Gun Violence vs Violent Crime

[Waywatcher]

I was recently discussing with my wife how worthless a statistic "Gun violence" is and came across this website in my search for proof. My basic argument was proved correct--that is that "gun violence" is such a tiny portion of overall violent crime that having the most "gun violence" in the world (per wikipedia.org) is almost meaningless.

E.G. You're five times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Britain than in the U.S., but the perpetrators are less likely to use a gun. (Instead the criminals use a club, knife, fists, etc.--the tool really doesn't matter.)

This graph is only among other English speaking countries, but still, the evidence is clear that more guns does not equate to more crime. In fact its quite interesting to note the skyrocket that occurs to violent crime in Britain after it banned guns in 1997.

Trends in recorded violent crime in England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia, rate per 100,000 persons, 1962-2004

Note: Violent crime comprises homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery. Time periods charted reflect the availability of consistent, nationwide data for each country.

Source

Just thought I'd share this really good and impartial info.

 

[Harvster]

The source for these stats clearly states that the numbers and trends seen in the graph are likely the result of changes in the methods of recording of crimes and not the actual number of violent crimes. It doesn't seem to support your argument.

 

[Baba Louie]

However, per the source linked they state the actual number may vary due to accounting or collection of data

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

Once everyone is on the same page, using the same terminology, recording and accounting methodology, and has tracked criminal events for a minimum of 10 years (what's a good study baseline?) and has taken into account as many other variables as possible, we'll still find something to dispute the end result (other than we need more gov't funding to support more studies) if it disagrees with our base philosophy.

Rural v. urban, homogenous v. mixed culture, economic, education, time of day/month/year, previous criminal history, planned v. opportunity... all play some role in the study of violent crime and might be an important factor here but not there. Do we all call a spade a spade or is it termed a shovel there and a garden tool in yet another locale?

Still and all, ya gotta start someplace and crime is crime be it w/ a specific weapon or sans anything but intent and violation of another.

 

[Waywatcher]

Thats only a caveat for England/Wales.

Not for the other three countries...

 

[Harvster]

Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

 

[Waywatcher]

Thats a very different quote than the first thing you said...

The source for these stats clearly states that the numbers and trends seen in the graph are likely the result of changes in the methods of recording of crimes and not the actual number of violent crimes. It doesn't seem to support your argument.

(emphasis mine)

Of course it may be influenced by differences in record keeping. "May" means it is possible which is very different than "likely."

Next do you want to debate about reported vs unreported crime?

Jeepers!

 

[rocinante]

Interesting the curves for Canada and the U.S. are roughly the same. Can the 300 mil + U.S. actually be a safer country? Who the hell really knows. lies, damn lies, and statistics huh.

 

[Rumble]

Biggest problem with statistics is the implication that the freedom to own arms (or lack thereof) can be based on statistics*. The difficulty in that approach being that owernship of arms is a right, unlike some other things that might be restricted based on statistical data.

Of course, stuff like this is great to use to inform an argument, but that implication is a little troubling to me.

* I do not claim credit for thinking this point up; I first saw it on THR somewhere and thought that it was a cogent point about statistics and rights.

 

[Harvster]

I was primarily talking about the England data with my first response.

The whole point is that the graph seems to be of little value if those that created it say that one set of data is probably due to altered methodology and that the rest of the data sets may be as well. I don't know why they even made the graph in the first place.

 

[Rumble]

Harvster - after reading the source PDF, it looks like they specifically created the chart to illustrate how statistics can be misleading based on changes in how things are recorded over time.

 

[ShunZu]

Interesting chart. I guess it's just coincidence that in '92 CCW began to catch some momentum in the U.S.

I'd like to see that same chart plotted for all 50 states -- bet Illinois (who still denies to provide any provisions for CCW to its citizens or recognize ANY other states' CCW) would look like Great Britain.

 

[jrfoxx]

Quote:
Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

Have we really changed the way, or our abilty to accuratly, record violent crime in any appreciable way since 1962? Doesnt seem like all that much would have changed.Its not like they couldnt record or analyze violent crime data accurately without computers, or some other recent development, IMHO. Just because we record the data with computers now, when before it used to be typed on written on paper, doesnt seem like it would mean more is getting recorded now than before because of it.I just cant imagane that 20 years ago, they just would randomly decide to occasionally NOT record some crimes, yet today that isnt happening.....
I cant really think of what else they can be referring to that could have skewed the data.Am I missing something? What's everyone think the difference of what/how violent crime date was recorded in say 1965 in the U.S. versus today that would have any reall effect? Somebody help me out here, as I'm guess I'm just not seeing something....

 

[TX1911fan]

So the hockey stick for England and Wales is the result of different tracking. Ok, that means their number should have been much higher all along. That just means it would never have been under the US number, backing up what I have said all along that the "fact" that the US is the most dangerous country on earth is just a canard made up by the UN and the media.

 

[CanadianDad]

Gun Stats

The hockey stick for the UK can also be said to coincide with the initiatives of their government to ban ALL handguns and firearms. As soon as they confiscated them the rate of violent crime skyrocketed. Can you wonder why? If criminals know that no one is armed (in many cases not even the police) then they are definitely going to be more violent as they are not worried about retaliation.

I have a friend from the UK that used to work at my gun range. He emmigrated to Canada about this time. He is ex-military. You should hear him tell the story about how he and his law-abiding friends were "duped" into surrendering their guns. Step one: a nice letter inviting them down to show the cops their guns. Step two: a few months later another nice letter inviting them down to register their guns. Step three: a few more months later another nice letter inviting them down to have thrie guns "verified" which meant "confiscated". He was in shock and very pissed off when they took them. That is when he left the country. Some of his guns he lost were war history relics worth thousands.

 

[jfh]

And then there is that related issue of what constitutes "gun crime"?

Was somebody charged with not storing their firearm with a trigger lock on it?

For improperly carrying their (permitted) firearm?

For speeding, and then being discovered to have a loaded pistol in the trunk?

For having an un-registered firearm--for example, a hunting rifle in NYC?

And on, and on....

"Gun crime" clearly has little to do with violent crime; it's only a tool of the antigunners.

Jim H.



For not having a plug in their shotgun?

 

[Waywatcher]

While I agree with you jfh, "Gun Crime" wasn't really part of the debate. We were talking about Gun Violence.

I'd imagine "Gun Violence" is any of the aforementioned crimes committed with a gun.

(homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery)