Lies, damn lies, and VPC statistics

[virginia mountainman]

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics

LOL, Anti Civil Rights advocates, get your duct tape ready, here come some facts that devastate all the recent posting using VPC data.

Flaw #1: How did they identify permit holders?

The report makes it clear that they have no idea whether or not they are accurately identifying these parties as permit holders. In the study, they admit as much, “Because of the secretive nature of concealed handgun permit laws, the VPC relied primarily on news accounts.”

Wait … what? The very premise upon which the “study” is based is the fact that these shooters are permit holders. And this key, threshold issue was determined by relying upon news reports? I cannot remember the last time that I read a news report involving a firearm that did not contain a serious mistake of fact that was glaringly evident to anyone with even a modicum of firearms knowledge.

But wait … surely this lack of verifiable facts can be remedied. After all, the presence or absence of a carry permit would be entered into evidence in the trial and thus available to the VPC for verification.

Except … this leads us to flaw #2.

Flaw #2: Charged with a crime does not equal conviction

Many of the alleged permit holders noted in this report are described as having been charged with a crime but no further information is provided as to the disposition of the charge. This is an important and glaring attempt to cloud the issue.

In many states and jurisdictions, a citizen who properly and legally defends themselves from an attack may well expect to be initially charged with a crime. The charges may later be dropped or may be no-true-billed at the grand jury level. A charge does NOT equal a conviction and yet the VPC, an organization that promotes itself as a public policy think-tank on legal and constitutional issues, treats them as synonymous.

It should come as no surprise that the VPC does not support the concepts of “due process” or “innocent until proven guilty” any more than they do the right to defend one’s self or one’s family.

Perhaps I could suggest a new VPC motto. “Individual rights are like potato chips, you can’t destroy just one!”

Flaw #3: Does my permit allow me to carry a strangling cord?

Another blatant attempt to pad the data was brought to my attention by Mr. Deeds. It comes in the form of several data points involving non-handgun related killings by “permit holders” (see Flaw #1).

Carry permits allow a person to carry a handgun for personal protection. In cases where rifles or other weapons are used to commit a crime, the fact that the person may or may not have been a permit holder is a moot point and not germane to the issue at hand.

Flaw #4: Who is more dangerous?

The VPC concludes their report by stating that these examples illustrate clearly that concealed carry laws are not good public policy because permit holders are dangerous. Furthermore, there is a clear implication that they are more dangerous than the general public.

Let’s take a closer look at the statistics to refute this wild inaccuracy. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, across the general public in the United States, there are an average of .042802 murders per 1,000 citizens per year.

Now … even if we concede all 51 deaths detailed in the VPC report as wrongful deaths, averaging them across the over 6 MILLION permit holders in the United States and taking into account the two year timeframe, we get an average of .00425 per 1,000 per year.

In other words, even if they are 100% correct in their wildly flawed report, they have simply proven that permit holders commit murders at a rate that is 1/10th of the general public.

The VPC report also makes much of the fact that 7 of the victims in these news reports were police officers. They go out of their way to imply that as concealed carry has swept across the nation, law enforcement deaths have risen alarmingly. The only problem with this? It, like so much else that comes from the VPC, is blatantly untrue.

In a report released last week, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund released data that soundly refutes this claim. Chairman of the Memorial Fund, Craig Floyd said it best, "There are three-times more officers on our streets than in the 1970s, and we have half the number of fatalities."

As a matter of fact, since this is supposed to be a debate over statistics, let’s map the killing of officers with firearms against the rise in shall issue states. The data for officer deaths comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (See VPC … that is what we call citing to actual authority).

[slackmaster]

1. Nice

Good piece. Every point is right on target.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Thank you! n/t

[TPaine7]

3. K&R!

[spin]

4. Thanks for the research. K&R (n/t)

[rrneck]

5. It was interesting

to watch a thread that has run to 360+ replies arguing over statistically insignificant statistics.

CCW holders are not universally saintly and perfect human beings.

Every untimely death is a tragedy.

Violence is always counterproductive.

Killing people is wrong.

One of the first priorities of every living thing is to stay alive.

Life rarely offers us simple solutions to complex problems.

Thanks for the followup.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. k and r

[iverglas]

7. duct tape to stifle the guffaws?

Wait … what? The very premise upon which the “study” is based is the fact that these shooters are permit holders. And this key, threshold issue was determined by relying upon news reports?

Hmm. I wonder where the info in the news reports came from. Okay, I might not bet my entire fortune on it, but I'd bet something considerable that it came from the police, and the news reports so stated.

If I say that the temperature yesterday was 30C and I know this because I read it in a news report, and the news report cited the Environment Canada weather service ... well, I guess you should rightly disbelieve the newspaper report, and call me all sorts of names.

In many states and jurisdictions, a citizen who properly and legally defends themselves from an attack may well expect to be initially charged with a crime.

In some of the incidents in question, the victims were police. Good luck with that one. Then there was that mass murder ...

The VPC study identifies and describes each incident included in its study. Funny how your source doesn't identify a single one that could actually be characterized as being an instance of self-defence, or any other situation in which doubt might legitimately be cast on the charge or allegation.

It should come as no surprise that the VPC does not support the concepts of “due process” or “innocent until proven guilty” any more than they do the right to defend one’s self or one’s family.

And it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever that a gun militant is lying, and that you would quote a lying gun militant with approval. Whether motivated by deceit or out of pure dimness, who knows?

Carry permits allow a person to carry a handgun for personal protection. In cases where rifles or other weapons are used to commit a crime, the fact that the person may or may not have been a permit holder is a moot point and not germane to the issue at hand.

Really. It isn't germane to the issue of whether holders of permits to carry concealed weapons violate the criminal law in the most egregious ways, e.g. by killing cops, that a number of them have killed cops? Huh.

The issue at hand is not whether holders of permits to carry concealed weapons killed cops with the weapons they had a permit to carry, regardless of how much you and your new best friend would like it to be.

The VPC concludes their report by stating that these examples illustrate clearly that concealed carry laws are not good public policy because permit holders are dangerous. Furthermore, there is a clear implication that they are more dangerous than the general public.

Your friend fails to offer a foundation for his allegation of an implication, i.e. his alleged inference. Can you?

If that implication was not made, which I believe it was not, does he have a point? It seems not. It seems he can only dismiss the plain facts to which the VPC study points by constructing a straw argument. Quelle surprise.

Here's what it actually concludes, fyi:

The conclusion is inescapable that state “shall issue” concealed handgun laws sanction the carrying of concealed handguns by many dangerous individuals. At worst, they have resulted in the expenditure of state funds to arm many individuals who have murdered numerous law enforcement agents and innocent private citizens. The evidence to date not only clearly stands in clear opposition to any effort to federalize CCW reciprocity in a manner that would establish a de facto national concealed handgun system, but also makes clear that such laws on the state level should be repealed.

Now, speaking of surprises. Why don't you astound me and tell me that you have actually READ THE VPC STUDY you are talking about here?

What a gas. I know you haven't read it, and you know you haven't read it. But you claim to agree with all of the talking points against it. Well, some people do enjoy making themselves look the way this makes you look.

Here.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf

Give it a shot. Then take your best shot at demolishing whatever you find there, for your own self.


I have to say I liked this bit from your source:

In other words, even if they are 100% correct in their wildly flawed report, they have simply proven that permit holders commit murders at a rate that is 1/10th of the general public.

That calls for a celebration, surely!


Oh, and you've been here a while. Read the copyright protection rules of the site yet?

"Copyright © 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com. All Rights reserved."

[JonQ]

11. The news gets these sort of reports wrong all the time

calling shotguns rifles, or any civilian version of an military gun an automatic weapon, things like that. Oh and pretty much every weapon used in a crime is an assault weapon, at least initially.

"In some of the incidents in question, the victims were police. Good luck with that one. Then there was that mass murder ..."

In most incidents, they weren't. How you use a minority of the cases to write off the majority I'll never know.

"Really. It isn't germane to the issue of whether holders of permits to carry concealed weapons violate the criminal law in the most egregious ways, e.g. by killing cops, that a number of them have killed cops? Huh.

The issue at hand is not whether holders of permits to carry concealed weapons killed cops with the weapons they had a permit to carry, regardless of how much you and your new best friend would like it to be."

If the argument is against issuing CHLs then that absolutely is germane, and that was the point they were making. If they say we shouldn't be allowed to conceal carry, and as proof they cite instances where people who were not concealed carrying shoot someone that is at best misleading. Like arguing for stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws by citing all car accidents, even those completely unrelated to alcohol.

A typical anti-gun nuts tactic. I think they understand that what they're doing is dishonest, which makes it all the worse.

[iverglas]

13. listen, sonny

You run along and READ the VPC study, and come back with your book report.

The idea of continuing to read nonsense spewed by someone who plainly hasn't got the self-respect or respect for his audience to read the thing he is talking about ... well, let's just say it's not high on my list of things to do this summer.

[JonQ]

14. Right

that's certainly a productive response, gramps.

You really can't be all that surprised when your buddies get called out on this sort of thing. You both know it's all a sham. Can't put lies up and claim they're facts and then get hissy when people point out those lies.

[iverglas]

15. okay

You win the clown of the week prize.

Your work is done.

[JonQ]

16. If you say so . . .

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Hm.

"Hmm. I wonder where the info in the news reports came from. Okay, I might not bet my entire fortune on it, but I'd bet something considerable that it came from the police, and the news reports so stated."

On more than one occasion, the news has confused a license to posess a pistol (some states have this requirement) and a license to carry concealed. They are not the same thing.

"That calls for a celebration, surely!"
I'm sure this was meant as sarcasm, but... if this self-selected group is statistically more law-abiding (at least a factor of 10x in the case of murder), I see no reason to discourage them.

[iverglas]

30. the random speculation isn't useful

Have you read the study?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Yes.

I have read it. I started validating the incidents contained in it, and found problems with the first two. I have not finished validating all cited incidents.

[Tejas]

36. If all else fails, flick boogers from the Brady-Bible

*yawn*

[JonQ]

8. Funny thing is, even if you take their numbers at face value

it still amounts to a far lower per capita murder rate than non-carriers.

So even lying through their teeth they couldn't make their case.

I think it's cute with the gun-grabber nuts try to use statistics to prove their claims. You would think some of them would figure out eventually that if you have to outright lie to make your argument, every single one, that perhaps your side is wrong.

But again, they didn't come to their beliefs by logic, so using logic against them is meaningless. Like arguing with a true believer of any faith.

[iverglas]

9. I guess you just have to hope

You would think some of them would figure out eventually that if you have to outright lie to make your argument, every single one, that perhaps your side is wrong.

that your side never does figure it out.

Oh, well, I mean, I'm sure they figured it out long ago. It's about the only explanation for things.

Any chance you'd like to substantiate your own assertion of lying? Because, you know, an unsubstantiated assertion of lying looks kinda like, well, you know, a lie.

[JonQ]

10. Um ok,

the study being criticized on this thread. It blatantly misrepresented facts to "prove" it's point. That is a lie. They were advocating taking guns away.

Simple enough.

Unless you believe claiming someone is a CHL with no proof, or that they were convicted, without looking in to it is honest?

Also claiming "assault weapons" are more likely to be used in crimes than any other guns. Or that the 2nd confers a collective right (or it's about hunting). Or that there would be blood flowing in the streets if various gun bans were every stricken down (many were, the murder rate did not increase).

And while not technically lying, it's definitely close, is the practice of including justifiable homicides (self defense) and suicides together with criminal homicides and calling them all murders.

Those are a few lies to get you started, you can go ahead and deny that that ever happens all together rather than separating them out, I know that will save us both some time. Because we all know gun-grabbers have never said anything like that.

[iverglas]

12. I'm sorry; maybe you really don't understand

the study being criticized on this thread. It blatantly misrepresented facts to "prove" it's point. That is a lie.

Making a second unsubstantiated assertion to back up the one that has been questioned isn't actually equal to substanting the first.

Since you have compounded your offence, what you want to do now is present an instance of a lie, and an instance of misrepresentation.


They were advocating taking guns away.

Well, there's nothing quite so fine as a stinking scarlet fish, is there? Especially if it's also false.


Unless you believe claiming someone is a CHL with no proof, or that they were convicted, without looking in to it is honest?

Well, no.

The thing is, I do believe that claiming that anyone did that, when that claim is an outright falsehood, is not honest.

The discussion has got rather splintered, so I'll just refer you here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=239813&mesg_id=240437

That is where I provide the proof that the claim that the VPC claimed that someone was convicted "without looking into it" is an outright falsehood. Do enjoy.


And while not technically lying, it's definitely close, is the practice of including justifiable homicides (self defense) and suicides together with criminal homicides and calling them all murders.

And if anyone had done that, your (apparent) claim that the VPC did it wouldn't also be a falsehood.

You really don't understand this concept of "proof" at all, do you?


Those are a few lies to get you started

Well, I really won't disagree with you on that one ...

[jody]

17. Sadly some intelligent anti-gun types will spread such lies. Gullibility trumps intelligence again.

[spin]

18. Of course, and some of the pro-gunners will use NRA-ILA propaganda...

it's hard to find truly unbiased sources for the gun control issue.

[eqfan592]

19. True, but I have to say that I've been able to verify more information...

...put out by the NRA-ILA than I have information put out by the Brady campaign or the VPC. That's not to say the NRA is 100% reliable and doesn't have any propaganda an hyperbole on it's site, but they have seemed more reliable to me than the other 2 org's in question.

[spin]

21. The same with me...

which merely reinforces my view that I'm on the right side of the issue.

Our side exaggerates to get donations, (which I despise). Their side ignores the facts and lies, (which I find abhorrent.)

[eqfan592]

23. Big +1 on all points. (nt)

[jody]

27. Corollary, posts by pro-RKBA DUers are more credible than anti-RKBA DUers. n/t

[jody]

20. Agree on both points. With all the rancorous posts on DU's Guns forum, it is among the best sources

of credible information.

It's a shame however that so many DUers refuse to read posts in the Guns forum and participate in discussions.

[iverglas]

22. HAHAHAHAHAHA HAH

It's a shame however that so many DUers refuse to read posts in the Guns forum and participate in discussions.

Lordy lordy lordy.

[spin]

24. I agree, we are in the DU boondocks...

and are are largely ignored.

If a post appears on the General Discussion board, it gets moved to the Gungeon when the pro-gunners notice it and reply. That's the rules and I don't run the board. I consider it a shame, but I'm sure a lot of other members of DU consider it a virtue.

But I don't want to see our party lose any more close elections because of the extremely liberal wing of our party and their position on draconian gun control.

The Democratic Party has the high ground on most issues. More Democrats (especially in the very liberal big cities) need to consider the gun control issue realistically. We definitely don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot again.

[jody]

26. Many thanks to Skinner for permitting posts pro & con on RKBA because we Dems must fight to destroy

the image that the Democratic Party is a bunch of gun-grabbers.

Obama had an untarnished history of anti-gun support but he realized before it was too late that he needed many votes from the 84 million gun-owners among the 215 million electorate to win.

That's why he got on the soap box and declared "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Luckily enough gun-owners accepted his story and the rest is hostory.

[spin]

28. I agree. (n/t)

[eqfan592]

29. What's funny to me is that I would normally concider myself...

...a part of that "extremely liberal" wing, as I have extremely liberal view points when it comes to just about every issue. But when it comes to guns, I side with "conservatives." Maybe protecting our basic rights should be placed above "liberal" and "conservative" labels. But that's moving into a more philosophical realm that is not entirely appropriate for this board I think.

Either way, I agree with you that I would hate to see any more close elections go against us because of this issue, and I'm glad to see more and more that the pro RKBA dems are making themselves known.

[jody]

31. True progressives zealously protect all inalienable rights, not just 1,3,4,5,6,7,8. n/t

[iverglas]

34. where would we be without jody for comic relief?

True progressives zealously protect all inalienable rights, not just 1,3,4,5,6,7,8.

Seriously?

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

enshrines an "inalienable right"?

The right to have a claim for $25 (US, of course), adjudicated by a jury?

Did one of those 18th century philosopher guys tell you this?

My undergraduate professors seem to have been unaware of it. Please enlighten me!



html fixed

[spin]

35. IMO, the most Liberal and Progressive ideas are...

1) Freedom of the press.

2) The right of a citizen to own firearms and other weapons.

[iverglas]

32. "not entirely appropriate for this board I think"

Oh, but I disagree. I'd just recommend that one make sense when one does it.

This, I'm afraid:

Maybe protecting our basic rights should be placed above "liberal" and "conservative" labels.

doesn't rise to that level.

I have extremely liberal view points when it comes to just about every issue.

Mmm hmm. Funny word, "liberal". It can mean so many things to so many people ...

[virginia mountainman]

37. Civil RIghts, is a liberal Position..