Seperate Criminals from Law-Abiding Citizens

[Crazy Joe Davola]

All statistical and empirical evidence thus far has shown that gun control is not an effective deterrent against crime. But overall trends aren't enough; I want to find a way to show the dichotomy between the law-abiding citizens who illegally use firearms and the criminals who illegally use firearms. In America there are about 11,000 homicides each year in which a firearm is used, but what percentage of this number is made up by people who were qualified and legal owners of registered firearms? My hypothesis is that the vast majority of homicides in which a firearm is used are not done by legal gun owners, rather they are committed by criminals--people who do not legally own/register the firearm used.

The answer to this hypothesis could be very relevant to the gun control argument, as it could provide the hard facts necessary to disprove the antis. Like I said before, I believe that the overwhelming number of these homicides are being committed by people who are in illegal possession of the firearm because they own the firearm for the purpose of committing crimes, not for protecting themselves like a lawful citizen would. If this is proved true than what we need is to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, and make it harder for criminals to illegally own/operate a firearm. And by criminal I don't mean the guy that's got a "drunk and disorderly" on his record. I mean the people who have a documented history of illegal/violent behavior--the twice-convicted drug dealer back out on parole, the guy charged with beating his neighbors head in over a noise complaint. These are the people who shouldn't have guns and whose illegal use of guns make all gun owners look bad. Long story short, here are my two questions on the subject:

1) How could one go about gathering the data to prove this hypothesis?
2) If the data proves the hypothesis correct, what can be done to get guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in the hands of law-abiding citizens?

***Edit: just to explain what I mean about unqualified people illegally owning the guns, look at the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. In the former those kids broke every gun control law in their obtainment of those firearms, and in the latter the shooter was unqualified because of his poor mental health record that didn't show up on the background check. The goal would be to prevent these types of people from obtaining firearms, but keep them in the hands of those who obtain and operate their firearms lawfully (hunting, target shooting, and most importantly, self defense).

 

[terraformer]

Which is to say, there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime either way.

 

[packingungal]

I have not seen any viable way to prevent people from getting firearms - for example down here anyone get have a firearm, don't need a license, don't need to register in many cases - firearms are everywhere. If laws are tighter, then it becomes too much control which doesn't work anyway.

People can elect to "protect" themselves as they always have, and many don't buy into that philosophy. We can never know who is gonna pick up some "firearm" and use it to kill or harm others.

Stats have their place, but we already know that they are skewed depending on the desired outcome - there are too many variables. Whenever someone posts some stat showing how bad guns are, we can all think of some variable that has been left out.

Education and awareness is where it is. There will always be those who choose to do "bad things, and that is why we have the legal system.

 

[RKG]

A worthy undertaking. Somehow I suspect the data you're looking for is already collected somewhere -- as I seem to recall having heard quoted statistics from time to time on the percentage of firearms-involved crimes that involve lawfully owned firearms (and the figure was always low.

However, I suggest to you that for purposes of supporting the hypothesis you'd like to test, you have to divide people into three classes, not two:

People who commit firearms-involved crimes and have a prior criminal history that includes assaultive-type crimes (whether firearms-involved or not);

People who commit their first assaultive-type crime with a firearm but do not have a prior criminal history; and

The rest of us.

Columbine-type events (i.e., "active shooter" situations by first-timers) are different from assaults by repeat offenders, for a whole bunch of reasons. One reason is that you can make a direct relationship argument between repeat offenders and the efficacy of the criminal justice system as either a deterrent or a prohibitive. This argument, a favorite of gun-owners and plainly correct, has no application to first-timers. Second reason is that, given firearms-licensing laws, anyone who is licensed has to have a clean record to be licensed, and anyone who is a repeat offender by definition does not have a clean record, and as a result, there is something of an auto-correlation between being licensed and not being a repeat offender. Any statistical argument one proffers has to recognize and correct for auto correlations.

While "active shooter" situations tend to be highlighted by the news media (after all, they make great TV), they really aren't the big social problem, for at least two reasons. The first is that they are statistically rare. The second is that there is almost certainly no way to prevent them using socially-acceptable prophylaxis. That second point, which if you accept it leads directly to the conclusion that the only way to address "active shooter" situations is by an effective post-event-commencement response plan (as opposed to a pre-event-commencement "program" of some sort), is a hard sell to the politicians and public officials (who don't like accepting the notion that there is a problem they cannot solve) and the public in general (which demands quick "answers" to all of the world's ills).

The fact of the matter is that the typically "active shooter" response plan is deeply flawed, and there are fixes that, if implemented, would mitigate (but not prevent) such events. This subject, however, is a discussion for a different day and a non-public forum, though I can tell you that there efforts underway to improve our understanding and response to "active shooter" situations.

 

[Joe R.]

A worthy goal you are trying to do but I think that between Lott and others, this information is already out there. You might be able to convince a fence-sitter that gun control laws don't work ( which they don't, unless you are trying to control a population.) The problem you have will be the die-hard fanatic anti - they won't care what information you come up with because they don't want the guns period. Heck, some of that group doesn't even want the LEO to carry one either!

What I would like to see is a discussion done on TV with equal amount of pro's and anti's in the audience and a panel. It would be interesting to see what would come out of the banter back and forth on the topic. If nothing else, it might convince people just how polarizing this topic is and to turn off the rhetoric to get to a good solution that both sides can agree on.

Joe R.

 

[wahsben]

I am reading a book now by Howard Nemerov called 400 Years of Gun Control why isn't it working? You will find alot of good information in it.

 

[cb1]

When I was in school I took a few public policy courses. During my freshman year (2002) I was thrown out of a 230+ student lecture for arguing with the professor over gun control stats. She kept showing slides with all these graphs about the number of people killed by handguns in the US for a particular year, etc. She was making the argument we've all heard and which goes something like this: "look at all the people killed by handguns in this country. Clearly they're evil and should be outlawed" blah blah blah.

It turned out that less than 1% of all the handgun related deaths that year (according to this particular study) involved someone with a CCW license. Further, most of that 1% were cleared as "justifiable homicide".

She chose to throw me out of the lecture instead of acknowledging the fact that more gun control would have had almost no impact on the problem whatsoever.

 

[KMaurer]

I recall several studies published in a peer-reviewed journal that looked at the victim and offender characteristics in homicide cases where the offender was identified. Contrary to common depictions, the large majority of both victims and killers had lengthy police records, including multiple convictions and felony arrests. I can't put my finger on it right now (but I'll keep looking). Since felony convictions, as well as a many misdemeanor convictions, would prevent one from being a "legal gun owner", this would strongly support your hypothesis.

Ken

 

[strangenh]

http://volokh.com/2002_08_11_volokh_archive.html#85346398
...discussing DoJ BJS report "Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998": http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdluc98.pdf

 

[Negotiator]

When I was in school I took a few public policy courses. During my freshman year (2002) I was thrown out of a 230+ student lecture for arguing with the professor over gun control stats. She kept showing slides with all these graphs about the number of people killed by handguns in the US for a particular year, etc. She was making the argument we've all heard and which goes something like this: "look at all the people killed by handguns in this country. Clearly they're evil and should be outlawed" blah blah blah.

It turned out that less than 1% of all the handgun related deaths that year (according to this particular study) involved someone with a CCW license. Further, most of that 1% were cleared as "justifiable homicide".

She chose to throw me out of the lecture instead of acknowledging the fact that more gun control would have had almost no impact on the problem whatsoever.

Mark Twain once stated "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

Trouble with stats can be many fold. Our own desire to "prove" a hypothesis ( Hypothesis testing bias) or "disprove" one that is not in alignment with our own belief ( Confirmation bias) can lead even the smartest people to make inaccurate arguments, based on "data". Worse still is the way in which data can be manipulated - quite legitimately - to show one scenario when the data is aggregated and yet another when disaggregated ( Simpson's Paradox)


Remember:

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof"

John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[Garys]

I recall several studies published in a peer-reviewed journal that looked at the victim and offender characteristics in homicide cases where the offender was identified. Contrary to common depictions, the large majority of both victims and killers had lengthy police records, including multiple convictions and felony arrests. I can't put my finger on it right now (but I'll keep looking). Since felony convictions, as well as a many misdemeanor convictions, would prevent one from being a "legal gun owner", this would strongly support your hypothesis.

Ken

I'll give you my anecdotal account. In 30 years in EMS, I've seen exactly three completely innocent victims of gunshots. That's out of the 200 or so I've seen in that time. OK, four if you count the guy that committed suicide. Which interestingly, is the only suicide by gun I've seen in that time. I've seen several by hanging or other means, but one guy who shot himself.

Most of the GSW victims were criminals by occupation, even if they weren't committing a criminal act when they were shot.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

When I was in school I took a few public policy courses. During my freshman year (2002) I was thrown out of a 230+ student lecture for arguing with the professor over gun control stats. She kept showing slides with all these graphs about the number of people killed by handguns in the US for a particular year, etc. She was making the argument we've all heard and which goes something like this: "look at all the people killed by handguns in this country. Clearly they're evil and should be outlawed" blah blah blah.

It turned out that less than 1% of all the handgun related deaths that year (according to this particular study) involved someone with a CCW license. Further, most of that 1% were cleared as "justifiable homicide".

She chose to throw me out of the lecture instead of acknowledging the fact that more gun control would have had almost no impact on the problem whatsoever.

and you didnt raise absolute hell with the school about it? I would have made that professor curse the day she even thought about teaching in a college setting. BUt then again, I *AM* an a-hole so that wouldnt be uncommon for me.

 

[mikem317]

Which is to say, there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime either way.

Actually, there is a correlation between private gun ownership and crime rates. Check out John Lott's More Guns Less Crime.

Basically, the proliferation of private gun ownership is negatively correlated to violent crime rates, and remains flat against most property crime categories.

 

[cb1]

and you didnt raise absolute hell with the school about it? I would have made that professor curse the day she even thought about teaching in a college setting. BUt then again, I *AM* an a-hole so that wouldnt be uncommon for me.

Complaining to a university about a professor's obviously liberal bias would have been pointless. I instead chose to refute every argument she made, no matter how ridiculous a position I had to take, in a way that forced her to give me an A in her course. Watching her grit her teeth every time I handed in an essay was far more enjoyable than anything the administration could have done.

 

[Roadblock]

Crazy Joe- I really like your idea. I also think your hypothesis will probably be correct- that the majority of gun violence is not the result of legal gun ownership; but is instead the result of illegal gun ownership.

Does anyone know if those laws regarding attaching exta penalties to "hate crimes" have had an effect at reducing said hate crimes? I wonder if adding additional penalties to usage of an illegal gun in a crime would be a good deterrent.

Derek and I had a debate on another board regarding the "statistics" of gun ownership. I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong please Derek) that we essentially agreed that there is a problem with way the majority of the way the 2nd Ammendment is defended (ie- the "guns reduce crime" argument; true or not- its easily argued). We use statistics that are easily argued...without necessarily offering a good alternative. Instead by taking a stand FOR legal gun ownership and a hard line AGAINST illegal gun ownership/usage in a crime...it presents a much stronger defense. Kind of like how MADD is FOR responsible drinking, but AGAINST drunk driving.

Essentially- we need to redirect the "gun control" to where it IS actually a good thing and where it actually matters. Thereby reducing restrictions and future restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Focus the issue- right now its "gun control"...it needs to be "criminal gun control".