Self-Defense Juatifiable Homicides By Gun: Number Per Year; FBI Statistics

[gvf]

FY!:


Crime in the United States 2012

FBI: Uniform Crime Statistics, 2012








Justifiable Homicide by Weapon,..........Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, .......................FBI Crime Clock
Law Enforcement, 2008–2012...........Private Citizen, 2008–2012.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 14,.......Expanded Homicide Data Table 15,

 

[MEHavey]

Here is the proper link to the tables:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...orcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain

An anti-gun type could have a field day in comparing the murders (~13,000) to the justifiable homicides (~400)

The other data is kinda interesting as well... like where state-wise most of the killing is done, and overall which groups are vastly over-represented as killers.

 

[gvf]

Your attachment doesn't have the files as links
The tables in any case are about the same, those on the FBI site itself simply include other types of weapons but the general stats are the same.


Given the percentage of the population practicing CCW, which is quite low around 5% I believe, that has to be figured in and I don't believe the numbers then promote anti-gunners.
Almost all of the Justifiable Homicides by reason of Self-Defense occur by use of gun.
On top of that, 80% of the time the Perp flees upon presentation of a gun, so the POTENTIAL murders thwarted should be considered.
The numbers stated by the FBI are only the 20% of times the gun has to be used.

Even as is, the tables would show almost 100% of the SUCCESSFUL Self-Defense Acts ending in what we may suppose is necessary homicide are by guns. I.e, if you get lethally attacked, you better have a gun or down you go: a definite pro-gun argument.

 

[BLB68]

Also, these are justifiable homicides, not defensive gun uses. Considering the low fatality rate of handgun wounds, and the fact that many (I'd say most, but no stats on it) felons flee at the presentation of a firearm by their intended victim ... I'd say the numbers here don't really support the anti position at all.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

flawed stat

The FBI UCR table on justifiable homicide relies on the police report entering a 09C or 090C code pre-judging a homicide as justifiable.

In any given year, that table does not have stats from 15 to 20 states.

The fine print in the FBI UCR also points out the stat does not represent eventual adjudication at the medical examiner, coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court level: at any which level of the judicial system a homicide may be judged as justifiable, criminal, or negligent.

It depends on the police reports on homicides as turned into the FBI reporting system being coded at the police level as a 09C (presumed) justifiable homicide. That is a presumption many jurisdictions to not allow.

Britain does bother to track homicides through the judicial system, and go back and remove justifiable homicides from the homicide (murder) statistics for preceding years. The US FBI does not do that.

 

[JellyJar]

FBI's UCI is not accurate about legal homicides.

To avoid confusion many criminologist use the neutral term "civilian legal defensive homicide" instead of the terms justifiable or excuseable homicide because the two terms have slightly different meanings and their use leads to confusion as to what is exactly meant. The data reported by the FBI only concrens Justifiable homicides IIRC.

The FBI's data on CLDHs are unreliable because the FBI's crime data are entirely derived from initial police reports. So if an incident is originally reported to the police as a crime, such as murder, but later the charges are dropped or perhaps the person is exonerated, nevertheless that incident will appear in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Index as a crime as stated in the original police report.

There may be exceptions to the case but normally local police crime reports are never redacted based on the final ajudication of the incident.

I cannot find a reference or link online but as I was living in Texas at the time I am aware of this incidence. In 1996 after Texas’s new concealed handgun law went fully into effect, up near Dalls and Forth Worth Texas, the first person with a Texas CHL who killed someone was originally charged with murder by the police but was later no-billed by the grand jury ( thus being exonorated ). Nevertheless, this incidence will forever appear in the official police statistics for that county and the State of Texas as a murder in the FBI’s UCI.

Again I cannot find a link online but I have read that in many police jurisdictions anyone who shoots or kills another person is ALWAYS charged with a crime regardless of how lawful that killing may be. Therefore, most CLDHs never show up in the FBI’s UCI as a justifiable or lawful homicide.
Edit: Then it is left up to the prosecutor, the grand jury or the petite jury to decide if the killing was lawful.

Conclusion, we cannot use the lawful homicide data by the FBI to judge how often criminals are killed by civilians in lawful defense of life or property.

My sources in the past were studies and articles written by Professor Gary Klech of Florida State University.

Keep Safe

JJ

 

[JohnKSa]

The FBI's data on CLDHs are unreliable because the FBI's crime data are entirely derived from initial police reports. So if an incident is originally reported to the police as a crime, such as murder, but later the charges are dropped or perhaps the person is exonerated, nevertheless that incident will appear in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Index as a crime as stated in the original police report.

There may be exceptions to the case but normally local police crime reports are never redacted based on the final ajudication of the incident.

This.

 

[Jim K]

Those statistics are released every year, and provide plenty of raw data for arguments on both side of the gun control issue. No minds are ever changed and no real conclusions are ever reached except that people kill people and will use any available weapon to do so. And that few innocent people who are in danger can/will kill their attacker in defending themselves.

Jim

 

[gvf]

Also, these are justifiable homicides, not defensive gun uses. Considering the low fatality rate of handgun wounds, and the fact that many (I'd say most, but no stats on it) felons flee at the presentation of a firearm by their intended victim ... I'd say the numbers here don't really support the anti position at all.

Exactly. I take them as Pro-gun. In fact, you can state it this way: there were 13000 murders in 2012. There would have been 400 more but guns stopped them.

"Which group would YOU rather be in: the 13000 or the 400?"

I'd be convinced.

 

[gvf]

The FBI UCR table on justifiable homicide relies on the police report entering a 09C or 090C code pre-judging a homicide as justifiable.

In any given year, that table does not have stats from 15 to 20 states.

The fine print in the FBI UCR also points out the stat does not represent eventual adjudication at the medical examiner, coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court level: at any which level of the judicial system a homicide may be judged as justifiable, criminal, or negligent.

It depends on the police reports on homicides as turned into the FBI reporting system being coded at the police level as a 09C (presumed) justifiable homicide. That is a presumption many jurisdictions to not allow.

Britain does bother to track homicides through the judicial system, and go back and remove justifiable homicides from the homicide (murder) statistics for preceding years. The US FBI does not do that.

In other words, there would be many more Justifiable Homicides by Reason of Self-Defense,
which almost always are by use of gun. That right?

If so, why don't those states get their stats in.

 

[gvf]

To avoid confusion many criminologist use the neutral term "civilian legal defensive homicide" instead of the terms justifiable or excuseable homicide because the two terms have slightly different meanings and their use leads to confusion as to what is exactly meant. The data reported by the FBI only concrens Justifiable homicides IIRC.

The FBI's data on CLDHs are unreliable because the FBI's crime data are entirely derived from initial police reports. So if an incident is originally reported to the police as a crime, such as murder, but later the charges are dropped or perhaps the person is exonerated, nevertheless that incident will appear in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Index as a crime as stated in the original police report.

There may be exceptions to the case but normally local police crime reports are never redacted based on the final ajudication of the incident.

I cannot find a reference or link online but as I was living in Texas at the time I am aware of this incidence. In 1996 after Texas’s new concealed handgun law went fully into effect, up near Dalls and Forth Worth Texas, the first person with a Texas CHL who killed someone was originally charged with murder by the police but was later no-billed by the grand jury ( thus being exonorated ). Nevertheless, this incidence will forever appear in the official police statistics for that county and the State of Texas as a murder in the FBI’s UCI.

Again I cannot find a link online but I have read that in many police jurisdictions anyone who shoots or kills another person is ALWAYS charged with a crime regardless of how lawful that killing may be. Therefore, most CLDHs never show up in the FBI’s UCI as a justifiable or lawful homicide.
Edit: Then it is left up to the prosecutor, the grand jury or the petite jury to decide if the killing was lawful.

Conclusion, we cannot use the lawful homicide data by the FBI to judge how often criminals are killed by civilians in lawful defense of life or property.

My sources in the past were studies and articles written by Professor Gary Klech of Florida State University.

Keep Safe

JJ

If this is true, very good, it means more attempted murders didn't go further that that due to SD, which is almost always by use of gun.

But the Professor's research has been devalued by his research techniques as criticized by many well-respected experts in Research (not by Anti-Gunners). By "Research" I don't mean experts in Crime Research, but in Research Technique itself.

There is a counter-explanation to your facts, though it would be nice if yours was the accurate one:

The reports of the Police are accurate; forget Self-Defense for a minute. If Police decide a Murder has occurred it makes no difference if a particular person Charged with the Murder is found Guilty or Innocent. There was still a murder either way. If a specific person is found Innocent that Murder does not disappear. It just means legally he didn't do it.

It may well be true with Self-Defense as well. Legally in my state (NY) and I believe elsewhere, there are two formal Justifications for Murder.

1) Legal Insanity - the verdict being "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity"

2) Self-Defense - the verdict being "Not Guilty by Reason of Self-Defense"

I.e., under circumstances that had neither Insanity or Self-Defense as part of the Defendant's action, he would be Guilty of Murder.


And I believe it was still a Murder, a Crime though in this case the Murder was Justifiable.

And those instances where a Defendant was Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity or Self-Defense are also reported as Justifiable Homicides.

In these case of SD: an Incident of Murder, a Crime, goes into the FBI

But from the standpoint of one of the actors acting in Self-Defense, this is also one Justifiable Homicide. So, there was the event of Murder but this perpetrator in this particular case is not responsible for being the Murderer but only in causing a Justifiable Homicide. So one Justifiable Homicide is put in by that area to the FBI

There are two different things operating here: the event which is a Murder.
And the Justifiable Homicide that was the action of the actor due to the Justification of Self-Defense.

So, this does go in as a Crime and as a Justifiable Homicide. That's how it should be.

 

[gvf]

delete

Delete-Double Post

 

[gvf]

OP's Conclusion

From the stats which show a significant number of lethal attacks being stopped by guns, and by the many more possibly lethal attacks turned to the attacker fleeing upon sight of a gun:

My conclusion is that even if you end up never pulling a gun your whole life, it is still better to have a gun on your person, and in some areas FAR better, than not.

I can reach the same conclusion with non-crime stats. In my city I have 1.7%
chance of being the victim of a Violent Crime based on Crime statistics for this city. Practically, crime is very high in specific areas and much lower in some others and I live where it is much lower but I'm one street away from a highly violent area. But City-Wide I have a 1.7% chance of being the victim of Violence.
Now, if you know anything about medical stats, a 1.7% chance of Serious Disease, Violent Injury or Death is not that small. We all have a 1% chance of having a heart attack per year after 50. Yet, we all know heart disease is way down the last 10 years because most of us take action to promote heart-health, exercise, eating right etc.

Well, if you're going to take action against a 1% chance of a negative health event happening to you, why not take a similar or stronger action against another almost twice as likely negative health event happening to you: getting grievously injured or killed by Violence?

And you're left with the same conclusion:

"Even if you end up never pulling a gun your whole life, it is still better to have a gun on your person, and in some areas FAR better, than not."

My stance anyway...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I know for a fact that police shootings in Upper East Tennessee are routinely handed over to the state bureau of investigation for a thorough shooting review and presentation to a Grand Jury. I see the same thing in Southwest Virginia: adjudication of police shootings at the Grand Jury level, not the initial police report. And its not just "State of Franklin" or "Mountain Empire" policy either.

Michigan news Mlive carried a five-day series "Justified to Kill" on the issue in 2012.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/justified_to_kill_an_mlive_spe.html
John Barnes, "Justified to kill: Why there are more self-defense killings in Michigan than anyone knows", MLive, Michigan News, 12 June 2012.

In Kalamazoo County, the FBI stat showed one justifiable homicide between 2000 and 2010.

"There were eight, three by civilians and five by police, MLive found. "It's all a data-input problem," Kalamazoo Public Safety Chief Jeff Hadley said. "What happens is when the initial reports are generated, it's coded as a homicide. It never gets recoded."

Adjudication above the police report level occurs long after police reports are sent to the FBI UCR.

Also:

"Discrepancy Between the Legal and Medical Definitions of Homicide" by Jeffrey M. Jentzen, MD, Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office, and three others.
PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences February 2003

ABSTRACT

The goals of this presentation are to compare the manner of death as certified by a medical examiner (ME) on a death certificate to a district attorney (DA) charging decision and final disposition of the case in the court system; and to measure the frequency of and identify factors contributing to any disparity in classification of homicide by medical examiners and prosecutors.

Hypothesis: Medical examiners and district attorneys have differing responsibilities and interests in processing homicidal deaths, which results in disparity between the medical examiner classification as homicide, and the legal definition for the purpose of criminal justice.

Methods: All cases certified by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office as homicide; accidental motor vehicle deaths and accidental firearm deaths from 1990 through 1999 were matched to cases presented to the homicide unit of Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office from October 14, 1991 through 1999.

Results: Of the 1247 cases certified as homicide by the ME, 766 were matched to the corresponding DA homicide cases. Approximately 40% of cases were not matched. Factors influencing successful matching included apprehension of perpetrator(s) and prosecution in adult court.

In a sample of 67 homicide cases reviewed but not charged by the DA’s office, almost half (47%) were determined to be selfdefense, 26% insufficient evidence, 11% no defendant or death of the defendant, 3% accidental shooting, and 13% other.

Conclusions: There is significant variation in how medical and legal practitioners define “homicide.” This variation results from the different goals of the practitioners as expressed in levels of intentionality and differing burdens of proof (reasonable medical certainty vs. beyond a reasonable doubt) that contribute to variations in definition of homicide. The effect of such variation requires additional research.

Subjects: Homicide, District Attorney, Medical Examiner

And the FBI UCR table on justifiable homicide states it relies on the initial police homicide report, which in most US jurisdictions is investigated as manslaughter or murder, and does not reflect determination by medical examiner, coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court.

 

[gvf]

I know for a fact that police shootings in Upper East Tennessee are routinely handed over to the state bureau of investigation for a thorough shooting review and presentation to a Grand Jury. I see the same thing in Southwest Virginia: adjudication of police shootings at the Grand Jury level, not the initial police report. And its not just "State of Franklin" or "Mountain Empire" policy either.

Michigan news Mlive carried a five-day series "Justified to Kill" on the issue in 2012.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/justified_to_kill_an_mlive_spe.html
John Barnes, "Justified to kill: Why there are more self-defense killings in Michigan than anyone knows", MLive, Michigan News, 12 June 2012.

In Kalamazoo County, the FBI stat showed one justifiable homicide between 2000 and 2010.


Adjudication above the police report level occurs long after police reports are sent to the FBI UCR.

Also:

"Discrepancy Between the Legal and Medical Definitions of Homicide" by Jeffrey M. Jentzen, MD, Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office, and three others.
PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences February 2003


And the FBI UCR table on justifiable homicide states it relies on the initial police homicide report, which in most US jurisdictions is investigated as manslaughter or murder, and does not reflect determination by medical examiner, coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court.

I wouldn't call this a discrepancy except that Homicide and Crime are two different things: Homicide is Death by agency of another person or the person themselves (Suicide).

Murder is Death by Intentional Agency of another or suicide (also a crime).

The Police seem to focus on those Homicides which appear to be a possible Murder (or other Crime).

In other words, the Police are called to a death scene on a public street. They find the body has been shot but a man is also there who claims he had to kill the first man to save his life. He has a knife would in his arm. They find a knife with the dead victim's prints on it. More evidence suggests quickly he was attacked. Witnesses saw this. There is a report of a Police Finding of Justifiable Homicide.

Next an accident death: pedestrian hit by a car while Jaywalking.
But if they found the Driver had a record of crime and was known to be a Mafia Hit-Man though never prosecuted due to lack of proof, and the victim pedestrian was found to be in a rival Mafia Family, well then the Police would focus on that Homicide as a Crime, Murder, and investigate it as a Crime. And if driver was Charged with Murder it would be entered as a Crime.

Last, Police are called because a solitary man has not been heard from in days and friends are worried. Upon entry to his home they find the man's body, in bed, he is old and has many illnesses.
There is no sign of another person having been inside. The autopsy shows a natural death.
This is not reported. It is not a Homicide.

It would be simpler if the Police had two categories: Justifiable Homicides and Crimes - all those Crimes that involve one person killing another.

The Medical People use Homicide appropriately. They have that as the one category: all deaths caused by agency of another or Self-Agency (suicide).

Since the Police focus on Crime, their number of Homicides will be less than the Medical Establishment's. But if you are interested in Crime, the FBI reports will more reflect that than the Medical People's.

 

[Art Eatman]

gvf, to nitpick about word usage: I've always thought that "murder" meant an unjustified killing. "Homicide" can be either unjustified or justified.

IOW, if you shoot somebody and it's deemed to be justified, it isn't murder. Yes, it's still a homicide, which to me is a more technically accurate term.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Art Eatman: gvf, to nitpick about word usage: I've always thought that "murder" meant an unjustified killing. "Homicide" can be either unjustified or justified.

See the following from Frank Ettin:


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5798880&postcount=6

Relevant excerpt:

"Homicide" is simply the killing of one person by another. So let's examine how the law looks at "homicide."

"Homicide" is not a crime. Homicide might be a crime, or it might not be a crime.

A homicide can be --

(1) Accidental;

(2) Negligent;

(3) The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;

(4) Intentional without malice (evil intent);

(5) Intentional with malice; and

(6) Intentional, premeditated and with malice.

An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.

A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.

Homicides (3) - (6) are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.

The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.

If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.

Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is also worth noting that the UCRs usually understate gun homicide due to the way they are collected and reported by agency. If an agency does not report timely, the FBI estimates based on past trends. If you are looking for a more reliable number on homicides, the CDC injury reporting system tends to have better numbers (but can't break out details like justifiable homicide by law enforcement or citizen).

 

[gvf]

Yeah you're right.

It's confusing with area police and what term they use for a Crime, seems from what people are saying they use "Homicide" for that also. A letter to the FBI might clear this up. Maybe sometime I'll write them.


ADDED: I would imagine area Police Reports of Crimes, meaning incidents that upon investigation were considered Crimes, are reported to the FBI after a Police Finding. Self-Defense and Insanity claims wait longer until Police and DA determine if the claim is valid. If so, they never make it to the Charge stage and the Finding of Justifiable Homicide By Reason of SD is given to FBI. For Insanity as a finding I don't know what term is used. I mean, what DA would Charge Murder before Police completed their investigation and had a Finding. The same with Insanity and a killing, the DA will wait to see if Forensic Psychiatry finds Insanity of the Legal Definition and then Charge a Crime or not.

In other words, I don't believe FBI stats are as complicated as we may make out. They are getting reports of Crimes by area police and an occasional SD Homicide or whatever Insanity is termed. Aside from a very small number of those that are not found to be either SD or not - or Insanity or not until a Trial, I don't know what it is reported to the FBI, it depends on when a report is made. But most Insanity and SD findings are as result of Police and, in Insanity, Court-mandated investigation and don't make it even to the Charge stage if the Investigation Finding is that either exists.

And for most Crime it will be obvious. A person reports he was robbed at gunpoint. Unless there's something weird about his story, it goes down as a Robbery.

A body lies in the bushes strangled with a rope still tied tightly around the throat: it's a Murder.

Witnesses report a woman they saw being beaten. She is bloody and has been hit by something Police see upon arrival. Doctors agree she has been hit. It's Assault. And so on...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Wouldn't it also be pertinent to note that those tables say the justifiable killing of a felon? What about the killing of a criminal who hasn't been convicted yet? You know, the first timers?

Woody

 

[gvf]

Wouldn't it also be pertinent to note that those tables say the justifiable killing of a felon? What about the killing of a criminal who hasn't been convicted yet? You know, the first timers?

Woody

I think they mean he's a Criminal because he's attacking you lethally, a Crime, not because of past history. Least that's my guess...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I suspect that "killing of a felon in commission of a felony" is part of the FBI instructions to police on when to use the UCR code for justifiable homicide in police reports on homicides. Vague descriptions can lead to vague police reports.

For what this example is worth: the Sanford PD incident report on the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman lists the offense as being investigated as "Homicide -- Negligent Manslaughter -- unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act" with UCR code 090C. I suspect a lot of adjudicated self defense killings are investigated initially as suspected manslaughter (as are a lot of adjudicated murders).

An anti-gun type could have a field day in comparing the murders (~13,000) to the justifiable homicides (~400)

Which would not impress me much.

Gun control is more likely to affect armed self-defense than it is to affect criminal homicide.

Murder in the United States - 2011:
12,664 Total, 8,583 Firearm related.
FBI UCR Table 15 Justifiable homicide, private citizen 2011:
310 Total, 258 Total firearms.

Table 15 relies on police homicide reports using a UCR code for justifiable homicide. It is a vast under-report because homicide is usually adjudicated much higher in the justice system than the police report level. Gary Kleck has estimated FBI UCR under-reporting of justifiable homicide by a factor of 4 to 7.

One thing about murder (criminal homicide) in the US pointed out by everyone from Marvin Wolfgang in the 1950s to Gary Kleck in the 1990s: most cases are not simply ordinary people killed just because there was a gun around to "cause" the killing.

Wolfgang's sample of all murders in Philadelphia over a four year period showed many followed a history of violence and in about a fourth of the murders the "victim" initiated violence in the encounter that led to his/her demise. "Material subsequently reported in the present study regarding the place where the homicide occurred, relationship between victim and offender, motives and other factors suggest that many situations, events and personalities that converge in particular ways and that result in homicide do not depend primarily on the presence or absence of firearms.... More than the availability of a shooting weapon is involved in [gun] homicide." (And Marvin Wolfgang opened an article once with the bald statement "I hate guns.")

More recently Baltimore reported that 91% of murder victims had criminal records. In cities like Boston, murderers and their victims frequently have something in common: prior arrest for drug violations. Most murderers and their victims are part of subcultures that routinely live and settle disputes outside the legal system.

Surveys of the general US population show most ordinary gun owners (about 60%) acquire guns from licensed dealers and a minority are non-dealer acquisitions (gifts, inheritance, private sales of used guns, swaps and trades).

Surveys of prison inmates conducted and published by US Department of Justice DOJ, National Institute of Justice NIJ and Bureau of Justice Statistics BJS spanning over the decades show a majority of acquisition of guns by criminals (fairly consistently around 85%) are from non-dealer sources, including from theft, burglary, illegal drug dealers, fences who deal in stolen goods, family and friends of inmates who are often part of criminal subcultures themselves. Over the years retail sources for inmate firearms were cited around 15% (frequently using a straw buyer with no criminal record).

More gun control (in addition to legal restrictions on legal manufacture, import, wholesale distribution and retail sales already imposed by the 1938 Federal Firearms Act that created the FFL, 1968 Gun Control Act that added the Form 4473 and 1993 Brady Law with waiting period replaced by instant check) is less likely to impact the illegal supply of guns to persons inclined to violence and more likely to impact the legal supply of guns to the lawabiding citizenry.

In fact, given the history of alcohol and marijauna prohibition, the result of drastic restrictions could be acceptance of the criminal market by otherwise lawabiding citizens, resulting in loss of any legal control.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think they mean he's a Criminal because he's attacking you lethally, a Crime, not because of past history. Least that's my guess...

A perp is not a felon unless and until he is convicted upon due process. What I take from these data is that they represent the number of felons who have been released from prison and then killed for one reason or another by a firearm. That is the way it is worded. Whether what I get from how it is worded is the intent of author of the "survey" or not is the fault of the author, not me. No one should have to guess the author's intent.

Woody

 

[NMPOPS]

One thing you need to remember when looking at stats. The FBI definition versus each state's. For example a Murder is by definition also a Homicide, However, a Homicide is not necessarily a Murder. A "Battery" is and Assault but an Assault is not necessarily a Battery.

 

[NMPOPS]

I my department we did update reports to reflect charges. That is part of the reason FBI stats run a year or more behind, to give departments time to show a conclusion. Most homicide investigations that are solved are solved within days.