Guns and crime

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Since 1993 crime has been dropping and of particular interest is the drop in violent crime. According to the FBI, over that 20 year period, the violent crime rate went from an incidence of 747.1 per 100,000 persons to 386.9. That's a 48% drop which, IMHO, is good.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

About 55% of all homicides are by firearm and, if we extend that to all other violent crime, less than 1 gun out of 470 is actually used in a crime. (Robberies may have a higher incidence of gun use while assault and rape may be lower, but I think the 55% is a safe maximum.)

If more guns are being sold everyday and guns lead to crime, why is the violent crime rate dropping?
How much more would the rate drop if drugs were decriminalized?

[Eleanors38]

1. Controllers need routine reminding: More guns des NOT mean more crime. Repeat. nt

[beardown]

2. Increase in guns, not gun owners.

Millions of additional guns, but fewer gun owners. Therefore, a relative handful of people have bought around 1.5 million guns each. Naturally, anyone with 1.5 million guns is not going to be able to reach the door of their own house to leave much the less commit a crime. The weight of the holster is over 11 tons by itself.

[DonP]

3. Very odd, you'd think a drop in violent crime that big would be worth celebrating?

But for some people it seems even a 48% drop in violent crime isn't nearly good enough.

Certainly not worth even recognizing and for some dismissing it as petty and beneath notice since it doesn't fit with their home made narrative.

I guess with enough pixie dust and happy thoughts we can make that zero?

Well, pixie dust, happy thoughts and pissing off a few million voting gun owning Democrats by insisting on trying desperately to pass more feel good laws.

[jimmy the one]

4. gun enthusiasm induced selective amnesia

dscntnt: About 55% of all homicides are by firearm and, if we extend that to all other violent crime, less than 1 gun out of 470 is actually used in a crime.

That's merely over the course of one year; over a handgun's lifetime (approx. 40 - 50 years) the odds of a handgun being used in a crime is about 10%, or using your figures about 50 handguns in 470 will be used in a crime. Much higher percentage (20%?) of any handgun being used illegally, and much much higher (35%?) in an illicit manner.

dscntnt: If more guns are being sold everyday and guns lead to crime, why is the violent crime rate dropping?

Above is an example of a weird phenomenon I've observed over the years; some kind of syndrome best described imo as 'Gun enthusiasm induced selective amnesia'. Where a particular errant or misleading fact or factoid, or fallacy, or outright lie, is presented in a forum, gets debunked, the gun enthusiast hides, but then, mysteriously, comes back after a hiatus of maybe 6 months to a year, and presents the very same fallacious argument!!!!
I know you've seen my rebuttal of your argument dscntnt, since you have posted on the very same thread where I've rebutted this, almost a year back, probably some more recent: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167463

But, once again for ole time's sake. National gunstock has indeed increased since the early 90's, from approx. 225 million firearms to approx. 300 millions today, an increase of ~33%. But a solid proportion of that increase went to existing gun owners, since the gun ownership RATEs have fallen, both personal & home ownership. As well, the avg number of guns owned has risen, within gun owner ranks.
Since both gun ownership rates have fallen dramatically (~30%) since the early 90's, dscntnt misleads that the increase in national gunstock had to do with the decrease in violent crime rates the same time period.
No, dscntnt, the decrease in violent crime rate correlates with a decrease in gun ownership rates, something conspicuously missing from dscntnt's biased view thru his rose colored glasses (with cross hairs).

Jimmy the One's rebuttal post from oct 2015: 1) Gallup: .. even Gallup's numbers show a decline in gun ownership since the early 1990s, from 54% of households in late 1993 to 43% as of this fall. http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americans-desire-stricter-gun-laws-sharply.aspx


2): General Social Survey (GSS) .. data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns... 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage.
.. personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
3) ... The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=178997

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. more new math

That's merely over the course of one year; over a handgun's lifetime (approx. 40 - 50 years) the odds of a handgun being used in a crime is about 10%, or using your figures about 50 handguns in 470 will be used in a crime.

Using percentages 1 in 470 is 0.2%. Using your logic over the next 470 years every existing handgun will be used in a crime. By that logic I guess the repeat offenders (rapists for one) go out and get a new gun for each crime.

But, once again for ole time's sake. National gunstock has indeed increased since the early 90's, from approx. 225 million firearms to approx. 300 millions today, an increase of ~33%. But a solid proportion of that increase went to existing gun owners, since the gun ownership RATEs have fallen, both personal & home ownership. As well, the avg number of guns owned has risen, within gun owner ranks.

Since all of these purchases (or at least the great majority, according to you) are being made by existing gun owners, the average age of a gun owner must be going up as well. Use some of that math you're so good at and tell us how long we'll have to wait for the average age of the average rapist to be over 70 years old.

[jimmy the one]

12. statistics for dummys, to the nth degree

dscnt: Using percentages 1 in 470 is 0.2%. Using your logic over the next 470 years every existing handgun will be used in a crime. By that logic I guess the repeat offenders (rapists for one) go out and get a new gun for each crime.

Which one of your compatriots has the forum book 'Statistics for Dummys'? you need borrow it.

No, in 470 years not all guns (in existence or having been in existence during that time period) will have been used in a crime, only about 85% of them - and not even that when you eliminate repeat offenders. Rough guess maybe 50% to 66%, at the rate of offending handgun 99.6% per year (yes 99.6%). I believe 99.8% is for long guns, or 'all' guns perhaps. Handguns are used more frequently in crimes.

99.8%, which is 0.998 for our maths of 0.998 raised to 47th power, over 47 years would result:
0.910 = proportion of guns NOT used in crime over 47 years.

99.8%, or 0.998, over 470 years would result: 0.998 ^ 470th power = .998470 = 0.3902
0.3902 = proportion of guns NOT used in a crime over 470 years (of those in existence that time).

Ergo, 100% - 91% = 9% WILL have been used in a crime over 47 years.
100% - 39% = 61% of guns WILL have been used in a crime over 470 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, remembering, that's for either all guns or long guns. For handguns, the percentage of a handgun being used in a crime is (or was pre heller) 99.6%, which will alter the above resultants.

0.996 raised to 47th power = 0.82830; Ergo, approx 17% of handguns over 47 years, used in a crime.
http://www.endmemo.com/algebra/nthpower.php

0.996 raised to 470th power = 0.1520; Ergo, approx 85% handguns over 470 years, used in a crime.
I guess you weren't that far off, what with 85% probability of a handgun in existence over 470 years, being used in a crime!
But these would include repeat offenders, which muddies up the mix, and lowers the resultants somewhat. Not as much as you'd think tho, since crime guns being recovered would temper even that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. re: Statistics for Dummys

While I don't have formal training on this type of statistics, I have plenty of exposure to college level math. As a physics major, I concentrated more on Bose–Einstein, Maxwell–Boltzmann and Fermi-Dirac flavors of statistics. Feel free to discontinue embarrassing yourself with this didacticism anytime.

Since my '1 gun in 470' was also an extrapolation based on a very crude approximation that every crime involved a different gun... well you can see where that's going (I hope).

Re: "Ergo, approx 85% handguns over 470 years, used in a crime."



But most of all, thanks for the chuckle. The ironic conjunction of pedantic lecture and your misspelling of the word 'dummies' in the subject was amusing.

[jimmy the one]

15. flavors of statistics

dscntnt: While I don't have formal training on this type of statistics, I have plenty of exposure to college level math. As a physics major, I concentrated more on Bose–Einstein, Maxwell–Boltzmann and Fermi-Dirac flavors of statistics. Feel free to discontinue embarrassing yourself with this didacticism anytime.

The 'statistics' I posted are not that involved, in fact most college statistics courses cover what I used in the first year, that is 'statistics 101'. If you contend to have 'plenty of exposure to college level math', it's odd you missed statistics 101. Maybe you were sick that day? I can see why you are discontented.
So, if you 'concentrated more on bose-einstein, maxwell, and fermi flavors of statistics', you'll surely be able to discuss the basic tenets of non euclidean geometry (I got a B, tho was only a C student in integral & differential calculus). So go ahead & start, what's the basic foundation of non euclidean geometry? (hint, ties in with one of einstein's theories).

dscntnt: Since my '1 gun in 470' was also an extrapolation based on a very crude approximation that every crime involved a different gun... well you can see where that's going (I hope).

No actually I didn't see where you suggested that at all, & I don't see where you are going at all either. You only fabricate a weak excuse without having to get involved explaining in depth what you are talking about.
Here is what you wrote:.

what dscntnt wrote: Using percentages 1 in 470 is 0.2%. Using your logic over the next 470 years every existing handgun will be used in a crime. By that logic I guess the repeat offenders (rapists for one) go out and get a new gun for each crime.

You clearly thought every handgun which will have existed during the next 470 years, would be used in a crime, accd'g to the 0.2% per year figure (0.4% closer). All you did was roughly multiply 0.2% (or 0.002) by 470 (rounded to 500), to get 100%. Doesn't work that way statistically.
Furthermore, US crime figures have only existed for approx 240 years, about half as much as 470 years so there is no precedent to rely on; guns don't last that long, which would also need be taken into account.
So the resultant 15% I came up with is a priori, just a hypothetical figure based upon pure statistical analysis alone, simply to rebut your sophomoric attempt at statistical analysis. Likely be far less.

dscntnt: But most of all, thanks for the chuckle. The ironic conjunction of pedantic lecture and your misspelling of the word 'dummies' in the subject was amusing.

Your trivial ad hominem doesn't erase your own blunders, nor your pathetic attempts to save face with your 'flavors of statistics'.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. keep trying

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

5. Over a handgun's lifetime (approx. 40 - 50 years)

My old stainless steel service revolver is 30 years old and looks like the day I bought it minus a little 'character' here and there.

There are coatings available that will last almost indefinitely with reasonable care.

A combination of these coatings, avoidance of really hot loads, a good cleaning once in a while and safe, low humidity storage will pretty much stop the clock on any aging.

On the other hand, somewhat beat-up guns with some rust here and there work fine, too.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I infer that you meant to reply to jimmy

No matter he'll probably read this as it's only recently he started replying to the correct posts.
I was going to address him with the fact that numerous guns from 50-150 years old still work fine but I thought why bother.

[DonP]

8. Still no explanation of 200,000+ new FOID cards in Illinois

All in less than 2 years. From 1.5 million to 1.75 million

Just inconvenient facts?

My favorite was one claim, that; "Well those are just the people getting Concealed Carry permits that had to get a FOID card."

Maybe the Illinois State Police are just NRA shills?

Anything to keep that deeply held myth of fewer gun owners alive. Otherwise, their little belief system starts to go belly up and they have to accept they already lost the gun control debate about 5 years ago.

[gejohnston]

9. You didn't catch ISP's director's

speech at the last NRA convention?

[DonP]

10. I must have been out buying more GUNZ!!! for my closet

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. re: "Maybe the Illinois State Police are just NRA shills?"

Sure they are, just like the FBI.

[pablo_marmol]

11. "How much more would the rate drop if drugs were decriminalized?"

Silly d_i_s ----- don't you know that the ONLY way to reduce violence in the U.S. is to get rid of the evil gunz?! C'mon now......wake the hell up! Ask intelligent questions!



Of course the dishonesty of The Controllers is made clear not only by the questions that they ask, but those they don't.

"Tell me Pablo -- what is a gun designed to do?"

If they truly gave a good goddamn about the victims of gun violence they wouldn't give a rat's backside what guns are designed to do, but would focus exclusively on what guns actually do -- and who is using them nefariously.

The foaming hysteria over "assault weapons" is of course the most conspicuous example of Controller dishonesty -- given that they're rifles which are NOT more lethal than other semi-autos, and are rarely used in crime.