Paranoid? Hardly.

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tom Givens

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
254
Location
Memphis
Here is something I have been preaching about for years. It’s nice to see the same theme appear in a mainstream publication. This article appreared recently in The Federalist. https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/0...ely-rational-insurance-policy-against-danger/

The basic premise of the article is that it is NOT paranoid or irrational to carry a firearm for self defense. Here is a small bit of that author’s data on the subject.

In 2017, 2.7 million Americans were injured in 6.4 million car crashes.

In 2018, 3.3 million Americans age 12 or older were the victim of one of the 6 million violent crimes. So, your odds of being involved in a violent crime are higher than your odds of being involved in an automobile accident. In this light, carrying a handgun is just like wearing a seatbelt. Good read.
 
It's worth reading this Massad Ayoob article on the Backwoods Home website: https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/some-hopefully-timely-thoughts/

His ending paragraph: If you have panicky friends who think “Walking Dead” is about to become a documentary, tell them, “NO! At worst, it’s gonna be the Rodney King riot in LA or the looting that followed Hurricane Katrina…and our world is gonna come back when it’s over!”
 
Tom Givens said:
Here is something I have been preaching about for years. It’s nice to see the same theme appear in a mainstream publication. This article appreared recently in The Federalist. https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/0...ely-rational-insurance-policy-against-danger/

The basic premise of the article is that it is NOT paranoid or irrational to carry a firearm for self defense. Here is a small bit of that author’s data on the subject.

In 2017, 2.7 million Americans were injured in 6.4 million car crashes.

In 2018, 3.3 million Americans age 12 or older were the victim of one of the 6 million violent crimes. So, your odds of being involved in a violent crime are higher than your odds of being involved in an automobile accident. In this light, carrying a handgun is just like wearing a seatbelt. Good read.
Click to expand...
My new favorite explanation to any that ask about me being 'paranoid'.

Are they "paranoid" when they get in their car,after all it has a SPARE TIRE and therefore you must be thinking at all times about getting a flat = or worse a blow out.

Does the questionair have a fire extinguisher in their house,they must be "paranoid" and think about a house fire at all times ---- no ?.

Do they own a first aid kit,then they must be "paranoid" that they will need that kit any moment of any day.

I carry a blade [ a few ] and a gun [ a couple ] and I give them no more thought than any of the above listed items, I am SURE that if needed ,then I will grasp that instantly.

btw = hope all train with all the above gear [ fire extinguisher,spare tire,first aid kit, ] as often as I do with blade & gun !!!.
 
We will have an entirely new set of our fellow Americans who believe in being better prepared and being more self sufficient with this virus crisis. Firearms ownership will be part of that and I welcome those new to our community and belief system. Liberty and personal accountability are our wonderful heritage and ideals.

My wife has been satisfied with me being the armed family member till now. She told me a couple of weeks ago that she’ll get her carry permit when sheltering-in-place is over. Better late than never.
 
One point that is bought up by those who oppose owning and carrying firearms is that you can't have a negligent discharge with an insurance policy or first aid kit. To that I respond, is there a risk to the injured party when, say, a tourniquet or compress is applied incorrectly? Is there serious financial risk when a policy lapses and you're unable to recover medical expenses? Harm due to negligence isn't only expressed in physical terms. The insurance policy, the first aid kit, and the firearm all require responsible handling in order to be safe and effective. Especially with first aid, training and competence in its application is critical, just as with firearms.
 
In 2017, 2.7 million Americans were injured in 6.4 million car crashes.

In 2018, 3.3 million Americans age 12 or older were the victim of one of the 6 million violent crimes. So, your odds of being involved in a violent crime are higher than your odds of being involved in an automobile accident.
Click to expand...
The statistics quoted actually state that the odds of being the victim of violent crime are higher than your odds of being INJURED in an automobile accident, not merely being INVOLVED in one.

Ok, now I'm going to make some folks mad. Many are immediately going to assume that I'm anti-gun, or anti-self-defense, or anti-carry, but I'm none of those things. I carry daily, I am definitely pro-gun, and I am definitely in favor of laws that give citizens wide latitude to use deadly force in self-defense.

But numbers are my game and so I tend to pay attention to them. I think it's important to be accurate.

I always wonder: "Why?", when the stats compared don't match. In this case, the comparison is between 2017 automobile statistics and 2018 violence. I ask myself why the comparison wouldn't be done 2017 to 2017 or 2018 to 2018?

In 2017, there were 2.7 million Americans injured in car crashes in the U.S.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812794

In 2018, there were 4.5 million Americans seriously injured in car crashes in the U.S. That's likely why the lower 2017 automobile figures were used instead since the 2018 figures wouldn't provide as favorable a comparison.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2019/02/18/nsc-motor-vehicle-deaths.aspx?m=1

The quotes talk about violent crimes but when I checked the FBI UCR statistics, they are much lower than the quoted figures. The FBI violent crime figures are 1.2-1.3 million per year for the 2017/2018 timeframe.

However, I found a BJS report that talks about "violent incidents" and that appears to be the figure used in the quotes as the number of "violent crimes". That same report also appears to provide the victim statistics in the quotes. I don't know precisely what differentiates a violent crime (FBI UCR definition) from a violent incident (BJS definition), but it appears that the BJS includes "simple assault" in their statistic which could account for the difference as the FBI figure doesn't seem to.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

It's worth pointing out that many of the offenses which meet the definition of simple assault would not justify the use of deadly force and that makes it questionable to include such offenses in a statistic that is intended to justify carrying a handgun.

Ok, back to comparing numbers. The number of BJS "violent incidents" and the number of BJS "victims" is much higher for 2018 than 2017, which likely accounts for why the higher 2018 figures were used instead of the lower 2017 figures.

Here are the accurate figures, as far as I can tell for both 2017 and 2018.

2017--2.7 million injured in car wrecks, 1.89 million injury accidents, 6.45 million accidents. 2.7 million victims of violent incidents (BJS Stat), 1.25 million violent crimes (FBI UCR Stat), 5.2 million violent incidents (BJS Stat).

2018--4.5 million injured in car wrecks, 1.89 million injury accidents, 6.73 million accidents. 3.3 million victims of violent incidents (BJS Stat), 1.2 million violent crimes (FBI UCR Stat), 6.0 million violent incidents (BJS Stat).

So, conclusions:
Now it's clear why the comparison was between the higher 2018 BJS victim numbers and the lower 2017 car wreck numbers instead of comparing 2017 to 2017 or 2018 to 2018.

The chances of being the victim of a BJS "violent incident" in 2018 were, indeed, higher than the chances of being injured in a car wreck in 2017, however, that can't be said when comparing 2017 figures to 2017 or when comparing 2018 figures to 2018.

In either 2017 or 2018, it seems clear that the odds of being a victim of an FBI UCR "violent crime" (1.2-1.3 million such crimes a year) is much lower than any of the automobile statistics.

In 2017:
The chance of being injured in a car wreck was about equal to the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of being involved in an injury accident was lower than the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of merely being involved in a car wreck was much higher than the chance of being the victim of a BJS "violent incident".

In 2018:
The chance of being injured in a car wreck was higher than the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of being involved in an injury accident was lower than the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of merely being involved in a car wreck was much higher than the chance of being the victim of a BJS "violent incident".

It does appear that if you include simple assault in the definition of "violent crime" then the annual victimization figures are similar to the annual injuries sustained in car wrecks.
 
The quotes talk about violent crimes but when I checked the FBI UCR statistics, they are much lower than the quoted figures. The FBI violent crime figures are 1.2-1.3 million per year for the 2017/2018 timeframe.

The FBI UCR is a voluntary reporting system that many, many police departments do not participate in. Smaller departments (which make up the majority of departments) don't have the manpower to dedicate to non-mandatory reporting. Some large departments don't report, to keep from having their crime levels known for tourism and other political reasons. Thus, the UCR grossly under-reports crime each year.
 
Tom Givens said:
The FBI UCR is a voluntary reporting system that many, many police departments do not participate in. Smaller departments (which make up the majority of departments) don't have the manpower to dedicate to non-mandatory reporting. Some large departments don't report, to keep from having their crime levels known for tourism and other political reasons. Thus, the UCR grossly under-reports crime each year.
Click to expand...
This is true. I prepared UCR input for one of the small departments I worked for. Another fault is that it’s a judgement call as to what category to report a crime in if it’s reported at all. Even if a department does report, it’s an honor system report. They aren’t audited.
 
In my experience, the kinds of people who question carrying a gun are unlikely to be swayed by statistics to car wrecks, because everyone always thinks violence won't happen to them ,and they always think a car crash is a possibility.

A very large portion of adults have either been directly involved in a car wreck or at the very least been affected by one. They sit in traffic and see a wrecker taking a car away. Drivers in many areas have a daily or weekly reminder that car crashes happen. They don't just see it on the news . . .it makes them late for work and has a direct effect on their lives. They pay their car insurance monthly as a reminder that they may be in a wreck soon and need to protect their mode of transportation.

Without seeing where they got the violence numbers, I'd guess a lot of reported police violence stems from domestic cases, which tend to be out of sight for the public (although often within earshot for apartment dwellers.) Fortunately, most adults are not reminded in person daily or weekly that stranger on stranger violence occurs. They see it on the news, but it is usually in the bad part of town, and our neighborhood is safe, right?

While statistics like those posted may work with some, I've had better luck with other statistics suggesting that, at least where I work, police response time to an active violence call averages over 5 minutes. Then I have them start their phone timer and imagine how much bad stuff could happen while they wait 5 minutes.

On the possible bright side, I've had a lot of first time gun buyers lately, and a friend in the dried food industry tells me they have a several month backlog of orders, so it is possible that more of society may be realizing that they need to be prepared to care for themselves.
 
waterhouse said:
While statistics like those posted may work with some, I've had better luck with other statistics suggesting that, at least where I work, police response time to an active violence call averages over 5 minutes. Then I have them start their phone timer and imagine how much bad stuff could happen while they wait 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
Excellent idea.
 
Oh, crap. As I said elsewhere: 85% of statistics on the Internet are made up: Abraham Lincoln.

Let's see:

1. I was mugged at knife point as a young teenager coming from the library.
2. My mother was mugged in our nice neighborhood's apartment house hallway.
3. My best friend's mother was similarly mugged in the same house.
Note we all moved. Mayor Lindsay had a policy that destroyed the middle class areas in Brooklyn.

A. I was hit by lightning - so drop that cliche.
B. I survived 4 major car crashes that were not my fault and could have killed me. Still suffer from injuries though. One drunk, one teenager running a stop sign. Two rear end idiots not paying attention (one on the phone).

I. Accosted at least three times by cars with possible multiple bad guys that were direct threats but I managed to avoid by guile and appropriate attitude and posture.

II. In our nice neighborhood, before we moved, one car of teenagers shot the crap out of the house 4 doors down. Lots of police came.

III. In our nice neighborhood, a guy strangled his wife during the day (getting a divorce). Lots of police came for that.

So, being rather middle class, well educated guy, I have no experience with possible crime.

Kleck found that the vast majority of DGUs and probably minor wounds were not reported.
 
Tom Givens said:
In 2017, 2.7 million Americans were injured in 6.4 million car crashes.

In 2018, 3.3 million Americans age 12 or older were the victim of one of the 6 million violent crimes.

So, your odds of being involved in a violent crime are higher than your odds of being involved in an automobile accident.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point (obviously) but allow me to point out a weakness in your argument.

Victimization in violent crime is incredibly dependent on 1) where you live, and 2) your involvement in crime. If you are neither 1) in one of the zip codes that resemble Somolia, or 2) not involved in crime (usually drugs), your actual risk is orders lower than a simple national rate.

This does nothing to aid those innocents who can't leave the 'hood, but it does explain why you and I both know more people injured in car accidents than by violent crime.
 
Statistics can and are manipulated by the folks presenting them. I for one have had far more minor/not so minor auto accidents and walked away un injured and a few more non auto related injuries, minor, then I have ever had being accosted by strangers.
If one could take a poll of the three hundred million plus folks in the US as to how many had a work place recreational or home incident that could have been serious or fatal, non violent person related versus how many had an encounter with a person intending them harm, wonder what those statistics would show.

And you Mr. Gem are not an average Joe it would seem.
 
edwardware said:
Victimization in violent crime is incredibly dependent on 1) where you live, and 2) your involvement in crime. If you are neither 1) in one of the zip codes that resemble Somolia, or 2) not involved in crime (usually drugs), your actual risk is orders lower than a simple national rate.
Click to expand...
Lower? Yes. By how much? That depends upon a number of other variables.

Law abiding citizens are victimized in all kinds of areas. Criminals who do not have cars can obtain one in moments, The act of doing so may itself constitute a crime of violence.

We had a murder within a block and a half of our home Saturday. Very rare. Knife.
 
JohnKSa said:
The statistics quoted actually state that the odds of being the victim of violent crime are higher than your odds of being INJURED in an automobile accident, not merely being INVOLVED in one.

Ok, now I'm going to make some folks mad. Many are immediately going to assume that I'm anti-gun, or anti-self-defense, or anti-carry, but I'm none of those things. I carry daily, I am definitely pro-gun, and I am definitely in favor of laws that give citizens wide latitude to use deadly force in self-defense.

But numbers are my game and so I tend to pay attention to them. I think it's important to be accurate.

I always wonder: "Why?", when the stats compared don't match. In this case, the comparison is between 2017 automobile statistics and 2018 violence. I ask myself why the comparison wouldn't be done 2017 to 2017 or 2018 to 2018?

In 2017, there were 2.7 million Americans injured in car crashes in the U.S.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812794

In 2018, there were 4.5 million Americans seriously injured in car crashes in the U.S. That's likely why the lower 2017 automobile figures were used instead since the 2018 figures wouldn't provide as favorable a comparison.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2019/02/18/nsc-motor-vehicle-deaths.aspx?m=1

The quotes talk about violent crimes but when I checked the FBI UCR statistics, they are much lower than the quoted figures. The FBI violent crime figures are 1.2-1.3 million per year for the 2017/2018 timeframe.

However, I found a BJS report that talks about "violent incidents" and that appears to be the figure used in the quotes as the number of "violent crimes". That same report also appears to provide the victim statistics in the quotes. I don't know precisely what differentiates a violent crime (FBI UCR definition) from a violent incident (BJS definition), but it appears that the BJS includes "simple assault" in their statistic which could account for the difference as the FBI figure doesn't seem to.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

It's worth pointing out that many of the offenses which meet the definition of simple assault would not justify the use of deadly force and that makes it questionable to include such offenses in a statistic that is intended to justify carrying a handgun.

Ok, back to comparing numbers. The number of BJS "violent incidents" and the number of BJS "victims" is much higher for 2018 than 2017, which likely accounts for why the higher 2018 figures were used instead of the lower 2017 figures.

Here are the accurate figures, as far as I can tell for both 2017 and 2018.

2017--2.7 million injured in car wrecks, 1.89 million injury accidents, 6.45 million accidents. 2.7 million victims of violent incidents (BJS Stat), 1.25 million violent crimes (FBI UCR Stat), 5.2 million violent incidents (BJS Stat).

2018--4.5 million injured in car wrecks, 1.89 million injury accidents, 6.73 million accidents. 3.3 million victims of violent incidents (BJS Stat), 1.2 million violent crimes (FBI UCR Stat), 6.0 million violent incidents (BJS Stat).

So, conclusions:
Now it's clear why the comparison was between the higher 2018 BJS victim numbers and the lower 2017 car wreck numbers instead of comparing 2017 to 2017 or 2018 to 2018.

The chances of being the victim of a BJS "violent incident" in 2018 were, indeed, higher than the chances of being injured in a car wreck in 2017, however, that can't be said when comparing 2017 figures to 2017 or when comparing 2018 figures to 2018.

In either 2017 or 2018, it seems clear that the odds of being a victim of an FBI UCR "violent crime" (1.2-1.3 million such crimes a year) is much lower than any of the automobile statistics.

In 2017:
The chance of being injured in a car wreck was about equal to the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of being involved in an injury accident was lower than the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of merely being involved in a car wreck was much higher than the chance of being the victim of a BJS "violent incident".

In 2018:
The chance of being injured in a car wreck was higher than the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of being involved in an injury accident was lower than the chance of being a victim of a BJS "violent incident".
The chance of merely being involved in a car wreck was much higher than the chance of being the victim of a BJS "violent incident".

It does appear that if you include simple assault in the definition of "violent crime" then the annual victimization figures are similar to the annual injuries sustained in car wrecks.
Click to expand...

ONE of the best, easiest ways a person can avoid being a victim of violent crime is DO NOT HANG OUT WITH CRIMINALS.
 
GEM said:
Kleck found that the vast majority of DGUs and probably minor wounds were not reported.
Click to expand...
Only one of my four DGUs, and none of three incidents in which I escaped harm by fleeing, were reported. There were good reasons for that in each case..
 
John's analysis was good. I took a different angle.

Tom Givens said:
In 2017, 2.7 million Americans were injured in 6.4 million car crashes.

In 2018, 3.3 million Americans age 12 or older were the victim of one of the 6 million violent crimes. Your odds of being involved in a violent crime are higher than your odds of being involved in an automobile accident. In this light, carrying a handgun is just like wearing a seatbelt. Good read.
Click to expand...

This is a bizarre and inequitable comparison. Let's look at the numbers. The claim is made that you are more likely to be involved in a violent crime than in a car crash (given data from different years). The numbers given were 6 million violent crimes and 6.4 car crashes. Right there, there are more car crashes than violent crimes, so if there are more crashes than violent crimes, how is it that you are more likely to be in a violent crime than a crash? 6.4>6.0.

Beyond that, wearing a seatbelt is in no way just like carrying a gun. If it was, there would be no need for schools such as Rangemaster. We don't have schools for how to wear seat belts, right? You can put on your seat belt and you can put on your gun. If you do NOTHING ELSE with the gear, the seat belt will still work. The gun will not. It has to be drawn and used. In other words, simply carrying/wearing a gun does not protect you like wearing a seatbelt protects a person in a vehicle. Moreover, the seat belt often protects the driver from his or her own actions. Guns don't do that.
 
just want to add that - pretty much all auto accidents, where there is $$ involved are reported. not all violent crimes are reported, probably fewer than one might imagine, certainly a large number are not reported at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Honing a Perfect Message
Replies
14
Views
2K
BruceRDucer
B
hps1
  • Locked
FBI Releases 2018 Crime Statistics
Replies
2
Views
437
reddog81
R
G
  • Locked
John Lott: Bound to Misfire
Replies
20
Views
1K
rock jock
R
C
  • Locked
John Lott Jr. and Gun Locks...
Replies
13
Views
853
DRZinn
D
J
  • Locked
A "Crime Emergency"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Wiley
W
Back
Top