Thursday, November 3, 2011

For Serh8te and Anyone Else Who Doesn't Know This Stuff

These were the most recent data I could find but to be fair, I only searched for about 0.23 seconds...this time.

From the National Institute of Justice:

Gun Violence

How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?



Trends in weapons used in homicides

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics







In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm.


Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.

In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rapes. See table 19  "Violent Crime," from Crime in the United States, 2006.)
Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, leveling off in 1999 at 10,117. Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.
Consistently, there are unique qualities in handguns which tend to make them the weapons of choice, particularly in impulse decisions - as in suicides, for example, and also these characteristics appeal more to certain demographics, but in all categories, guns are used more than any other kind of weapon.  Decreasing guns and more strict regulation of guns tends to reduce these crimes rather than have the number remain static or increase with a different weapon replacing firearms.

29 comments:

  1. What you fail to note is that firearms deaths have been dropping consistently over the last many years, while gun laws have also been loosening. Correlation and causation are difficult to establish, but certainly the evidence isn't showing that more guns equals more deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Victims of rape as a percentage of the female population, 2009.

    #1 New Zealand: 1.3%
    #2 Austria: 1.2%
    =3 Sweden: 1.1%
    =3 Finland: 1.1%
    #5 Australia: 1%
    #6 UK: 0.9%
    =7 Netherlands: 0.8%
    =7 Slovenia: 0.8%
    =7 Canada: 0.8%
    #10 France: 0.7%
    =11 Italy: 0.6%
    =11 Switzerland: 0.6%
    =13 Denmark: 0.4%
    =13 US: 0.4%

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

    ReplyDelete
  4. What you seem to have missed, Greg, is that while crime overall is declining, crime with firearms is not, and in some demographics is going up markedly.

    Overall, gun violence is still INCREASING despite that decline:

    "Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002."

    Gun crime can go up while crime generally goes down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Total crime victims (most recent) by country

    #1 Australia: 30.1%
    #2 New Zealand: 29.4%
    #3 UK: 26.4%
    #4 Netherlands: 25.2%
    #5 Sweden: 24.7%
    #6 Italy: 24.6%
    #7 Canada: 23.8%
    #8 St Kitts & Nevis: 23.2%
    #9 Malta: 23.1%
    #10Denmark: 23%
    #11Poland: 22.7%
    =12Belgium: 21.4%
    =12France: 21.4%
    #14Slovenia: 21.2%
    #15United States: 21.1%

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thomas: What you omit is that crimes are often measured differently from country to country. As an example, in a number of European countries using a racial slur is a crime. In the US, it's just considered free speech.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Assault victims (most recent) by country

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims#definition

    DEFINITION: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

    # 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 3%
    # 2 United Kingdom: 2.8%
    = 3 New Zealand: 2.4%
    = 3 Australia: 2.4%
    # 5 Canada: 2.3%
    # 6 Finland: 2.1%
    = 7 France: 1.4%
    = 7 Denmark: 1.4%
    = 9 Sweden: 1.2%
    = 9 United States: 1.2%

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not too worried about it gets worse.

    The problem with the comparative statistics is the differing definitions of rape versus other designations for the same activity.

    I"m wondering for example, if the numbers on female members of the military, who experience rape at the rate of 1 in 3, are included in the U.S. figures.

    Further, it is estimated that less than 1 in 6 rape victims in this country report the crime. That will be a difficult multiplier to overcome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I"m wondering for example, if the numbers on female members of the military, who experience rape at the rate of 1 in 3, are included in the U.S. figures.

    213,823 women in the military 2010
    *.3 = ~71,000

    Population women in US 2010
    156482733

    .04537%

    so if we add the Military rapes to the totals we get

    .44537%

    Further, it is estimated that less than 1 in 6 rape victims in this country report the crime. That will be a difficult multiplier to overcome.

    This is your argument that the 1 in 6 number only applies to US women....

    http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mediacentre/press/2009/16532_between_7090_rapes_thought_to_go_unreported_and_94_of_reported_cases_dont_end_in_a_conviction.htm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4470052/Most-NZ-crime-goes-unreported

    http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/F16680629C465E03CA256980007C4A81/$File/41280_1996.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know what rape stats and violent crime stats have to do with this post.

    The chart Dog Gone posted seems to put the lie to what Greg said. Except for that big rise in the 90s, gun deaths seem pretty steady.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of course one of the reasons that more gun deaths aren't being seen is the same reason for so many grievously injured but still living veterans who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan--better, faster medical care. The treatment of GSW victims is of a much higher order than it was in earlier times.

    Tommy likes to bring an answer to a question that wasn't asked, it's just his way of saying, "I have no clue.".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Strict state control of guns equals higher violent crime,

    You are two to three times more likely to be raped or assaulted in wondrously gun free countries than the "violent" ole USA....

    Of course if you dont care about women then I guess you must think that is OK....

    In Australia, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law

    In New Zealand, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.

    In the United Kingdom, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.

    In St Kitts & Nevis, the law requires6 that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register.

    In the United States, the right to private gun ownership is guaranteed by law.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thomas, you dummy, the 2nd Amendment is about militias and standing armies. The decision in Heller was wrong, but there is no god given 'right' to personal arms, there is no 'innate right' to personal arms.

    The right to arms is something on which we agree, and can choose to revoke.

    When you write:
    "In St Kitts & Nevis, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register.

    In the United States, the right to private gun ownership is guaranteed by law.
    "
    Heller made it perfectly clear that we can enact laws exactly like St. Kitts and Nevis,that we can limit guns and regulate gun ownership.

    Or don't you understand the Heller ruling? Might I point out, for example, that even the attorney on the pro-gun side, supports the ban on large capacity magazines, as an example.

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the same kind of regulation that they have in countries like the UK is perfectly legal. There is no UNLIMITED RIGHT, dumbass. You are perpetuating a myth by repeating your silly, tawdry little lie.

    Do you dispute, for example, that homicides and murder are far lower in other countries? Those countries all ahve different societies and cultures from each other. And yet...... regulating firearms more strictly dramatically reduces crimes with firearms. Got an explanation for that?

    And if you look at fatalities from firearms, or from crime generally - yup, lower again.

    There are a variety of things we can do to reduce crime, both violent crime and non-violent crime. Guns are one part of that group of things we can change, and doing so would save lives. It would save the lives of women and children most of all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tommy:

    Thanks for stopping by to give us your daily reminder that understanding shit is hard work, hard work that you're not up to doing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. from Wikipedia, re the statistics on rape:
    "Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading. According to USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson "no other major category of crime – not murder, assault or robbery – has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than rape.[1]

    A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[2]

    In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics.[3]"

    You cherry pick numbers Thomas, or you do really sloppy research.

    "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.[28]

    We are NOT all facing a wave of terrifying violent crime if we more strictly regulate guns, asshat. What we are looking at is a huge decline in murders/ homicides, suicides, domestic violence towards women using firearms, and crimes and accidents towards and by children with firearms. We are looking at a helluva lot fewer firearms being stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.

    You are waving the cheap plastic boogeyman at the wrong person. Halloween is the only day of the year that is appropriate, and it is a holiday primerily for children, not adults capable of critical thinking - and it is over and done. Grow a pair, grow a brain. There are plenty of responses to violence that are successful and which do not require a damn firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dog Gone,

    Throwing schoolyard taunts makes no difference to the adults in the room. Whatever the Supreme Court says, rights are prior to them and prior to the United States. We are born with rights.

    With regard to your notion that the same kind of regulation that exists in the United Kingdom would be legal under Heller here, perhaps you ought to do a little study. Handguns are illegal for the average British subject, but the Heller ruling said that we have the right to arms.

    Go ahead--pick your favorite slur and call me that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Greg, I hate to break it to you, but Heller-McDonald announce a very limited "right" to own firearms.

    This is the holding in DC v. Heller:

    In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

    Registration and licencing are not infringements of this "right".

    Otherwise, here is the Heller-McDonald language:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

    Which has as a footnote (26):

    We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

    Better yet:

    But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64

    I have pointed out that the majority's opinion in Heller is based upon a misinterpretation of US v Miller (the Heller minority opinion of Stevens followed and clairifed Miller). As of now, US v Miller is still valid precedent as it has not been explicitly overturned.

    Until that time, the Civic Right interpretation is alive and kicking.

    In addition, no court has overturned any gun law since Heller-McDonald.

    So,Greg, I hate to tell you, your right is incredibly limited.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You cherry pick the supreme court ruling - look at the totality of them. I'll leave Laci to demonstrate that to you; it is his area of expertise.

    You have yet to demonstrate that we are born with anything resembling innate rights, whereas I have clearly demonstrated that rights are what we agree to as part of the social contract by demonstrating that the U.S. Constitution is a social contract, and by demonstrating how we change those rights from time to time.

    You have NO innate rights, although like green cheese and the moon, you can say anything you like. There is no support for your contention, never has been, for personal weapons among those who were the philosophers that came up with the concept, only recognition of forming armies for common defense.

    If this was such a universal right, why is it NOT recognized ANYWHERE or 'ANY-WHEN' in history, as such, other than a recent claim by you gun loons? Sorry but to be an innate or universal right there would be far greater recognition world wide across the globe and across the span of history. Or don't you know your geography or world history - or philosophy?

    As Laci is fond of reminding me, rights do not exist unless or until they are broadly recognized as such.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greg Camp, I suggest you give Laci's words some consideration as he was a DOJ attorney IN D.C. specializing in gun law.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm well aware that Heller and McDonald were only partial victories. The good news is that the states are even farther along the correct path. Some forty states now have shall-issue permitting systems. The castle doctrine is in effect in many states, and the number is growing. There are now four states that do not require legal gun owners to have a permit to carry a handgun. Whether you like it or not, the trend is in our direction, and we plan to make as many gains as possible while that's the case.

    As for Dog Gone's point about no philosopher seeing an innate right to bear arms, understand that I'm tying in to the tradition that a free person has the right to arms. That was the sign of a free man in Norse societies--possession of a weapon. What do you imagine the coat of arms of a family in England represented? Slaves were barred possession of weapons.

    You may find it hard to believe, but some of us don't measure progess by a calendar. In many ways, or society is better--women's rights, gay rights, medical arts, etc.--but in some, we have lost elements of our humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In addition, no court has overturned any gun law since Heller-McDonald.

    Nice But they did force Chicago to change their law after Heller

    Lets see if I can throw some pasta against the wall.....

    No court has overturned a constitutional concealed carry law since Heller-McDonald.

    No court has overturned a shall issue carry law since Heller-McDonald.

    No court has overturned a may issue carry law since Heller-McDonald.

    No court has overturned gun ownership by the individual or made it unconstitutional since Heller-McDonald.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Uh, Thomas, hollow boasts.

    I'll make you the same offer I gave Greg--push the envelope and I'll defend you.

    But,you have to live with any consequences should you be wrong--including the loss of your freedom.

    I've been in a prison when it went into lockdown--could you handle it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'll make you the same offer I gave Greg--push the envelope and I'll defend you.

    Well I am glad to hear that your services are for hire, to uphold the law....should I take the wayward path....

    ....but of what did I boast.....

    I've been in a prison when it went into lockdown--could you handle it?

    Who knows but I sure hear alot of boasting from you....

    Since nowhere did you say what prison you were in:

    Was it State or Federal, was it even in this country.....

    Was it a

    Supermax,
    Administrative,
    Maximum,
    High,
    Medium,
    Close Security
    Low,
    Minimum,
    Pre-release,
    Juvenile
    Military
    Political

    were you exposed to the general population, where you serving time, or on court business, or on a onjugal visit, and nowhere did you say you handled it....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thomas, the prison in question was a county prison in the US.

    I have been in prisons in US,UK,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, PRC, Germany, France, and Belgium.

    Military and civilian, of all variety mentioned.

    On official court business, of course, but if you know prisons--official visitors can find themselves with no protection.

    In this case, I was in a visitors hall where there were no barriers from contact with prisoners.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On official court business, of course, but if you know prisons--official visitors can find themselves with no protection.

    In this case, I was in a visitors hall where there were no barriers from contact with prisoners.


    OK, so how did all of the other visitors/prisoners of undefined security act when the general population was locked down.... or was this lock down a result of an incident in the visitors area?

    Were they more or less well behaved than you and or their incarcerated loved ones, that they were visiting?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey, Thomas,I'l lleave it to your imagination.

    Although,I am curious as to how you know so much about prisons. Are you someone who is legally barred from owning a gun?

    I was going back on to say that the level of prison means nothing if they are on trial, or waiting to be bailed out.

    Prison is prison,and I've sat in rooms with murderers, or people who went on to commit murder(e.g., Kurtis Graves).

    Does it help you understand that the person I was visiting was released on bail, only to be shot before going to trial?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Although,I am curious as to how you know so much about prisons. Are you someone who is legally barred from owning a gun?

    Nice Ad hominem..... they teach you that in law school?

    Prison is prison

    So you are saying that, Alderson Federal Prison Camp, is no different than USP Florence ADMAX....


    and I've sat in rooms with murderers, or people who went on to commit murder(e.g., Kurtis Graves)

    As a prosecuting or defense attorney?

    Does it help you understand that the person I was visiting was released on bail, only to be shot before going to trial?

    No it does not help me understand....so he got shot.... was he shot at random walking down the street or by someone directly connected with his case?

    ....what does that have to do with your or his actions while locked down in the visitors ward of a still undefined security prison....

    ReplyDelete
  28. "They were both good kids from decent families," Maum said. "For whatever reason, this just escalated beyond their control."
    Kurtis Graves

    Neighbors said the Graves family is highly regarded in the community. His mother, Ginger, is block captain, and his father, Curtis, is a city firefighter and the son of a minister, they said.

    "They're a family that goes to church every Sunday," said Erma Edmunds, 58, who has been acquainted with the Graves family all her life. "They're active in a lot of civic affairs."

    Edmunds said Kurtis Graves was polite and helpful and would sometimes carry her grocery bags.


    So was he a good son or was he just putting on a polite public face....

    ReplyDelete
  29. I feel living in Minnesota, I'm pretty much exposed to the Scandinavian heritage.

    While there is a lot to admire in some of the historic Norse societies, when you write:

    "That was the sign of a free man in Norse societies--possession of a weapon. What do you imagine the coat of arms of a family in England represented? Slaves were barred possession of weapons."

    First of all, those were relatively barbaric societies, particularly in regard to their practices of raiding, burning, looting and pillaging other more civilized and developed cultures and countries.

    Secondly, I'm probably more familiar with heraldry than you are. Being armigerous relates to relationships in war, not carrying personal weapons.

    Thirdly - do you really want to use any culture or civlization as an example of recognizing innate rights by citing a culture that practices slavery? Or do you not see the inherent inconsistencies in that?

    and then:
    "You may find it hard to believe, but some of us don't measure progess by a calendar. In many ways, or society is better--women's rights, gay rights, medical arts, etc.--but in some, we have lost elements of our humanity."

    No, I call picking the concepts of an outdated era of philosophy, then making claims that are effectively twisting their concepts into something they never were, and ignoring every development of philosophy that came after it - including the premises of the actual document, the Constitution, intellectually dishonest.

    If you had the innate right you claim, there would be a better example of it, and more examples of it than you have provided.

    Keep trying!

    ReplyDelete