"guns stop crime X million times per year"

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm fine with the gun part, I just cringe at how some - in effect - rewrite history to support their desired take on matters. If you research some of the quotes used to support gun-rights, they're either taken out of context or specific words are removed or changed to bend the quote to what's desired. ...we shouldn't have to stoop to creating "facts" on which to base it. I'll sit down now...

... Kleck and Lott are controversial - even among progun scholars due to methodological issues. ...

If you quote each, better be sure you know this literature as a well read anti could give you much trouble...

We need to be very careful about making claims that we can't substantiate. Claims which can be shown to be suspect will hurt us. It's vital to our interests that we establish and maintain the highest levels of credibility.

For example, it's fashionable in the gun world to link declining crime rates to an armed citizenry. But correlation does not prove causation.

In NYC, beginning in 1990, the crime rate dropped precipitously. Murders were reduced by two-third, felonies fell by 50%; and by 2000, felonies on the subways had declined 75% (The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Back Bay Books, 2002, pg. 137). The RKBA and liberalized right to carry laws certainly had nothing to do with that.

What we can substantiate by collecting data on successful defensive gun use, especially published accounts, is that there are many ordinary people who have been able to avoid becoming victims of violent crime because they did have guns.

 

[1911Tuner]

I would hardly want to base my carry decision on an out of context catch phrase from a fictional book about a utopian society that has never existed, especially when the phrase is extended to be more contextually complete...

Well...Nobody's expectin' ya to. I tossed that quote in for effect, but it's been observed that the appearance of a shotgun very often has a certain calming effect on a crowd of restless natives, no? I even witnessed it once. Everybody suddenly got real peaceful-like and there wasn't one in the crowd who wanted to test the resolve of the man holdin' it...and it was a single-shot.

 

[Librarian]

Kleck and Lott are controversial - even among progun scholars due to methodological issues.

Aside from Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig, whose NSPOA study reached the same conclusion and used the same methodology, who feels Kleck has methodological issues?

 

[Warp]

Aside from Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig, whose NSPOA study reached the same conclusion and used the same methodology, who feels Kleck has methodological issues?

I, too, an curious to hear this.

 

[Jeff White]

Aside from Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig, whose NSPOA study reached the same conclusion and used the same methodology, who feels Kleck has methodological issues?

I do! A few years back we had a long discussion of this. A search should find the thread. Kleck's methodolgy considered incidents where there was no proof that a crime was actually about to be committed as stopped by the presence of a firearm. For example, if someone reported they heard a noise in the yard and after arming themselves they didn't hear it anymore, he counted that as a crime prevented. I'm sorry I can't accept that methodolgy. There are links to where he admitted this methodolgy in radio interviews in the other thread. You can't claim the presence of the firearm stopped the crime if you can't even prove there was going to be a crime.

Propaganda by ourside is just as disgusting as propaganda by the antis.

 

[JustinJ]

Propaganda by ourside is just as disgusting as propaganda by the antis.

Amen! I just wish more held this view. I don't like the idea that we should sacrifice our integrity for our gun rights.

 

[Warp]

I do! A few years back we had a long discussion of this. A search should find the thread. Kleck's methodolgy considered incidents where there was no proof that a crime was actually about to be committed as stopped by the presence of a firearm. For example, if someone reported they heard a noise in the yard and after arming themselves they didn't hear it anymore, he counted that as a crime prevented. I'm sorry I can't accept that methodolgy. There are links to where he admitted this methodolgy in radio interviews in the other thread. You can't claim the presence of the firearm stopped the crime if you can't even prove there was going to be a crime.

Propaganda by ourside is just as disgusting as propaganda by the antis.

That does sound like it would generate some fairly useless data.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Aside from Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig, whose NSPOA study reached the same conclusion and used the same methodology, who feels Kleck has methodological issues?

A pretty good run-down of the opposing views is found here: http://professorronaldgcorwin.com/id17.html

One the studies he cites is the National Research Council's “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review”, and it concludes in part:

Over the past decade, a number of researchers have conducted studies to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. However, disagreement over the definition of defensive gun use and uncertainty over the accuracy of survey responses to sensitive questions and the methods of data collection have resulted in estimated prevalence rates that differ by a factor of 20 or more. These differences in the estimated prevalence rates indicate either that each survey is measuring something different or that some or most of them are in error.

For anyone who wants to review Kleck's methodology, please see the link in my earlier post.

 

[Librarian]

Corwin dislikes Kleck but likes Kellerman?

The more scientifically sound studies, such as Kellermann’s, show that people are many times more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to use guns to harm intruders.

This causes me to seriously question his judgement.

This part is true:

But do guns increase personal safety or increase the odds that a family fight or a drinking binge will turn deadly?

There is no conclusive answer to this question, according to an exhaustive 2004 analysis of credible studies by the National Research Council.

Cook/Ludwig, however

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52!

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is
shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the
application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz
to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses.
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most
recent DGU description for any of the following
reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator;
the respondent could not state a specific crime
that was involved in the incident; or the
respondent did not actually display the gun or
mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is
smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of
multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
DGUs.

I don't see lack of caution in Kleck/Gertz when even anti-gun researchers note their attempt to identify '"genuine" defensive gun uses'.

 

[JustinJ]

Corwin dislikes Kleck but likes Kellerman?

Quote:
The more scientifically sound studies, such as Kellermann’s, show that people are many times more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to use guns to harm intruders.

This causes me to seriously question his judgement.

I believe this is true. The wording is "harm" intruders with the gun. The counter arguement is generally that those numbers dont' account for criminals scared off or detered by a gun but regardless the sentence still holds true or did when the data was collected.

 

[P5 Guy]

Ask the Convicted?

Wright & Rossi did a survey of convicted felons in prison on their experiences with armed victims in the mid 80s.

 

[JustinJ]

Ask the Convicted?

Wright & Rossi did a survey of convicted felons in prison on their experiences with armed victims in the mid 80s

.

I've been intending to read this because i'm quite curious about their methodology. Were the criminals detered by guns of innocent citizens or by guns owned and carried by other criminals such as in gang conflict, drug wars, etc. Choosing not to rob a house because the home owner might have a gun is differnt than not attacking a rival gang member because he has a gun.

Hasn't the study also been used by the other side to argue concealed carry encourages criminals to carry guns?

 

[P5 Guy]

It has been awhile since I read that survey.
The questioning went on the lines of how the criminal picked victims.

 

[Skribs]

Ironic that librarian posted the long answer. But it answered my question exactly. Defensive Gun use is when:
1) You can tell what crime was in the process of being commited
2) You saw the perpetrator
3) The perpetrator was aware of the weapon before he stopped his criminal act
4) The perpetrator stopped his criminal act

1.5 million times...that's still a lot.

 

[Warp]

Ironic that librarian posted the long answer. But it answered my question exactly. Defensive Gun use is when:
1) You can tell what crime was in the process of being commited
2) You saw the perpetrator
3) The perpetrator was aware of the weapon before he stopped his criminal act
4) The perpetrator stopped his criminal act

1.5 million times...that's still a lot.

I could see how #1 might be difficult for some people to quantify, depending on how exactly the question was asked. What I am wondering...say you have a carrier at a gas station, the carrier is using an OWB holster covered by a jacket. He notices a couple of guys scoping him out from the corner of the lot. One of them approaches, and asks for a light or a cigarette or what have you, while the other one circles nonchalantly. The carrier moves so that his jacket is caught in the breeze, exposing his pistol to view. The guy asking the questions pauses, looks at his buddy, and turns around.

*A picture is worth 1,000 words and I left out tons of details that would be noticed if you were present, pretend the scenario is one that would set off all kinds of alarm bells and red flags if you were the carrier.*

Would that carrier define the specific crime he felt was about to happen?

If not, is it reasonable to believe that in a certain percentage of instances such as this a crime was actually prevented?

Does it pass the 'reasonable' test to consider it as crime prevented?

I know this kind of thing is extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify, especially if you were not present.

What do we do with incidents like that?

 

[Jeff White]

I could see how #1 might be difficult for some people to quantify, depending on how exactly the question was asked. What I am wondering...say you have a carrier at a gas station, the carrier is using an OWB holster covered by a jacket. He notices a couple of guys scoping him out from the corner of the lot. One of them approaches, and asks for a light or a cigarette or what have you, while the other one circles nonchalantly. The carrier moves so that his jacket is caught in the breeze, exposing his pistol to view. The guy asking the questions pauses, looks at his buddy, and turns around.

*A picture is worth 1,000 words and I left out tons of details that would be noticed if you were present, pretend the scenario is one that would set off all kinds of alarm bells and red flags if you were the carrier.*

Would that carrier define the specific crime he felt was about to happen?

If not, is it reasonable to believe that in a certain percentage of instances such as this a crime was actually prevented?

It might be but there is no way to know for sure how in how many instances there actually was a crime prevented and how many times it was just an innocent encounter.

Does it pass the 'reasonable' test to consider it as crime prevented?

No, we don't know what would have happened, we would be guessing at what would have happened and using our own personal biases to say that a crime was prevented when we have no way of knowing for sure. No better then what Kellerman did with his "research".

I know this kind of thing is extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify, especially if you were not present.

What do we do with incidents like that?

We have no choice except to dismiss them out of hand. There is factual basis to say that the presence of a firearm stopped a crime, just a guess.

Propaganda is just that...doesn't matter which side it comes from.

 

[Warp]

I wouldn't go so far as to call that propaganda.

As you said, there is factual basis to say that the presence of a firearm stopped a crime. It is a difficult think to quantify and what you called that incident, and what method of reporting you required, would matter, but I challenge the notion that it would necessarily be bias or misleading.

 

[Jeff White]

Of course it's biased and misleading to report that as an example of defensive gun use. We have no clue what was really going on. It is our own personal bias towards the presence of a firearm stopping crime that leads us to believe that is what occurred when in fact we don't have a clue.

Someone with a bias towards people carrying guns make our society more dangerous could take the same vague encounter from the point of the man asking for a light and say that it was an example of the fear that laws permitting ordinary citizens to carry guns causes normal law abiding people to feel. This same vague incident viewed from the other side says: The streets aren't safe anymore because ordinary people pack heat. I am afraid to approach a stranger and ask the time or directions. I walked up to a guy and asked for a light and he flashed his pistol at me making me feel like he would shoot me.

Same vague incident, two diametrically opposed explanations of what occurred. We don't do our cause any favors when we stoop to the same tactics the antis use.

 

[Warp]

Of course it's biased and misleading to report that as an example of defensive gun use. We have no clue what was really going on. It is our own personal bias towards the presence of a firearm stopping crime that leads us to believe that is what occurred when in fact we don't have a clue.

Someone with a bias towards people carrying guns make our society more dangerous could take the same vague encounter from the point of the man asking for a light and say that it was an example of the fear that laws permitting ordinary citizens to carry guns causes normal law abiding people to feel. This same vague incident viewed from the other side says: The streets aren't safe anymore because ordinary people pack heat. I am afraid to approach a stranger and ask the time or directions. I walked up to a guy and asked for a light and he flashed his pistol at me making me feel like he would shoot me.

Same vague incident, two diametrically opposed explanations of what occurred. We don't do our cause any favors when we stoop to the same tactics the antis use.

I see where you are coming from, but are the only ways to interpret an incident like that from one or the other bias position?

And what would be the logic behind saying that the streets are no loner safe (implying that they were before) because people carry guns? Is there a statistic showing an increase in crime as a result of people carrying? Are licensed carriers committing crimes with their guns? Just because the other side can up with a baseless and bias counter argument, that doesn't mean it is valid.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And what would be the logic behind saying that the streets are no loner safe (implying that they were before) because people carry guns? Is there a statistic showing an increase in crime as a result of people carrying? Are licensed carriers committing crimes with their guns? Just because the other side can up with a baseless and bias counter argument, that doesn't mean it is valid.

The problem can be that in many ways the data is equivocal.

Remember correlation does not prove causation. And as I noted in post 25, there was a significant decrease in crime in NYC from 1990 to 2000, and of course private firearms had nothing to do with that.

To us, the anti's arguments are baseless and biased. To them, our arguments are baseless and biased. And when data is susceptible to different interpretations, we need to look for ways to test the possible interpretations -- not just pick the one that suits our interests.

Another thing we need to understand is that there really are a lot of people out there who are afraid of guns and people who have guns. And these people vote. What are we all doing to be good ambassadors for guns and gun owners -- and make people less afraid.

Here's a hint: some of the chest thumping, blood lust, invective, and disparagement we see on this and other forums doesn't help. Denigrating non-gun people as "sheeple" doesn't help. Referring to States having restrictive gun laws as "Nazi" or "Commie" doesn't help. These sorts of things just reinforce all the negative stereotypes non-gun people have about us. By all means, let's express our objections and vehement disagreements, but let's learn to do so in more professional ways.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous", (Aldine 1986, 2nd ed 2008, ISBN-13: 978-0202362427), US NIJ Felon Survey of 1,874 convicts who had committed armed crimes and were serving time in 18 prisons in 10 different states. A link to the author's summation: http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

Wright & Rossi were hired by the Carter Admnistration to investigate links between guns and violence in 1977 and published their first study in 1981 which became the book "Under the Gun" (Aldine 1983 1st ed). Wright, Rossi and Kleck are all noted for being political liberal, originally true believers in gun control until their research made them skeptical.

Propaganda is just that...doesn't matter which side it comes from.

It was not Kleck & Gertz who claimed "guns stop crime 2.4 million times per year"; they and the other defensive gun use surveyors do make the claim guns are used defensively from 108,000 to 4,700,000 times per year.

The Kleck and Gertz study was presented at the Guns and Violence Symposium at Northwestern University, School of Law, after being vetted around at several gatherings of criminologists for comment and criticism.

Kleck & Gertz gave their methodology and their data to academic peers for review and discussion. You don't do that if you are fabricating partisan propaganda.

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun", 86 J. Crim. Law & Criminology 150 (1995)
aka National Self Defense Survey (NSDS) of 1994. A transcription in html has been posted at GunCite as http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html but it is originally a peer reviewed academic article published in an established journal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,

It even sparked an article "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," by Marvin E. Wolfgang, starting on page 188 of the conference issue dedicated to the symposium. Wolfgang openly had declared "If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people." He then went on to praise Kleck and Gertz for "methodologically sound research" in support of a view--that guns had significant defensive use--that he had formerly dismissed out of hand.

Kleck & Gertz (1995) also tabulates ten national level and three state level surveys on defensive gun use (DGU), all of which used slightly different methodologies, but which showed projections of 764,000 to 3,600,000 DGUs per year. Some were commissioned by pro-gun control groups, like the 1981 Peter D. Hart survey that projected 1.8 million DGUs. Which makes the Kleck & Gertz estimate of 2.4 million DGUs pretty middle-of-the-pack.

The Kleck 1994 National Self-Defense Survey asked everyone in the sample "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."

The question can be raised whether all threatening situations resulting in "defensive gun use" (DGU) in the surveys would be classed as a "crime" by the FBI UCR.

By the way, the NSPOF survey projected 1.5 million people using guns defensively 4.7 million times per year.

 

[SleazyRider]

For example, it's fashionable in the gun world to link declining crime rates to an armed citizenry. But correlation does not prove causation.

In NYC, beginning in 1990, the crime rate dropped precipitously. Murders were reduced by two-third, felonies fell by 50%; and by 2000, felonies on the subways had declined 75% (The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Back Bay Books, 2002, pg. 137). The RKBA and liberalized right to carry laws certainly had nothing to do with that.

What we can substantiate by collecting data on successful defensive gun use, especially published accounts, is that there are many ordinary people who have been able to avoid becoming victims of violent crime because they did have guns.

Precisely. I have privately attributed this drop in the crime rate to the proliferation of video cameras, webcams, surveillance cameras, and even cellphones.

 

[Warp]

Another thing we need to understand is that there really are a lot of people out there who are afraid of guns and people who have guns. And these people vote. What are we all doing to be good ambassadors for guns and gun owners -- and make people less afraid.

Mostly I open carry while looking like a good, reasonable, well mannered guy who is adequately well dressed, clean shaven and polite...who basically acts as though the gun isn't even there.

I believe this reminds people that regular people like myself, not in law enforcement and not criminals, can and do carry guns. Every now and then a great conversation with a stranger results. Often this is with somebody with whom I have a reason to interact, such as an employee for the business I am at, but now and again it is just some random person with questions.

 

[Librarian]

No irony - I really am trained as a librarian, and I went to grad school for my MLS because I like the work reference librarians do.

It's kind of bemusing to see this question coming back.

I'll offer a document that argues that none of it matters, in practice:

"More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions"

 

[Jeff White]

The Kleck 1994 National Self-Defense Survey asked everyone in the sample "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."

Very true, but it also counted instances where the person answering the survey never even was certain there was someone around to commit a crime. Arming yourself because you heard a bump in the night hardly counts as a defensive gun use in my book.

Peer reviewed or not, the definition of defensive gun use was so wide that the data has no value. And Kleck forgot to figure in the tendency of people to exaggerate and even lie about encounters they may or may not have had.

Not only would most of what Kleck accepted as a defensive gun use not fit the definition of a crime in the UCR, it would not most people's definition of a crime. Unidentified things that go bump in the night are not defensive gun use. They are unidentified things that go bump in the night. How many of Kleck's instances of defensive gun use were really the wind blowing a tree branch against the house, a raccoon knocking over trash cans. A house settling on it's foundation, A lost driver turning around in a driveway...and on and on and on????

The UCR has it's own problems, but you can't explain away the huge difference in numbers between crimes reported to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR and Kleck's numbers by saying that all those incidents were never reported.