Nope. But it's a case of me being too lazy to do the legwork. So this is me stealing someone's work.
Well I'm sorry to inform you that the person whose work you stole is either profoundly incompetent at understanding empirical research or has been lying to you. You've been duped.
"If they bothered to look at the issue as a whole instead of cherry picking "background checks" they'd find a very different story. DGU data shows a net positive when citizens are armed
before political implications. Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.
And according to the DGU data The Violence Policy center (which is extremely anti-gun fyi) gives the low range estimates at ~67,000 DGUs per year. Consider this the extreme low:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
As you are mostly randomly citing statistics without analyzing them your results (and therefore the conclusions that could be drawn from them) tend to be all over the place. I'll try to highlight how your own sources contradict your argument. In this link for example, it indicates that for every justifiable homicide involving a gun there were 36 criminal gun murders. This directly contradicts your point.
More importantly, the statistic you cite does not come from the Violence Policy Center, it comes from the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the Department of Justice and it's the same data used in the Uniform Crime Report. This should be considered excellent data of some of the highest quality available, not an 'extreme low'. As an FYI, the NCVS states that defensive firearm use is far less common than criminal firearm use, which is not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about gun ownership.
Neither of these reports contain the phrase defensive gun use or even the word defensive so you'll have to specify what you're referring to. A quick skim of the first link seems to have no references to defensive gun use at all. I suspect you did not actually read the things you are citing and just relied on the good faith of whoever duped you.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
That is a ludicrously false statement and it should be obvious if you took any time to think about it. According to the FBI there were about 2.7 million violent crimes and burglaries in the US in 2016. You want to claim to me that there were 3 million defensive gun uses during that period, meaning that defensive gun use exceeded the combined total of all violent crime and burglary? What kind of Mad Max world do you think we live in? Does that even remotely square with anything you know or have seen about how crime in America works? As an example of how crazy the estimates the 3 million number comes from, from the numbers in Kleck's survey firearm owners described shooting 200,000 people in defensive gun use situations. The only problem with that is only 100,000 people were admitted to hospitals with gunshot wounds in a given year.
Most interestingly, research on what people report as 'defensive gun use' indicates that what they are describing is often criminal activity in and of itself, so even the definition of 'defensive gun use' usually means 'someone committing a crime with a gun'.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ited_States_results_from_two_national_surveys
So how about guns killing? Statistics show only .0005% of gun owners commit a gun related crime. Best estimates put gun ownership at 37% in America, and that was in 2013, the number today is estimated to be closer to 45% but lets go with the smaller number to do the math conservatively.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers from as according to the GSS gun ownership is declining, not increasing.
So America has population of 318 million people. So the number of gun owners is 318,000,000 x .37 = 117,660,000 Source:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ So we have ~117,660,000 gun owners.
We do not have 117 million gun owners. We have potentially 117 million people who live in a household with a gun, which is a very different thing.
What is the latest FBI statistic on violent crime? FBI database shows ~11,000 fatal gun crimes a year. The study linked in the OP including suicides is
beyond BS. So 117,660,000 / 11,000= .0000934897 = 99.99065% But there is a problem with this number, it doesn't take into account illegal gun ownership and assumes the legal gun owners are the ones causing all the crime. This source shows 90% of homicides involved illegally bought or sold guns, or owners who where previously felons: Source:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html So for fun lets re-run the numbers to differentiate between criminals and non criminals. Since a felony record disbars you from legally owning a firearm, yet 90% of murders are committed by those with felony records, we know only 10% of murders are committed by legal gun owners. So we have ~11,000 murders, ten percent of which are committed by previously law abiding gun owners. So that is 1,100 murders. So we have 117,660,000 law abiding gun owners commenting 1,100 murders, which comes out to 99.999065% So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders. So as you can see, the stats clearly show that guns do not increase the likelihood of violent crime, or cause anyone to be less safe, quite the opposite as the DGU data shows.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of empirical evidence and how statistics work. It also is directly refuted by the body of empirical research on the topic.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
So using the high estimates for gun violence, and the low estimates for DGUs, DGUs outnumber use of a legally held weapon in a deadly violence by ~60 times.
Apples to oranges as you can't compare murders to defensive gun use. To make a valid comparison you would need to compare defensive gun use to ALL gun crimes. When you do that you will see that guns are used about six to seven times more often to commit crimes than they are used to prevent them, again using DOJ data on firearm crimes vs. defensive gun use.
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx
You are just wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. If you want an even more simple summary, the "moar guns moar death" BS is just hilariously wrong on the face of it. According to the Washington Post, civilian firearms ownership has increased from
~240 million (1996) to ~357 million (2013) (For reference to the figures below, it shows about 325 million guns in 2010). According to Pew Research, the firearms homicide death rate fell from
~6 per 100,000 persons (1996) to 3.6 per 100,000 (2010). So according to these figures, between 1996 and 2010, the number of civilian firearms increased by ~35%. And this is while firearms ownership as % of pop
stayed constant. Over the same time period, firearms homicide deaths decreased by ~40%.
This is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect where it's obvious you have no experience or understanding of inferential statistics and are just parroting what someone else wrote (which in all fairness, you admitted to doing). The number of guns owned is irrelevant, as if a person owns one gun or 100 likely means little as it relates to their likelihood of of committing a crime. It's ironic as you are wrong in every way it's possible to be wrong but have somehow convinced yourself otherwise.
As to your data on gun ownership it's not possible to know where it's sourced from. Instead, let's look at the GSS data, which is once again generally the standard used. From this you will see that firearm ownership has declined significantly from the time of our peak murder rates, which would indicate the exact opposite of what you're saying.
If you want to focus on ccw specifically,
fine that shows the
same thing. Rather do murder per 100,000 globally?
Sure thing. And that is where you get your GINI connect fyi. The correlation is a lot stronger than gun ownership. This has been
looked at and somehow keeps getting forgotten. You don't pick up a gun to hurt someone because it is your first choice, you generally do it because it is your last. Inequality, desperation, the effects of capitalism in the third world and increasingly the first, drastically increase this.
Bonus: Schools are safer than ever
if you bothered to check the facts."
Whether or not other factors are also predictive of firearm homicide is irrelevant as to whether or not gun control is a good idea. That's like saying because diet and exercise are good ways to keep someone from dying of cancer we shouldn't bother with chemotherapy.
Regardless, as I mentioned above basically everything you (or your source) is doing here are descriptive statistics, which are incredibly crude tools for understanding anything. In previous threads I and others have linked large volumes of empirical research that shows increased gun ownership is related to increased violence and increased risk to the owner of being the victim of homicide and suicide. If you're genuinely interested in learning about this I'm more than happy to link you additional research on the topic because it's clear at this point you have no idea what you're talking about and have been badly misled by someone who likely has an agenda.
As a primer here's a number of studies that you can look at which all utilize actual statistical analysis and directly refute your claims:
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf
Examining violent crime, homicide, rape, robbery, and assault for 1,997 counties in the United States, the findings indicate that increased prevalence of firearms was associated with increased violent crime, homicide, rape, robbery, and assault.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105/
We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates. The incidence rate ratio for nonstranger firearm homicide rate associated with gun ownership was 1.014 (95% confidence interval = 1.009, 1.019).
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703
Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.
http://annals.org/aim/article/18144...timization-among-household-members-systematic
Conclusion:
Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.