xagent
06-20-2003, 12:23 PM
http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=78
How Legal Gun Ownership Prevents Crime
It's pretty safe to say that increased legal gun ownership equates to less crime. Numerous studies have proven that defensive gun use is more prevalent than criminal gun use , and even then, strict gun laws wouldn't prevent the existing criminal gun use. All signs point to the fact that if guns are banned, criminals will still be able to get their hands on them.
There have also been studies that demonstrate how, when it becomes legal for citizens to carry firearms, crime decreases. Criminals themselves admit that armed victims are a deterrent. So, why do so many people promote gun control?
First off, it's hard for people to believe that more guns create a situation in which there is less gun violence. ( Much like it's hard for so many people to believe that decreasing tax rates increases tax revenue) It seems illogical at first, but there are definitely reasons behind why increased gun ownership lowers crime.
The second reason why Gun Control has such a huge following is because of "pet statistics" . The gun control advocate have found an isolated set of statistics ( In this case, the fact that a few, specific countries have strict gun laws and lower violent crime rates) which they hail as a veritable "trump card" in their argument as to why guns need to be outlawed. However, these people don't take any other factors into account (factors whose significance is supported by overwhelming evidence) except for a few variables selected to support their claims. Also, they don't take into account the relationship between gun ownership and crime in other countries. Luckily, the misconceptions that these figures promote are easy to explode.
The most comprehensive study on Defensive gun use concluded that Americans use guns for self- defense 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year.(1) Marc Gertz and Prof. Gary Kleck's study "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" is the top study on this issue for a multitude of reasons. The most prominent, and most flawed, source of information on Defensive Gun Use is the National Crime Victimization Survey.
Why is the NCVS data so flawed?
Those responding to the NCVS are in a situation that lends itself to dishonesty about gun use. Kleck sums it up sufficiently:
"The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to R(espondent)s as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted."(1)
Common sense dictates that people are not prone to be honest when it comes to telling law enforcement officials about their gun usage, and common sense also dictates that this dishonesty would manifest in underreporting .
Also, the NCVS figures are inconsistent with every other study on defensive gun usage. The NCVS data states that each year, there are 80,000 to 82,000 defensive uses of guns per year. This figure is less than 1/9 of the numbers of DGUs suggested by 13 other surveys." (2)
While all of the aforementioned 13 studies had 600-1500 respondents, Kleck and Gertz's study had nearly 1500(1)
Other problems with the aforementioned studies were that they asked questions about whether or not they used guns defensively in their lifetime, making it "impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span." (1)
Other problems include :
"Some surveys limited coverage to registered voters...... Some asked the key questions with reference only to the R, while others asked Rs to report on the experiences of all of the members of their households , relying on second-hand reports...... The least useful of the surveys did not even ask the defensive use question of all Rs, instead it asked it only of gun owners (at the time of the survey, if someone no longer owns a gun they used defensively, they would not be included), or, even more narrowly, of just handgun owners or just those who owned handguns for protection purposes ..... none of them established how many times Rs used a gun defensively within the recall period...." (1)
According to the Kleck/Gertz study, nearly half of those who reported a Defesive gun use did not currently own a gun.
"Nearly 40% of the people reporting a DGU did not report personally owning a gun at the time of the interview. They either used someone else's gun, got rid of the gun since the DGU incident, or inaccurately denied personally owning a gun. About a quarter of the defenders reported that they did not even have a gun in their household at the time of the interview. Another possibility is that many gun owners were falsely denying their ownership of the "incriminating evidence" of their DGU." (1)
The conversations the respondents were engaged in go as follows:
"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." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?"
All Rs reporting a DGU were asked a long, detailed series of questions establishing exactly what happened in the DGU incident. Rs who reported having experienced more than one DGU in the previous five years were asked about their most recent experience."
Prominent gun- control advocate Marvin Wolfgang made a very complimentary statement about this study:
"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research...the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it."(3)
The Kleck /Gertz study didn't include professional DGUs (such as law enforcement usage), and it only included DGUs where there was a real confrontation.
Also, a study by the Department of Justice concluded that there were 1.5 million DGUs per year, however, their sample size was less than half that of the Kleck/ Gertz study (4)
Other questions that can be raised include whether or not the DGUs were used to prevent serious crimes. 37% of the DGUs involved assault or sexual assault. 22% involved robbery.(5) Please note that a robbery constitutes "unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation." (6) Robbery also makes up a completely different category from burglary in this study.
Did Criminals get severely injured in the course of committing less-severe crimes? This is simply not true.
"Only 24% of the gun defenders in the present study reported firing the gun, and only 8% report wounding an adversary."
Even if only 8% of perpetrators were wounded, this would still be too low. Of the 24% of respondents who fired, about 1/3 only fired warning shots. Only 15.6% of respondents claimed to have actually fired their gun at their adversary. (7)
"If 8.3% really hit their adversaries, and a total of 15.6% fired at their adversaries, this would imply a 53% "incident hit rate," a level of combat marksmanship far exceeding that typically observed even among police officers. In a review of fifteen reports, police officers inflicted at least one gunshot wound on at least one adversary in 37% of the incidents in which they intentionally fired at someone. A 53% hit rate would also be triple the 18% hit rate of criminals shooting at crime victims. Therefore, we believe that even the rather modest 8.3% wounding rate we found is probably too high, and that typical DGUs are less serious or dramatic in their consequences than our data suggest." (1)
Some people suspect that "telescoping" might be a factor in the results of this study. Telescoping means that people might think that a DGU that took place outside of the time frame in question took place in said timeframe, and would report it. This was not a factor in the supposed exaggeration of this study's results.
Respondents were asked to report any DGUs in the past year, and then any in the past 5 years. Certain critics claim that many respondents must have mentioned DGUs that happened over 5 years ago. The opposite, people forgetting, rather than telescoping is actually more likely.
The estimates for DGUs per year, were actually higher when based on instances in the past year rather than the past 5 years. (5)
Now, compare the 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year to the number of gun crimes. The most gun crimes ever committed in a single year were 847,652 in 1992 (1). There were only 533,470 gun crimes in 2000. (8)
Who is to say that outlawing gun ownership will end these gun crimes?
The majority of guns used in crime were obtained either illegally or circuitously, and definitely not through conventional means.
39.6% of guns owned by prisoners in 1997 were obtained from friends or family , while 39.2% were acquired illegally. Only 8.3% were purchased at a retail store. (9)
The majority of guns used in crimes can be traced back to a small number of dealers.
"1.2 percent of current dealers (1,020 dealers) account for 57 percent of crime gun traces to active dealers." (10)
If laws banning guns were implemented, only a few distributors would have to circumvent them to put illegal guns into sufficient distribution.
There are 400 handguns for every single handgun crime (11). Even if 90% of handguns were confiscated , there would still be 40 handguns per gun criminal.
READ MORE @ 4ranters.com ... (http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=78)
How Legal Gun Ownership Prevents Crime
It's pretty safe to say that increased legal gun ownership equates to less crime. Numerous studies have proven that defensive gun use is more prevalent than criminal gun use , and even then, strict gun laws wouldn't prevent the existing criminal gun use. All signs point to the fact that if guns are banned, criminals will still be able to get their hands on them.
There have also been studies that demonstrate how, when it becomes legal for citizens to carry firearms, crime decreases. Criminals themselves admit that armed victims are a deterrent. So, why do so many people promote gun control?
First off, it's hard for people to believe that more guns create a situation in which there is less gun violence. ( Much like it's hard for so many people to believe that decreasing tax rates increases tax revenue) It seems illogical at first, but there are definitely reasons behind why increased gun ownership lowers crime.
The second reason why Gun Control has such a huge following is because of "pet statistics" . The gun control advocate have found an isolated set of statistics ( In this case, the fact that a few, specific countries have strict gun laws and lower violent crime rates) which they hail as a veritable "trump card" in their argument as to why guns need to be outlawed. However, these people don't take any other factors into account (factors whose significance is supported by overwhelming evidence) except for a few variables selected to support their claims. Also, they don't take into account the relationship between gun ownership and crime in other countries. Luckily, the misconceptions that these figures promote are easy to explode.
The most comprehensive study on Defensive gun use concluded that Americans use guns for self- defense 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year.(1) Marc Gertz and Prof. Gary Kleck's study "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" is the top study on this issue for a multitude of reasons. The most prominent, and most flawed, source of information on Defensive Gun Use is the National Crime Victimization Survey.
Why is the NCVS data so flawed?
Those responding to the NCVS are in a situation that lends itself to dishonesty about gun use. Kleck sums it up sufficiently:
"The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to R(espondent)s as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted."(1)
Common sense dictates that people are not prone to be honest when it comes to telling law enforcement officials about their gun usage, and common sense also dictates that this dishonesty would manifest in underreporting .
Also, the NCVS figures are inconsistent with every other study on defensive gun usage. The NCVS data states that each year, there are 80,000 to 82,000 defensive uses of guns per year. This figure is less than 1/9 of the numbers of DGUs suggested by 13 other surveys." (2)
While all of the aforementioned 13 studies had 600-1500 respondents, Kleck and Gertz's study had nearly 1500(1)
Other problems with the aforementioned studies were that they asked questions about whether or not they used guns defensively in their lifetime, making it "impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span." (1)
Other problems include :
"Some surveys limited coverage to registered voters...... Some asked the key questions with reference only to the R, while others asked Rs to report on the experiences of all of the members of their households , relying on second-hand reports...... The least useful of the surveys did not even ask the defensive use question of all Rs, instead it asked it only of gun owners (at the time of the survey, if someone no longer owns a gun they used defensively, they would not be included), or, even more narrowly, of just handgun owners or just those who owned handguns for protection purposes ..... none of them established how many times Rs used a gun defensively within the recall period...." (1)
According to the Kleck/Gertz study, nearly half of those who reported a Defesive gun use did not currently own a gun.
"Nearly 40% of the people reporting a DGU did not report personally owning a gun at the time of the interview. They either used someone else's gun, got rid of the gun since the DGU incident, or inaccurately denied personally owning a gun. About a quarter of the defenders reported that they did not even have a gun in their household at the time of the interview. Another possibility is that many gun owners were falsely denying their ownership of the "incriminating evidence" of their DGU." (1)
The conversations the respondents were engaged in go as follows:
"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." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?"
All Rs reporting a DGU were asked a long, detailed series of questions establishing exactly what happened in the DGU incident. Rs who reported having experienced more than one DGU in the previous five years were asked about their most recent experience."
Prominent gun- control advocate Marvin Wolfgang made a very complimentary statement about this study:
"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research...the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it."(3)
The Kleck /Gertz study didn't include professional DGUs (such as law enforcement usage), and it only included DGUs where there was a real confrontation.
Also, a study by the Department of Justice concluded that there were 1.5 million DGUs per year, however, their sample size was less than half that of the Kleck/ Gertz study (4)
Other questions that can be raised include whether or not the DGUs were used to prevent serious crimes. 37% of the DGUs involved assault or sexual assault. 22% involved robbery.(5) Please note that a robbery constitutes "unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation." (6) Robbery also makes up a completely different category from burglary in this study.
Did Criminals get severely injured in the course of committing less-severe crimes? This is simply not true.
"Only 24% of the gun defenders in the present study reported firing the gun, and only 8% report wounding an adversary."
Even if only 8% of perpetrators were wounded, this would still be too low. Of the 24% of respondents who fired, about 1/3 only fired warning shots. Only 15.6% of respondents claimed to have actually fired their gun at their adversary. (7)
"If 8.3% really hit their adversaries, and a total of 15.6% fired at their adversaries, this would imply a 53% "incident hit rate," a level of combat marksmanship far exceeding that typically observed even among police officers. In a review of fifteen reports, police officers inflicted at least one gunshot wound on at least one adversary in 37% of the incidents in which they intentionally fired at someone. A 53% hit rate would also be triple the 18% hit rate of criminals shooting at crime victims. Therefore, we believe that even the rather modest 8.3% wounding rate we found is probably too high, and that typical DGUs are less serious or dramatic in their consequences than our data suggest." (1)
Some people suspect that "telescoping" might be a factor in the results of this study. Telescoping means that people might think that a DGU that took place outside of the time frame in question took place in said timeframe, and would report it. This was not a factor in the supposed exaggeration of this study's results.
Respondents were asked to report any DGUs in the past year, and then any in the past 5 years. Certain critics claim that many respondents must have mentioned DGUs that happened over 5 years ago. The opposite, people forgetting, rather than telescoping is actually more likely.
The estimates for DGUs per year, were actually higher when based on instances in the past year rather than the past 5 years. (5)
Now, compare the 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year to the number of gun crimes. The most gun crimes ever committed in a single year were 847,652 in 1992 (1). There were only 533,470 gun crimes in 2000. (8)
Who is to say that outlawing gun ownership will end these gun crimes?
The majority of guns used in crime were obtained either illegally or circuitously, and definitely not through conventional means.
39.6% of guns owned by prisoners in 1997 were obtained from friends or family , while 39.2% were acquired illegally. Only 8.3% were purchased at a retail store. (9)
The majority of guns used in crimes can be traced back to a small number of dealers.
"1.2 percent of current dealers (1,020 dealers) account for 57 percent of crime gun traces to active dealers." (10)
If laws banning guns were implemented, only a few distributors would have to circumvent them to put illegal guns into sufficient distribution.
There are 400 handguns for every single handgun crime (11). Even if 90% of handguns were confiscated , there would still be 40 handguns per gun criminal.
READ MORE @ 4ranters.com ... (http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=78)