7,000 Gun purchases slip through the system

[michaeledward]

This issue, along with abortion, probably ranks as one of the most polarizing political topics of the age. It is so emotionally charged that people on both sides start connecting to irrelevancies in an effort to make their arguments appear to stick. At times, they steer to related issues that simply need to be addressed in a separate debate. I'm guilty of all this too. And you can take my cookie when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers, I might add.

Thanks for noticing.

To a certain extent, I am feeling demonized because I broach the subject. I have not called for any new restrictions on firearms (caveat ... that I recall), but it seems that even mentioning gun laws gets the pro-gun people in a twist.

We have come full circle .... the 2nd post said that the error rate is "1/2 of 1%" ... and the 75th post said it is a "1% margin of error". What Error Rate is acceptable? I agree, it is a ridiculously small percentage of transactions that we (or at least I am) are discussing. But where is a 1% error rate acceptable? Votes? Bank Balances? (Oh damn ... thread drift).

One way we could improve the system, is a centralized database of information ... either criminal, or weapon. But, storing that information goes against the principles of the NRA crew .... I'm not sure where I stand on a centralized DB of weapons.

Thanks to all for contributing ... I will try to stay away from gun toting stem cells. - Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

Thanks for noticing.

To a certain extent, I am feeling demonized because I broach the subject. I have not called for any new restrictions on firearms (caveat ... that I recall), but it seems that even mentioning gun laws gets the pro-gun people in a twist.

We have come full circle .... the 2nd post said that the error rate is "1/2 of 1%" ... and the 75th post said it is a "1% margin of error". What Error Rate is acceptable? I agree, it is a ridiculously small percentage of transactions that we (or at least I am) are discussing. But where is a 1% error rate acceptable? Votes? Bank Balances? (Oh damn ... thread drift).

One way we could improve the system, is a centralized database of information ... either criminal, or weapon. But, storing that information goes against the principles of the NRA crew .... I'm not sure where I stand on a centralized DB of weapons.

Thanks to all for contributing ... I will try to stay away from gun toting stem cells. - Mike

I would not be against a centralized criminal database... hell... I think its a damn fine idea. Im not even so concerned about having my weapons confiscated, I can always make, or illegaly purchase more, should I need them.

Think about that... I dont know about you guys, but I am seriously less worried about the less than 1% of people who accidentaly purchase legal weapons, than what could be the massive amount of criminaly availible weapons on the street, or even the "homebuilt" saturday night specials.

Does anyone have the stats on how many gun crimes are commited with legaly purchased weapons as opposed to illegaly purchased ones? There's a number I would be interested in worrying about.

For that matter... keep this is mind... You can purchase EVERYTHING you need to make a car bomb at TOYS R US.

Now doesnt that just scare you?

 

[Mark Weiser]

LOL or how about all you coffee drinkers on the boards.

Make a Bomb with Coffee is possible it has to be frezze dried of course with a few more common kitchen supplies and there ya go.

Or home-made Napam or IED's the list goes on and on.

 

[Seig]

Thanks for noticing.

To a certain extent, I am feeling demonized because I broach the subject. I have not called for any new restrictions on firearms (caveat ... that I recall), but it seems that even mentioning gun laws gets the pro-gun people in a twist.

We have come full circle .... the 2nd post said that the error rate is "1/2 of 1%" ... and the 75th post said it is a "1% margin of error". What Error Rate is acceptable? I agree, it is a ridiculously small percentage of transactions that we (or at least I am) are discussing. But where is a 1% error rate acceptable? Votes? Bank Balances? (Oh damn ... thread drift).

One way we could improve the system, is a centralized database of information ... either criminal, or weapon. But, storing that information goes against the principles of the NRA crew .... I'm not sure where I stand on a centralized DB of weapons.

Thanks to all for contributing ... I will try to stay away from gun toting stem cells. - Mike

Mike,
I am not in the NRA crew, I am pro gun, big difference. Before I make my point of this post, I am anti-Kennedy for the simple reason that as someone that should have no moral high ground, he is a leader in the anti-gun movement. He was also a leader in the anti-martial arts movement. 'Nuff said about him. There is nothing wrong with a centralized database, and I actually think the idea has merit, to a point. Instead of a database of everyone that owns a gun, how about a database of who is NOT allowed to own one. The issue that then arises is people that use false identities or false pretenses. Unfortunately, there will always be weapons in the wrong hands. The problem then becomes making sure that there are also weapons in the right hands. One other point I'd like to make and this is mainly to Feisty Mouse, do not believe for one second that the police have a responsibility to protect you, they do not. I am currently looking for the Supreme Court case where that decision was made so you can see that I did not make it up. The ONLY person that has a responsibility to protect you, is you.

 

[KenpoTex]

Well, no, I'd have to disagree to an extent. Living in a society where there is division of labor, hierarchies, and so on, our law enforcement officers are also obligated - for which I am truly thankful.

Sorry, wrong answer.

One other point I'd like to make and this is mainly to Feisty Mouse, do not believe for one second that the police have a responsibility to protect you, they do not. I am currently looking for the Supreme Court case where that decision was made so you can see that I did not make it up.

There are several but the most disturbing is probably Warren v. District of Columbia. Here's another good one to look up: Hartzler v. City of San Jose and a link to a site with a list of about 20 others. Like Seig said: "The ONLY person that has a responsibility to protect you, is you."

We have come full circle .... the 2nd post said that the error rate is "1/2 of 1%" ... and the 75th post said it is a "1% margin of error". What Error Rate is acceptable? I agree, it is a ridiculously small percentage of transactions that we (or at least I am) are discussing. But where is a 1% error rate acceptable? Votes? Bank Balances? (Oh damn ... thread drift).
One way we could improve the system, is a centralized database of information ... either criminal, or weapon. But, storing that information goes against the principles of the NRA crew

What margin of error is acceptable? I couldnt' tell you. I admit that it stinks that the system isn't perfect, but here again is the core of the issue: do you penalize the 90+ million law-abiding gun owners in this country because of the few dirtbags that slip through the system? Do we make alcohol illegal because some people cannot control their behavior when they drink? Oh wait, we tried that once...it didn't work. Since we're talking about numbers again, a justice department study (I'll post it later if I can find it) estimates that guns are used to PREVENT a crime about 2 million times per year. In other words, guns are used to protect far more often than they are used to harm.

 

[Seig]

Here is another link illistrating the fact that police are under no obligation to protect you, complete with cases.

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

 

[michaeledward]

Since we're talking about numbers again, a justice department study (I'll post it later if I can find it) estimates that guns are used to PREVENT a crime about 2 million times per year. In other words, guns are used to protect far more often than they are used to harm.

Please do.

 

[KenpoTex]

Since we're talking about numbers again, a justice department study (I'll post it later if I can find it) estimates that guns are used to PREVENT a crime about 2 million times per year. In other words, guns are used to protect far more often than they are used to harm.

Please do.

Here is a link to the National Institute of Justice (the research "wing" of the Justice Departmen) funded study that I mentioned. They estimate the average number of defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year to be about 1.5 million. It is worth mentioning that from reading this study, it is obvious that the researchers are not pro-gun; despite this attitude they still report a number of DGU's that is by their own admission greater than the number of incidents in which a gun was used during a crime (1.07 million times in '94, the year of the study).

This link is for a table that shows several different studies that estimate defensive gun uses anywhere from 800,000 to almost 4 million.

This link is to a site where Dr. Gary Kleck a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University discusses the discrepancies between some of the studies, particularly between the one conducted by the National Institute of Justice and his own independent study which placed DGU's at about 2.5 million. I think it is interesting to note that when Dr. Kleck began his research into the gun-control issue he was, like many (if not most) academics, very anti-gun. Here is a link to a page where he discusses some of his research and his transition from anti-gun to, if not pro-gun, at least a gun-control skeptic.

 

[michaeledward]

Here is a link to the National Institute of Justice (the research "wing" of the Justice Departmen) funded study that I mentioned. They estimate the average number of defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year to be about 1.5 million. It is worth mentioning that from reading this study, it is obvious that the researchers are not pro-gun; despite this attitude they still report a number of DGU's that is by their own admission greater than the number of incidents in which a gun was used during a crime (1.07 million times in '94, the year of the study).

Thank you. I am currently reading the first report. Why do you feel that this first report was comprised of researchers who "are not pro-gun"? It seems to me that they are presenting the results of research, without a stance.

Here are a few interesting quote from the report.

o Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.

Of course, some people seek the protection of a gun because they may be disproportionately likely to lead risky lives or associate with violent people.[6] Those who had been arrested for nontraffic offenses were more likely to own firearms (37 percent compared to 25 percent in the general population).

Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.

an estimated 3 million adults who were not in law enforcement or security carried firearms for protection on the job in 1994.

Here's and interesting quote

On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.

The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly--or perhaps both--but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.

I must go to work now. Thanks.

Mike

 

[OULobo]

Mike,
One other point I'd like to make and this is mainly to Feisty Mouse, do not believe for one second that the police have a responsibility to protect you, they do not. I am currently looking for the Supreme Court case where that decision was made so you can see that I did not make it up. The ONLY person that has a responsibility to protect you, is you.

For those interested in this issue, check this thread.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13847&highlight=Warren

 

[KenpoTex]

Thank you. I am currently reading the first report. Why do you feel that this first report was comprised of researchers who "are not pro-gun"? It seems to me that they are presenting the results of research, without a stance.

My impression came from the fact that from the language they used it seemed as if they were unwilling to accept the results of their own survey which they then attempted to exuse. It may have been a little strong when I said "it is obvious that the researchers are not pro-gun" but that was the immpression I got from reading this report.

In responce to some of the excerpts you quoted:

Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.

I was unable to find anything from 1994 but according to the [National Vital Statistics Report of 2002, there were 776 deaths due to the accidental discharge of a firearm 86 of which involved children 14 and under. I realize that there is an 8 year difference between the two records but the fact that the 2002 figures put the death rate of children under 14 at less than 1/2 of the figure given in the study is interesting. This is the link for the tables which also show total cause of death figures.

On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.

One thing to consider is that this survey is conducted by the FBI in order to compliment the Uniform Crime Reports and to get an idea of the number of unreported crimes in the U.S. A possible reason for the low number with this survey is the fact that many people would be reluctant to voluneer information regarding an incident in which they were involved but didn't report. For example, if a person is carrying a weapon of any type for protection but he/she is doing so illegally, they are not going to want it to become known and in most cases, they are not going to report a violent encounter if they can avoid doing so.

I would be inclined to believe that the number of defensive gun uses are very high in number. For one thing, if you look at the surveys I linked to in my last post several of them give an estimate of 1-3 million (the lowest estimating 764,036 which is over seven times the number in the NCVS study). One point the authors of this study made is that there will never be a way to devise a study that will be totally devoid of personal bias on the part of the respondents. However I feel that in light of the many studies that do show a huge number of DGU's there is quite a strong argument in favor of the pro-gun crowd.

 

[michaeledward]

If we review the numbers concerning defensive gun uses, certainly the real number lies between the extremes;

The number 108,000 comes from people who actually had a police report filed as a victim of crime. I can easily accept the idea that this is the lowest possible number of Defensive Gun Uses for the year. But this is a number that is not subject to any 'bias' by the survey respondents.

So, how then do we explain the difference between the 108,000 documented Defensive Gun Uses with even the lowest number from the other reports: 764,000. How do we account for 650,000 undocumented, but surveyed Defensive Gun Uses?

The authoris detail some of the discrepencies with the surveyed responses; more Defensive Gun Uses against rape than reported rapes, use of Defensive Gun Uses outnumber Gun Use In Violent Crime, Defensive Gun Uses in 36% of all robberies. How do we logically explain these items which do not make sense.

The authors list a variety of reason why the 'false positives' might exist, as well as demonstrate how 'false positives' are going to far outweigh any 'false negatives'.

Lastly, the authors ask the question, when it comes to Defensive Gun Uses, what does that actually mean for society? Is a higher number of Defensive Gun Uses a public benefit? I think the following sentence from the Conclusion says alot:

Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly--or perhaps both--but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.

So, anyhow, I can buy the number of times a gun is used defensively is higher than the documented 108,000 ... but I can't imagine that the number is as high as reported in the self-selecting survey of gun owners, for all the reasons the authors mention.

Thanks - Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

I think that its possible as well, that the definition of defensive gun use varys from survey to survey... without controll data we wouldnt know for sure.

In Survey A, for example, Defensive gun use may mean "Where a Firearm was discharged"

In survey B, It might mean "Where a Firearm was brandished"

in Survey C, it might mean "Were someone threatened use of a firearm to protect themselves"

Dunno... just thinking

 

[michaeledward]

The definition of 'Defensive Gun Use' in the survey in that report is is self-selecting. The respondents get to say 'Yes' I used my weapon defensively. In somecases, the weapon was never even displayed; or the 'attacker' never threatened the person who claimed the Defensive Gun Use.

This is one reason why the authors are sceptical of the total number of Defensive Gun Uses claimed.

It is an interesting report to read. - Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

The definition of 'Defensive Gun Use' in the survey in that report is is self-selecting. The respondents get to say 'Yes' I used my weapon defensively. In somecases, the weapon was never even displayed; or the 'attacker' never threatened the person who claimed the Defensive Gun Use.

This is one reason why the authors are sceptical of the total number of Defensive Gun Uses claimed.

It is an interesting report to read. - Mike

Oh, I agree with you... I was thinking in general terms, not just that specific survey.