Urgent! New Violence Policy Center Study

[Hopalong]

The Violence Policy Center, a noted gun control think tank, just released a new study that we should all look at.

While we're at it, we should memorize this report and make the gun control crowd choke on it.

Why you ask? The headline of the page claims to say that guns are rarely used for self-defense.

Their claim is based on comparing the number of defensive gun uses during a violent or property crime to the total number of violent and property crimes. They're absolutely right that that ratio is very small. But when you look at the actual numbers instead of ratios (or perhaps different ratios), the story changes considerably.

What the report actually says is that from 2007-2011, guns were used over 60,000 times per year to prevent violent or property crimes. That is potentially 60,000 lives, or more, that are saved by guns every single year.

This isn't John Lott or some other pro gun source that our opponents will easily discredit. This is someone on their own side acknowledging with rock solid evidence that more lives are potentially saved every year by guns that are taken by guns in homicide. By a factor of 6!

In an age when statistics and poll results seem to be king, use their own data against them. Please spread this around as widely as possible.

 

[Hopalong]

A far more telling comparison: what's the ratio of the number of violent and property crimes where the victim used a gun in defense to the number of violent and property crimes where the attacker used a gun. I'd love to see that comparison, and if my hunch is right I'd love to spread that comparison even more than I want to save this one.

 

[Immigman]

I'm actually quite stunned by this report. I try to keep an open mind but the conclusions drawn are way off base. They discuss ratios when all I can think of is, wow the number of people who used a firearm each year for protection is extremely high! Especially when you take into consideration the fact that there is no national concealed carry law and we have several legislative bodies that are hostile to private gun ownership.

The other thing that strikes me is that they consider exceptionally low ratios as justification for stricter laws but don't apply this analysis in reverse. In other words it's ok to ban certain firearms where there is little to no proof that they are consistently involved in taking lives, because the saving of one life is enough to justify a ban. However, 60,000 potentials lives saved a year is too minuscule a number to justify that guns can be used for sel-defense. Sigh....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Clovis]

I read this (ick!). I think my math may be faulty, but it looks closer to 70,000 times a year the crimes are stopped by the use of a gun. I am assuming the reason guns are not used to stop crimes more is areas of the country like New York and Chicago where access is very limited and in areas where carry permits are either difficult to obtain or impossible to obtain and crimes on the street are rampant. As usual, they obtain facts and figures and bend them to their way of thinking to reach conclusions they want to fit their agendas. Now to shower again to try to get the stench from reading that off...

 

[Hopalong]

I think my math may be faulty, but it looks closer to 70,000 times a year the crimes are stopped by the use of a gun.

It is, but I like to be conservative. "Almost 70,000" is harder to defend with the data than "at least 60,000" or "over 60,000".

 

[Jaybeez]

vpc's founder literally wrote the book on how to ban all guns starting with scary rifles. everytime piers morgan or some other media antigunner opens their mouth, they are working directly from vpc's playbook. if vpc put out a study, you can guarantee it will be used in the media.

 

[IndispensableDestiny]

Let me write the quickie news summary:

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), a leading gun control group, reported that 67,740 violent or property crimes are stopped annually by law abiding firearms owners. Approximately 47,100 violent crimes are thwarted, potentially saving tens of thousand of lives each year. Although 230 attackers were killed by self defense in 2010, many thousands more survived. Whether the attackers were subsequently arrested, or remained at large was not reported in the VPC study.

 

[AntiGun]

Complete lack of psychological insight throughout the article.
Criminals don't attack targets they know are going to resist thus reducing numbers of times actually brandishing a weapon, much less using it, will occur. As well, not all incidences of de-escalated potential crimes are going to be reported. The hassle factor of explaining to authorities that you used your weapon is going to reduce the number of reports substantially.

and...
"More than a Third of Persons Shot and Killed in Justifiable Homicides in 2010 Were Known to the Shooter "
non-sensical spin on the data
Justifiable means justified whether they be known to you or even closely related.

and...
"Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Property Crimes"
Property crimes often happen when you are not around, once more we return to the psychological factors that they leave out.

and...
The frequent references to off duty law enforcement officers implies that criminals target off duty law enforcement officers. That's just silly.

and...
"Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Violent Crimes"
What percentage of these completed or attempted crimes are occuring outside of the home where most people do not have access to a firearm?
Oh yeah, I forgot, the criminals only target off duty law enforcement officers outside of the home.....

 

[SKS1956]

None of these studies account for the number of perps frightened off and not reported to police. I feel the numbers must be much higher.

 

[danb]

i've seen this. The VPC still has their ban-handguns rhetoric up on the website. If this ideologically driven center can come up with 60,000 then you know this is the minimum and there's a lot more.

To a certain extent, this is pure post-Heller denialism. One has the right to self defense, no matter hiw many or how few times its exercised.

 

[press1280]

Yea, their own research(if it can be believed) does help us. 60-70,000 defensive uses are not insignificant. The ratio of 36-1 or whatever it is doesn't help any victims and assumes some set of laws will stop those criminal attacks while at the same time disarming a potential victim.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

It's crap when you compare that other studies have said that DGU's are some where between 2,000,000-2,500,000 or so. Hell even the noted anti-gun CDC came up with 800,000. One would ask how they came up with numbers that are several orders of magnitude lower.

 

[Immigman]

What irritates me though is the double-standard on display in analyzing the results of their own study. Miniscule crime numbers are cited to support banning guns rarely used in crimes. However, statistics that reveal that guns have been used in self-defense situations over 60-70 thousand times a year are cited as insignificant.

I would respect them more if they just abandoned the pretense of objectivity and pursue an outright gun ban (I know it would require a Constitutional amendment). At least then it would be less dishonest and the real debate could ensure. Right now what we have are misdirected arguments, political rhetoric, and blatent dishonest hyperbole.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2