Why do some people believe that 2.5 million crimes are prevented by guns?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>A few years back, a study was published by Kleck and Gertz which concluded that each year 2.5 million crimes were prevented by civilians (i.e., not police officers or security guards) with guns - by brandishing them, shooting them, or merely talking about them. This assertion is accepted and repeated by a large group of people. </p>

<p>The obvious flaws in the methodology of the study, as well as its factual conflict with reliable data, are interesting to dig into, but to me, a more fundamental question arises: Have people lost the ability to relate statistical assertions to their own very real lives so as to be able to detect even the most obvious BS?</p>

<p>The specific claim based on the study is this (“DGU” means “defensive gun use”):

</p>

<p>Okay, let’s just mull that over for a minute. 1.3% of all American adults prevented at least one crime - last year - by brandishing, shooting, or referring to a gun. Not only that, but it happens year in and year out. And it’s not the same 1.3% every year - while there’s some overlap, the study results actually suggest that for the most part it’s a new group doin’ it each and every year (222/4799 yields 4.6% over five years, or a new .9% of the population engaging in DGU’s each year).</p>

<p>So, my having been an adult for about forty years, I should personally know a lot of people this has happened to. 40 X .9 = 36%! Of course the population has turned over during that time period with old people dying and new people achieving adulthood, so if it was done just once per lifetime by each defender it’d be closer to 18%. If we pump up the “repeat defender” rate by assuming that there are repeaters from one 5 year time span to another so we don’t have to assume that 18% of all Americans engaged in DGU over that period of time we’re still left with a substantial fraction of the population. I mean, during that time there’s probably a hundred people I’ve known really well - well enough so that if they had prevented an actual crime (and used a gun to do so) I’m confident that I’d know about it. But I don’t. I actually don’t know a single one. I do know that people do prevent crimes, both with and without guns, and I’ve personally participated in crime prevention a couple of times. (I’ve lived in some fairly high-crime areas.) But actual “crime prevented by gun-totin’ civilian”? Absolutely zero first hand experience, zero reliable second hand experience.</p>

<p>So even without digging into the details of the study, it’s not really too hard for me to figure that it really is a remarkable claim, which is inconsistent with my actual real life experience. In short, my BS meter isn’t just twitching - it’s hit the peg. And frankly - that was before I ran the numbers above - I just did that as a reality check. They had me at “2.5 million times a year.”</p>

<p>So why do people just accept a claim like this? I understand believing in UFO’s - it’s inherent in the belief that the ET’s have the ability to prevent detection and proof, etc. - I mean, they’re an advanced civilization, right? And belief in conspiracies (which is necessary to believe the Kleck/Gertz study as well, by the way) similarly relies on a belief that someone is suppressing the “real truth”. But if people were actually preventing crime all the time - 120,000 time per month - we’d actually know about lots and lots of actual such events, involving people we actually know. But we don’t. At best most of us have a “friend of a friend” that we’ve heard about, or read a story in the newspaper (since such events would typically be dramatic and newsworthy) But we don’t actually have anywhere near the reliable personal information we should have if this claim were true. </p>

<p>So why do people believe stuff which doesn’t even fit with their own very real lives?</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>Because they see it on TV. Seriously. I’ve read that most people who are empaneled on juries genuinely believe that most of what they see in the movies is real. That’s a scary thought, but that would be the next thought to subject to a reality check such as that in your interesting thread-opening post.</p>

3

<p>^^^^
I was talking to a real CSI the other day (inspecting my house after burglary). He said that CSI/CSI Miami/etc has made it harder to get convictions in many cases because people expect there to be DNA on everything after a crime has been committed. It reminds me of the line in Superbad where the cop says that he used to watch CSI a lot and as a result thought that there would be semen on everything at crime scenes.</p>

4

<p>Poll after poll shows that 2/3 of Americans favor a fair share of gun control. The problem is that the 1/3 that do not has a loud mouth and the NRA on its side. And the NRA is probably one of the top 3 powerful lobbying groups along with AARP and the AIPAC lobby that controls our Middle Eastern policy against American interests.</p>

<p>It’s the same story with reproductive rights. 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans are pro-choice, but the 1/4 that is not is very vocal.</p>

<p>WELCOME TO SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYING AND AMERICAN POLITICS :)</p>

5

<p>My grandfather used to keep local teenagers from breaking into his shed by threatening the ones he’d see with a shotgun. Not sure what kinda crimes we’re talking about here…but I know a lot of people use them to keep others from tresspassing and burglary.</p>

6

<p>It is cultural and related to the part of the country you live.</p>

<p>All studies and statistics I have read state just the opposite. Those who own guns
are more likely to injure themselves, than save themselves. It has been
irrefutably proven that a criminal is more likely to overpower you and use your
gun to hurt you.</p>

<p>Where I grew up, nobody owned a gun or ever discussed one for protection
or hunting. In the thread on Amendment 2, obvious non-adults are commenting
they want guns to hunt, etc. Huckabee has many guns, and his adult son was
recently caught attempting to bring one on an airplane. My spouse briefly lived
in the South, and he said everyone had guns. </p>

<p>Where I have lived the past 28 years is a state where people have guns and
hunting is common. When I first moved here, it was shocking to me. Parents not
only have guns, many are handguns accesible to children, and many children
have BB guns. I know one child who lost an eye at around 8 when he and a
friend were playing with BB guns. I have also experienced people who keep
their rifles accessible in the living room, in case of intruders. When my children
were little, I learned I had to question everyone about their gun whereabouts.
At first I thought it was “Do you have a gun?” I soon realized it was, “Is your
gun accessible to the kids and does your son have a BB gun?” I have never
owned a gun of any kind, nor do I intend to.</p>

7

<p>I think it’s quite likely that civilians having guns deters a lot of crime. It’s just that having a lot of guns in the population inspires more crime than it deters. Based on the numbers, civilians are a lot safer from violent crime in countries like Japan and Great Britain, even though there’s no gun deterrent factor in those countries because the gun control is so strict (and actually enforced).</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Cite, please?</p>

9

<p>I assumed someone would ask for a citation, Wash Dad. That is info I obtained working in the criminal
justice system years ago, and also during two self-defense classes I have taken. I am sure if you search, you will find it is fact.</p>

10

<p>We’ll see how all those low crime countries do as their population demographics change over time. Not much crime in North Dakota or Wyoming either and nearly everyone owns a gun…</p>

11

<p>Maybe we should follow Britain’s lead on gun control? One problem, however, in seizing American’s firearms would be that the Brits have no inconvenient Second Amendment to contend with and do not have some 73% of British citizens believing they have a right to own and use firearms.</p>

<p>However, let’s pretend Americans decide to repeal the Second Amendment. What would happen?</p>

<p>For one possible outcome consider this article about our British cousins:</p>

<p>*The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions “seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld.” Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.</p>

<p>Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was “rocketing.” In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.</p>

<p>Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.</p>

<p>This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to “walk on by” and let the professionals handle it.</p>

<p>This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, “discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians.”*</p>

<p>For the rest of the article see: [Reason</a> Magazine - Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome](<a href=“http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html]Reason”>Gun Control's Twisted Outcome)</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>You want to elaborate on that barrons. Are you pulling a C. Heston on us? Are you trying to blame "minorities for all the crimes?</p>

13

<p>Obviously gun-tot’n cowboys still kick outlaw fanny in some locales. Oops, in this case, most recent and tragic, the cowboy turned out to be an armed cowgirl who volunteers at the church. Amazing…the writers can stay on strike. Life is interesting enough without them. Women with guns…shooting criminals…true women’s liberation, I’d suggest. :)</p>

<p>*More than 12 hours later, at New Life Church, a gunman wearing a trench coat and carrying a high-powered rifle opened fire in the parking lot and later walked into the church as a service was letting out.</p>

<p>Boyd said a member of the church who volunteers as a security guard shot and killed the gunman. Boyd did not identify the guard but called her “a real hero.”</p>

<p>“When the shots were fired, she rushed toward the scene and encountered the attacker there in a hallway. He never got more than 50 feet inside our building,” he said. “There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives.”</p>

<p>Boyd said the gunman had a lot of ammunition and estimated that 40 rounds had been fired inside the church, leaving what looked like a “war scene.”*</p>

<p>For the rest of the article see: [FOXNews.com</a> - Lone Gunman Killed Four in Colorado Church Shooting Sprees, Cops Say - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316322,00.html]FOXNews.com”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316322,00.html)</p>

14

<p>“Maybe we should follow Britain’s lead on gun control?”</p>

<p>I’m not sure if you’re responding to me, but that wasn’t my suggestion. I was just refuting the idea that countries where lots of citizens own guns experience less violent crime, which was the original theme of the thread. If criminals go berserk in an de-gunned populace, then you sure can’t tell that from looking at the near-gunless countries.</p>

<p>“In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.”</p>

<p>I’m sure the author means FIRE-armed robberies. There were more than 4 knifepoint robberies a year in Edwardian London! But if the author is that sloppy with such an important distinction, I am not going to waste time with the rest of the article.</p>

15

<p>Absolutely not…such an oversight is unforgivable. Clearly the author is a gun nut. ;)</p>

<p>Just look at her brief bio: </p>

<p>Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior fellow in the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (Harvard).</p>

<p>Let’s dig a bit deeper into the background of the author:</p>

<p>*PROFESSOR OF LAW JOYCE LEE MALCOLM is a historian and constitutional scholar active in the area of constitutional history, focusing on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. She has written many books and articles on gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights.</p>

<p>Professor Malcolm has previously taught at Princeton University, Bentley College, Boston University, Northeastern University and Cambridge University. She was also a Senior Advisor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, a Visiting Scholar at Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and is a Bye Fellow at Robinson College, Cambridge University.</p>

<p>She is a regular contributor to the website of Social Affairs Unit, UK, a British foundation that publishes “intelligent comment and serious articles and reviews on culture high and low” contributed by a roster of distinguished British scholars. Her essays have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, USA Today, The Boston Globe and other newspapers.*</p>

<p>From: [George</a> Mason University School of Law: Faculty: Faculty Directory](<a href=“http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/bio.php?fac=157]George”>http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/bio.php?fac=157)</p>

16

<p>To answer your original question: because they want to. And no evidence you can ever provide will convince them otherwise. Just as the pro life, pro choice argument is never going to change anybody’s mind.</p>

17

<p>

I don’t think Switzerland is crime-ridden yet and unless it’s changed recently, virtually every household has a gun (part of the miltitary reserves for that country).</p>

<p>The anti-gun crowd hates the cliche but ‘people’ are the ones commiting crimes - not the guns. Focus on solving the problem of people commiting crimes and there won’t be much of an issue with the tools they used to commit them be-it guns, knives, automobiles, bombs, fists, etc.</p>

<p>Laws aren’t likely to prevent criminals from obtaining guns in a society as open as the USA’s. They seem to be able to obtain pretty much anything they want. </p>

<p>I’ve owned guns for 35 years now and haven’t shot anyone yet.</p>

<p>Regarding the initial question - I haven’t heard that stat (about crimes prevented) so I have no opinion on it.</p>

18

<p>

You said it, P2N, not me, but…

</p>

<p>…“her books include To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Guns and Violence: The English Experience…” </p>

<p>Some things just never change, eh? ;)</p>

19

<p>Anyone who thinks crime rates, especially violent crimes, are not generally higher in minority dominated areas, especially poor minority areas is uninformed. See Detroit, Newark, Camden, New Orleans before and after, West Side Chicago, Compton, etc etc. We have had the crime numbers game here before so no need to replay them.</p>

<p>Apparently a number of deaths were stopped just yesterday by an armed citizen security volunteer.</p>

<p>[Security</a> Guard: ‘God Guided Me And Protected Me’ - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver](<a href=“http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html]Security”>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html)</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>The main word there is POOR. Whether or not it is minority-dominated is irrelevant. All let’s say Indian areas are "minority’ but not crime-ridden. If being a minority caused the crime you would see it in all minority-dominated areas.</p>

<p>__
You’re putting the minority part in there, but ignoring poor is a reflection of your beliefs, and some could, say prejudice, racism.</p>