Of course, the plain fact is that in a country with a population 53 MILLION, any variation from a total of FIFTY-THREE firearms homicides would be nothing more than a statistical blip, unless the number suddenly tripled or something like.

It's pretty bloody hard to get the firearms homicide rate below ONE PER MILLION anywhere on earth, or in the rest of the galaxy, I would think.

You let me know when the US has a total of 300 firearms homicides in a year, 'k?

[pipoman]

51. Actually the number of guns necessarily increased

during that 10 years and the rate still dropped...just say'n

[JonQ]

21. But the facts don't support that conclusion

some states with a high gun ownership rate have a very low murder rate. And some with low gun ownership rate have a high murder rate (look at DC).

You can't make something true by simply asserting it, unless you're only offering your opinion on the subject.

You could say "in my opinion, guns are evil and scary" and that would be true. You could not say "in my opinion high rates of gun ownership are directly correlated with high murder rates" because A) that isn't an issue of personal opinion and B) the facts don't back such an assertion.

[MadHound]

4. Speaking of lies, damned lies and statistics

You're engaged in the same supposed exercise that you condemn the VPC of, massaging numbers to get them to show what you want. Sorry, don't buy it.

Besides, what I find most egregious about CCW laws is that they take away my right to determine who and what is on my property, in my place of business, in my place of work. Gun nuts are more than willing to trample all over other people's rights in order to push their gun rights to the front. Sorry, but that's wrong.

[redqueen]

5. How do they take away that right? (nt)

[MadHound]

8. If I own a business, there are many states where I have to allow CCW holders and their guns in

Under penalty of law.

[slackmaster]

11. Cite?

Business owners always have a right to restrict what people bring into their places of business.

[cslinger59]

22. AFAIK

The only "business" I can think of where, I believe, one can technically not restrict the firearms is in the case of a landlord and tenant type situation and possibly in a hotel room. Not 100% sure on this and I don't have the free moment to check.

As far as general business (Restaurants, stores, retail, grocery, offices etc.) I believe the building owner has every right to deny access to those carrying a firearm. In some cases it may require very specific signage but it is still perfectly legal to deny access.

As for the parking lot issue I am not sure if that has been settled country wide or not. I know there are states where you are not allowed to deny an employee or other person from keeping a firearm in their vehicle but some states may allow you to do this.

Again this is a SWAG based on some cobwebbed areas of my brain.

[spin]

46. A business man can post a "no gun" sign...

and the criminals will merely ignore it. The people who have concealed carry permits will probably refuse to do business with the store. (I used to call the business and explain that I would no longer patronize their establishment.)

So only have the armed criminals and those who don't carry firearms do business with the owner. I have no problem with that. I'm busy shopping at the store's competitor. Gun free zones attract criminals. If possible, I avoid gun free zones.

[iverglas]

67. but a businesswoman can't??

Do join us in the land of 21st century English.

[spin]

71. Good catch. Sorry. (n/t)

[Statistical]

13. Please name these "many states" because I think you are misinformed.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Please site that. I know of a few that require you to allow them in your

parking lot but know of NONE that require you to let them in. Please educate me on this.

[Statistical]

7. How do they do that?

Every state I know of allows private property owners to restrict carrying firearms. Most require some sort of sign simply to notify the CCW holder.

As far as massaging the number please explain how. I would use national numbers but they are unreliable but put it in the same ballpark. I used Florida because it has a high number of CCW, is shall issue, has had shall issue for long time (20 years), and provides detailed stats.

[MadHound]

10. Sorry, but not every state allows businesses to restrict firearms

And frankly, with your sets and subsets of groups of people, if you don't see how you're massaging the data, then you're blind.

[slackmaster]

12. Name one that doesn't

Please.

[JonQ]

18. Pretty sure if you own the property you set the rules

Haven't heard of any state in the US that doesn't allow that.

Unless you don't own the property, you just work there. In which case I suppose the government is taking away your "right" to dictate firearm policy to the property-owner.

[jeepnstein]

20. Private property is private property...

What States tell you that you cannot post "No Firearms" at the door? You should be free to post it if you so desire.

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Please tell me which ones. I know of none and would appreciate the information.

[cslinger59]

26. Actually I am curious about this as well.

Like I said above I don't know of any states that forbid this legally. I do know of several that require specific legal signage and specific legal placement of said signage but other then that I don't know of any states that allow legal carry but do not allow a business to bar firearms from the premises. But I also freely admit to not knowing all there is to know, hence asking questions.

[eqfan592]

28. The original stat provided by the VPC was about a subset of people.

So how can one possibly talk about that stat and debunk it without talking about subsets?

Again, nice try, but no cigar. You can put your blinders on as much as you want, it doesn't change reality.

[Euromutt]

76. News to me

My state of residence, Washington, is more CCW-friendly than most, and if the owner of certain premises doesn't want firearms on the premises, he has the right to ask anyone carrying to leave, and to have them escorted off the premises and charged with trespassing if they fail to do so. There's no legal requirement to post a particular sign either, as in Texas (though the counter to that is that it's not a criminal offense per se to carry a firearm into such an establishment either).

So yeah, I'm curious which states these are that supposedly require private businesses to tolerate licensed concealed firearms on their premises by law.

[eqfan592]

27. Really now?

Proove it.


Oh wait, you can't, cuz you're full of it.

Sorry, next please.

[Dappleganger]

9. K&R, thank you for posting this.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. well, this is comforting

In a country with as toxic a gun violence problem as ours, concealed carry doesn't make things worse. Whew.

[gorfle]

40. It simply...

In a country with as toxic a gun violence problem as ours, concealed carry doesn't make things worse. Whew.

It is comforting, isn't it? It kicks yet another leg out from under the anti-firearm platform.

[JonQ]

19. Most crimes are commited with handguns, by people without a CCW license

clearly the solution is to ban "assault" weapons and CCW licenses.

To some people this makes sense.

I really don't get why they seem so apathetic about going after illegally obtained weapons, but very emphatic about removing legally held ones. Is it just easier to collect more weapons that way?

[eqfan592]

29. lol, awesome post JonQ. +1! (nt)

[Statistical]

32. "Is it just easier to collect more weapons that way?"

Exactly.

Gun control has never been about reducing crime. It is made up primarily of two groups.
Those that want to eliminate guns (despite a lack of evidence that would reduce crime).
Those that simple like the govt to control the citizenry.

Gun control is not crime control.

Even with the massive "abundance" of guns both legal and illegal we kill more people (per capita) by non guns in than are killed in Japan by all forms. Even with no guns and all gun crimes simply went away (rather than criminals using another tool) our violent crime rate & homicide rate would be higher than Japan. Of course thinking all "gun criminals" will simply stop committing crime without guns is laughable but even under such an extreme scenario we would STILL have higher crime rate and homicide rate.

We are a more violent society. We also lack good safety net, and good mental health systems. We have lots of below living wage jobs and a society that simply dumps the poor into crime ridden areas with little hope or opportunity.

Violent Society + Lack of Opportunity + Cram all poor into high crime areas + Drug Trade + Lack of mental health = higher crime rate.

Of course that is a complex multi-generation problem that even if we began tackling today would take a generation to solve.

It is easier to scream "ITS THE GUNZ".

[JonQ]

35. I think also

our insane drug policy plays a major role (prohibition of any activity leads to a higher crime rate, including murder). And as a culture we tend to give more respect to the whole outlaw persona. In japan the emphasis is very much on conforming to societies standards, anyone that deviates is seen as sick, perverse. Here it is expected that you go against the norm (or at least pay lip-service). That in general is better, I think, but it does lead to far more tolerance and acceptance of criminal behavior here, than in a more conservative and rigid society like japan.

Also the whole "shaming your family and community" thing doesn't mean much here.

[GeorgeGist]

31. In conclusion, CCW do not decrease the homocide rate.

[Statistical]

33. I think pink pistols would disagree that it doesn't reduce the HOMOcide rate.

[pipoman]

52. Statistically, nope, it doesn't

nor does it increase it. Statistics not anecdotes should be used for legislative purposes. Do you use statistics to determine what you buy or keep for protection? For example do you base whether or not you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and fire insurance on your home on the statistical probability that you will need them? If so I am guessing you don't have any of those things, huh?

The reason for carrying a concealed weapon has not one thing to do with statistics, it has to do with anecdote. Preparedness in the unlikely chance one would need it. Better to have and not need than to need and not have, fire insurance, seat belts, a few days stock of food and water, a generator, a gun.

[slackmaster]

54. Maybe not, but the important fact is that it doesn't INCREASE it either

:hi:

[Tim01]

55. It decreases it for the CCW holder, and nothing changes for everybody else.

It's like the starfish story.
It makes a difference for the person who carries a gun for defense.

[rrneck]

34. Well done.

Pity you had to do all that work to respond to all that bullshit.

[iverglas]

36. not so statistical, are you, really?

For starters:

That works out to a rate of 0.86 per 100K residents. To put this number in perspective it is comparable to Japan (0.6) and substantially less than Canada (1.80), France (1.59), the UK (1.37) or average for Western Europe (1.5).

No, it isn't. It is what it is: a rate of 0.86 per 100K PERMIT HOLDERS.

That makes it higher than the rate for Japan, and about 1/2 the rate for various European countries/the UK, for the POPULATION.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

In the US, you have a rate of 0.86/100,000 permit holders vs. 5.6/100,000 population.

You are still comparing apples and oranges.

The general population of the US includes a whole lot of people who are NOT ELIGIBLE for permits.

Why would you compare the homicide rate for permit holders to the homicide rate for a population that includes people not eligible to hold permits??

What you are doing is burying the whole point.

Item 7 on the gun militant manifesto is:

Most murders are committed by bad guys.

Oh look! It's right there in your post:

The majority of crime is committed by repeated offenders and related to the drug trade (the business side not casual use side).

So if most homicides in the US are committed by people with criminal records or people involved in drug trafficking, and let's not forget people who are mentally ill, what purpose would you imagine is served by saying that the homicide rate among permit holders is lower than among the general population?

Well, I mean, that's a rhetorical question, isn't it?


Permit holders are by definition individuals without criminal records, individuals not involved in drug trafficking, individuals who do not have mental illnesses.

How 'bout you put some of those statistical skills to work and get us a comparison of the homicide rate among permit holders and the homicide rate among the population of the US composed of individuals without criminal records, individuals not involved in drug trafficking, individuals who do not have mental illnesses?

I would love to see it, myself.

Meanwhile, I'll just chortle at this amateur/deceptive (whatever, eh?) bumph of yours.

[Statistical]

42. That kinda was the whole point. Thanks for reinforcing it.

The VPC study is pushing a meme that 51 deaths by CCW is a horrible public health danger.

I (and you) are putting it into perspective that CCW present a negligible danger compared to existing threats which result in a magnitude more crime.

You are reaching with the interpretation and then trying to knock that down.

I am not saying give everyone a CCW and the crime will go down. Of course it won't. I am simply pointing out that the subpopulation that VPC is targeting is the wrong one. If anything the CCW system reinfoces the notion that the law abiding are not the problem, felons are and any system trying to restrict the activity of the law abiding will not reduce crime.

To criticize that I am selectively looking at a subpopulation doesn't make any sense.
The VPC study was ON THE CCW SUBPOPULATION.
I can't quite refute it by looking at the homicide rate among drug dealing felons.


I will ask one question....
How 'bout you put some of those statistical skills to work and get us a comparison of the homicide rate among permit holders and the homicide rate among the population of the US composed of individuals without criminal records, individuals not involved in drug trafficking, individuals who do not have mental illnesses?

Well I know of no set of data that lets me see that however I will hypothasis. I think if we looked at a subset of US individuals without criminal records, mental health problems, and not involved in illegal activity such as drug trafficiking the homicide rate would be extremely low possibly as low as the CCW subpopulation.

This simply reinforces the point that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by repeat offenders and the largest subpopulation of them are involved in drug trade.

Thanks for agreeing that focusing on the mostly law abiding CCW crowd is a non-starter and the VPC "study" has no merit; that was the point.

[iverglas]

44. your lips are moving ...

but you don't seem to be hearing yourself.

To criticize that I am selectively looking at a subpopulation doesn't make any sense.
The VPC study was ON THE CCW SUBPOPULATION.
I can't quite refute it by looking at the homicide rate among drug dealing felons.

And you imagined that my point was ... ?

My point was: that is EXACTLY what you are doing.


I think if we looked at a subset of US individuals without criminal records, mental health problems, and not involved in illegal activity such as drug trafficiking the homicide rate would be extremely low possibly as low as the CCW subpopulation.

Duh.

Thanks for agreeing that your claim:

CCW Holders have a homicide rate 87% LESS than the general public despite VPC claim.

is meaningless to the point of extremely misleading.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. The general public includes those

engaged in illegal activity such as drug trafficking, until proven in a court of law.

How can we possibly differentiate, beyond felons/non-felons? I'd love to meet halfway on this one, but the data just can't be sliced in the requisite manner.

[iverglas]

66. if the data aren't there

then the repeated assertions allegedly based on those data have to stop.

The population of holders of permits to carry concealed firearms IS NOT COMPARABLE to the "general population".

(And that's so even if we leave aside the question of offenders who have never been caught, who undoubtedly exist in both populations.)

The "general population" includes huge numbers of CONVICTED OFFENDERS and others with characteristics that would disqualify them from holding permits to carry concealed firearms.

Comparing the crime rate among individuals who are INELIGIBLE to hold permits, in a majority of cases because of CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, and individuals who are ELIGIBLE to hold permits is a waste of time, and anyone who bases an argument on such a comparison is being deceitful at best.

If someone wants to do the work -- determine what percentage of homicides, e.g., are committed by persons with previous criminal convictions, and EXCLUDE those homicides, and then determine what percentage of the population has criminal convictions, and EXCLUDE that segment -- they could come up with some reasonably comparable populations and sets of offences. Then we could talk.


How can we possibly differentiate, beyond felons/non-felons? I'd love to meet halfway on this one, but the data just can't be sliced in the requisite manner.

I don't know, not my problem, but the above is perhaps a starting point.

The fact is that until someone does come up with a way of doing it, all of this crap about how permit holders are more law-abiding than non-permit holders is, yes, crap, of the unpleasant deceitful variety.


typo fixed ... after three attempts ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. What we have is one set of incomplete data countered with another.

And you are correct- there is no clear way to demonstrate that CCW permit holders are more (or less) law abiding than
the entire set of persons who are not disqualified from owning firearms under law.

Unproven, at best

For example, the VPC study which probably did not leave the impression they wanted it to when people started doing the math
and noting the circumstances of the homicides mentioned (a garotte? How many were convicted? How many of them were really
CCW permit holders?).

Incomplete data can lead to mistaken assumptions. The following statements are true as far as they go:

Adolf Hitler was cited twice for bravery.

Robert Heinlein worked for Upton Sinclair's campaign for Governor of California. He also wrote "...If This Goes On"
describing the overthrow of a religious dictatorship, a la The Handmaid's Tale.

George McGovern was a decorated bomber pilot during World War II.

If you knew nothing else about these people you might draw some quite erroneous conclusions about their characters.

[iverglas]

78. I'm glad we appear to agree ;)

And of course I agree that the data in all respects must be taken as incomplete. (E.g., we have no way of knowing whether every person convicted of an offence who was a permit holder has been identified as such in a way that would be captured.)

Just a note: I would make absolutely no distinction between a permit holder who kills someone with a rope and a permit holder who kills someone with a firearm. The individual who was issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm went on to commit a homicide. The individual was considered to be "law-abiding", and yet was as much a murderer as anyone else who has ever committed murder.

[gorfle]

39. Excellent read, thanks.

Well done, Statistical!

[Glory89fan]

80. And yet

We still have over 10,000 gun murders per year.