The Odds of Being Murdered

[expvideo]

You have to look at the PDF on the website

What PDF? Are you talking about the "Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report"? Because that doesn't give any numbers, only percentages. And surprise surprise, you are again assuming something. Murder does not = homicide. Taking the homicide numbers from 2006 and applying the percentage increase in murder from 2007, and then calling it all murder, is absolutely incorrect. You have nothing. Get me a real source or stop claiming that things you make up and assume are facts.

You've missed my question again. Where did you get that 50% of murder is committed by a stranger?

 

[triggerman7.62]

You can make anything into a statistic if you try hard enough. It is true that the amount of roads being paved goes up then when the amount of ice cream sold goes up… think about it they don’t really pave a whole lot in the winter and people buy more ice cream when its hot out... so when it gets warmer out more road are paved and the sale of ice cream goes back up…

 

[Hoppy590]

i dont care if the odds are
1:100
or
1:1,00,000,000

being that 1 sucks. no one should have to be defenseless

 

[expvideo]

In 2003, there were 1,817 females murdered by males in single victim/single
offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide
Report.11 These key findings from the report, expanded upon in the following sections,
dispel many of the myths regarding the nature of lethal violence against women:
o For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship could be
identified, 92 percent of female victims (1,547 out of 1,689) were
murdered by someone they knew.

92 percent of women murdered by men does not = 50% of all murder.

 

[Titan6]

I don't know if you are reading impaired internet imparied or just being belligerent (although based upon previous posts I am going for the later).

From your quote:

92 percent of female victims (1,547 out of 1,689) were
murdered by someone they knew.

Restated by you to:

92 percent of women murdered by men does not = 50% of all murder.

These are not even the same thing and you posted one on top of the other. But I will concede that these are homicides and not murders.

 

[expvideo]

These are not even the same thing and you posted one on top of the other.

You are right, I typed it in too much of a hurry. what I meant to say was this:

92 percent of women murdered by someone they know does not = 50% of all murder.

Now that you've had your fun picking apart my post, why don't you start backing up your 50% claim.

 

[Titan6]

Here you go big guy. Run it any way you want.

http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/vic_selection.asp

 

[waterhouse]

Last year there were about 16,000 gun murders in the US. Half of those were committed by strangers. So figure about 8000 people were murdered by strangers in a country of 300,000,000. Playing with statistics this gives you about 1 in 42,000 chance of being murdered with a gun by a stranger.

Is your point that I don't need to carry a firearm because the odds are so small that anything will happen, or are you just having fun with numbers?

 

[Librarian]

Ignoring 2008 for the moment, UCR Expanded Homicide Data Table 9 says for 2007 there were
14,831 total murder victims
of which
1,924 were killed by a stranger and
6,848 were killed by someone, relationship unknown.

I don't think 50% by strangers can be supported.

OTOH, ordinarily family and acquaintances are initially 'good suspects' and often are investigated; if the investigation is thorough, and those initial suspects are not confirmed, 'stranger' is what's left, mixed with 'we are sure X did it, but cannot prove it', in unknown proportion.

As to the distinction between 'homicide' and 'murder', it's certainly significant in a legal sense, but not particularly important in a statistical sense.

FBI says

Law enforcement reported 645 justifiable homicides in 2007. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 391 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 254 individuals.

645 is just over 4% of the murders+justifiable homicides. Similarly,

Law enforcement reported 617 justifiable homicides in 2006. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 376 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 241 individuals.

17,034 murders reported, so 617 was about 3.5% of total homicides.

Odds of being murdered, of course are strongly related to race, gender and age. In 2005, black males 20-24 years old were victims of homicide at 111.55 / 100,000, 25-29 years - 100.55 / 100,000.

Frankly, that's terrifying.

ETA -- and 2005 was a good year - for the same two groups, the rates per 100,000 were 1989: 134 and 131; 1990: 141 and 136; 1991: 154 and 133; 1992: 147 and 122; 1993: 163 and 124.

 

[elkhuntingfool]

Found this on the web:

http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm

 

[Titan6]

Is your point that I don't need to carry a firearm because the odds are so small that anything will happen, or are you just having fun with numbers?

Mostly having fun with numbers.

But also I see a lot of threads on gun boards about "What type of bazooka do I need for Home Defense" when depending upon your neighborhood there is little to no threat. What I don't see enough of IMO are realistic threat assessments and proper remediation measures for those threats.

If we look at post #2 about fire extinguishers that was the road I had hoped we were headed down until expvideo wanted to have a largely irrelevant conversation about the numbers. Even assuming he is right and gun related murders are lower (I will go with whatever numbers he wants to go down to) that just brings much more credence to my argument that the threat to you from a home intruder is even lower than I initially posted.

Your "need" to carry a firearm is really unimportant to me. Your right to carry one is super important to me.

 

[waterhouse]

when depending upon your neighborhood there is little to no threat.

I agree with you that in many neighborhoods there is little to no threat, and I also agree with the fire extinguisher analogy.

As for the general numbers, I'd take out the restraints of "gun" and "stranger". If someone is trying to murder me, I'm not concerned with what they are using or how well they may know me.

In fact, I'd take the issue of murder out of it entirely. If someone breaks into my house and I am home, even if they don't end up murdering me so that I can become a statistic, I'd rather have a gun, so as to up the odds that I not become that statistic.

I'd rather see data that says "the chance of someone breaking into your home is 1 in 42,000." Unfortunately I don't think the odds are that great.

I just checked a couple websites. It appears that in 2006 there were about 109 million households in the US, and there were about 2.18 million burglaries. Also during 2006 firefighters responded to about 412,000 house fires in the US. The odds of an unwanted person being in someone's home is apparently about 4 times greater than your house catching fire, so you might need your gun more than a fire extinguisher.

 

[MIgunguy]

How long before this thread gets locked? The "suicides at the gun range" thread is already locked, this one won't be around much longer.

 

[545days]

This argument seems to track the old anti argument "A family member is more likely to be shot with a gun in the house than a stranger."

My reply is to ask if they have ever watched the TV series "Cops". If your family behaves like those depicted in domestic disturbances on Cops, then you are right, you don't need a gun in the house.

If your family is not involved in drugs or drunken brawls, and no one in the family is seriously mentally ill, the odds are considerably more in your favor.

That said, I once caught a burglar at gun point. low probability events do occasionally happen.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=382755

 

[Deanimator]

There is NOTHING I can do to prevent myself from being killed by an asteroid.

There's a LOT I can do to prevent myself from being killed by the next Alton Coleman.

Regardless of whether my odds of being attacked are .001% or 72%, why would I want to push the odds that the attack will be SUCCESSFUL towards 100%?

If I don't have a firearm, the odds against me being able to defend myself with one are 100%. Given that statistically, the safest response to violent crime is to defend yourself with a gun, why would I NOT want to?

 

[Mike J]

Just wanted to say- We do have fire extinguishers & smoke alarms in the house. Along with Handguns & shotguns for self defense. I am sure there is some contingency we are not prepared for but all you can do is try. As far as the numbers-that really means nothing to me what does matter is my familys safety & well being.
I don't really consider myself one of the SHTF crowd but if something bad happened & I didn't act. If I hadn't made any effort to prepare myself & something happened to my wife or children I believe it would eat me up pretty bad.

 

[Mello]

You are much more likely to die from a medical mistake that being murdered by a firearm.

"An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company."

I guess that makes doctors and hospitals dangerous.

 

[regal]

The issue is that there are pockets of high crime areas where the murder odds are much higher. The odds of being eaten by a great white shark are miniscule unless you are diving the great barrier reef during seal breeding season.

You can't always avoid the bad crime areas.

 

[misternothingman]

According to a news program I recently watched.........

Since 4 of the last 8 Illinois governors (Rod included) have done something that will land them in prison, and only 47% of murders result in conviction of a murderer, you are more likely to go to prison if you're elected governor of Illinois than if you murder someone.

This came to mind when all of the "relationship unknown" and "50% of murders are by strangers" talk came about. If that 47% stat is true, then there is no way to know who did what, and when, or whether they knew the person.

The first thing everyone needs to know about statistics is that they can be bent to say anything.

"Over 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot"

 

[subknave]

Mark Twain is supposed to have said "There are lies, damn lies, and then theirs statistics."

The odds of you encountering a dangerous criminal are entirely dependent on where you are. If you really want to know for your area go to one of the several websites that break it down by city. Some cities and areas are much more dangerous than others and areas with gang violence are generally bad for gun violence. (hence all the "children" between 15 and 25 being victims of gun violence) One should note however that the antis generally use either numbers or statistics depending on which is more impresive. For example (caution made up numbers) saying 20,000 women were killed by guns sounds mor impressive than less than 1% of women were victims of gun violence but if say 100 gangbangers died and 74 were shot by other gang mambers then it would be spouted as 74% of children died by gunfire or some such manipulation.
Statistics are very slippery things and easy to manipulate.

 

[gbran]

It would be nice to figure in risky places and risky activities. I don't go to the bad part of town at night ( and rarely in daylight either). I avoid crowded places too.

 

[Deanimator]

The odds of you encountering a dangerous criminal are entirely dependent on where you are.

Of course there's no "invisible fence" for dangerous criminals. They go where they think they have safe working conditions, Chicago and New York City for instance.

It would be nice to figure in risky places and risky activities. I don't go to the bad part of town at night ( and rarely in daylight either). I avoid crowded places too.

I wouldn't consider the Lane Bryant clothing store in Tinley Park, Illinois to be especially risky. I've been in the neighborhood on several occasions. That didn't stop six women from being shot in the head execution style there. Most of us wouldn't consider clothes shopping in a suburban strip mall to be especially "risky" either... but five of those six women are still dead.

As far as crowded places go, that's a good place go to avoid being robbed for the most part. On the other hand, depending upon the circumstances, it might be a good place to get shot. Seems like lately, any large public gathering in Chicago has at least one gang related shooting. One wonders HOW, given the city ban on handguns and the statewide ban on concealed carry. Perhaps it's Chicago cops or aldermen shooting each other at Taste of Chicago? After all, they're the only ones in Chicago authorized to carry...

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Last year there were about 16,000 gun murders in the US. Half of those were committed by strangers. So figure about 8000 people were murdered by strangers in a country of 300,000,000. Playing with statistics this gives you about 1 in 42,000 chance of being murdered with a gun by a stranger.

Carolyn Shoemaker has put the odds of the asteroid Aprohis (about the size of the Superdome) smashing into the Earth at about 1 in 45,000. This would be bad of course. How bad no one knows for sure.

Since many of the people that were murdered in the US were killed outside of their homes (could not find hard numbers on this) the chance of an intruder breaking into your home and killing you is likely significantly less than the odds of the Earth being struck by a large asteroid in the next 40 years.

The odds of starving to death are very low.

That does not mean I plan to stop eating.

 

[Bill of Ojai]

Of curse I have a fire extinguisher. You've never seen my wife cook.

 

[Cuda]

Chances are you won't get killed if you have a weapon and know how to use it.


C