Statistics on CCW vs Criminal Use of Guns

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Balota, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,268
    292
    83
    The more I read about justifications for concealed carry (or open carry) by LACs, the more I am puzzled by the absence of some obvious statistics. The statistic that I think would be most enlightening is this: Number of Injuries to Innocent Bystanders (ITIB). It should probably be evaluated per capita of the group in question: LEOs, LACs, or BGs.

    A BG walks into QuikTrip and demands money at gunpoint. Someone screams and the BG freaks. He shoots at the scream, wounding the person. That's 1 ITIB. He shoots again and hits the same person. That's 2 ITIB. He shoots again and hits someone else. That's 3 ITIB.

    A good guy is in said QuikTrip, draws his CCW and shoots the BG, twice. That's 2 injuries, but not to an innocent bystander. He misses once and hits someone else. That's 1 ITIB.

    OK, so that's a made up example to illustrate the meaning of Injury to Innocent Bystander (ITIB). 6 hits in 6 shots, all by amateurs, unlikely at best, but it does define the concept pretty clearly.

    Why do I not see a statistic like this being quoted? By anyone?

    I think we all assume that a law abiding, CCW permit holder practices enough to hit what he aims at, and therefore does not cause many ITIBs. We also assume that the BGs never go to the range, can't shoot for $hit, and cause a lot of ITIBs.

    If those assumptions are true (and I wish that was provable), then the pro-2A folks should be beating that drum LOUDLY!!!

    If those assumptions are false, then the anti-gun crowd should be beating the drum.

    (Pause while we listen to the collective silence...sigh)

    How can such statistics be obtained? There actually seem to be 3 classes of people for whom such statistics are needed. LEOs, LACs, and BGs. Seems like any time there is a person injured or killed by gunfire there should be a police report. Are such police reports a matter of public record? Do the police keep track of such statistics? Can such statistics be obtained through Freedome of Information Act requests?

    For the record, I am very much in the pro-2A crowd. I hope that statistics like the ITIB described here would help counter the claim by anti-gun people that civilians with guns are inherently dangerous to innocent bystanders.

    If such statistics are developed objectively (not manipulated by agenda-driven parties on either side!), they will help the situation even if they do NOT show LACs to be substantially safer than BGs. If LACs are not safer than BGs, they should be. Instead of removing guns from LACs, train them to use them properly.

    IMPO, training of LACs to use guns properly and effectively is a legitimate part of the "well regulated Militia" that we who bear arms are presumed to form.

    OK, I have my Kevlar/Nomex undies on, let the firestorm begin!!!
     
  2. RichNH

    RichNH New Member Supporter

    62
    0
    0
    I suspect the statistics, if available, would show what you would like them to but maybe not (solely) due to the idea that LAC's with a CCW are better shots. Think about the kind of situation you are describing: the LAC has no reason for aiming at anyone other than the BG(s), while the BG may actually target anyone in sight if they perceive them as a threat (and that assumes it's not a psycho out to shoot just anyone). Thus, even given equivalent gun handling skills, you'd expect the BG to have a much higher rate of ITIB.
     

  3. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    Access to these types of statistics would be great, however, I doubt they actually break them down that way.

    One probable reason is the reporting itself. I've seen reports of shootings that were broken down by LEO and non-LEO (basically, everyone else).
     
  4. Ranger-6

    Ranger-6 New Member

    804
    0
    0
    Here is a statistic that cannot be proved, but it's published as true:

    Americans have defended themselves with guns approximately 806,020 times since January 1, 2012, as of 05/01/2012; 07:37 AM

    http://www.learnaboutguns.com/
     
  5. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Consider this:

    Same as OP's scenario; except all the IBs and LACs are carrying sidearms,

    including the cashier.

    ANOTHER scenario: A busy bank, with everyone in line, IBs, LACs, and cashiers

    open carrying a pistol.

    Anybody here think the BGs in either scenario, feeling somewhat outnumbered

    and overwhelmed, might look elsewhere for easy cash?

    Perhaps be more easily persuaded to learn job skills, and overcome

    their "sweat allergy"?
     
  6. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,268
    292
    83
    I agree that the BGs are at a disadvantage with respect to this statistic. However that disadvantage is directly related to their status as a BG. In fact, that is the essential point that I hope the ITIB statistic would demonstrate.

    The reason for my interest in this concept is that anti-gun doctrine maintains that LACs with guns represent as great a danger to the general public as the BGs. By reducing the number of guns in circulation, the anti-gun people expect to reduce the general risk to the public.

    I maintain that this is not a valid line of reasoning. The mental picture that anti-gun folks want to paint is LACs spraying lead over the landscape and hitting many women and children. They don't make this as explicit as I have because when stated this baldly it is obviously baseless propaganda.

    I don't know whether LACs are actually better shots than BGs. Many LACs buy a gun, shoot it once at the range to make sure it works, load it and stick it in their nightstand. Wish it wasn't so, but it's that way a lot more than it should be.

    Back to the original questions. Why isn't this statistic being used by either side? How can this statistic be developed?
     
  7. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Found some relevant info today...

    http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

    Scroll down to "Armed citizens make fewer mistakes"

    Some of the material on this site is a bit dated, but still relevant...if you trust stats...
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2012
  8. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    AFAIK, there are three repeatedly proven stats:

    1.-LACs are better shots than LEOs.(at least the ones shooting at BGs)

    2.-CCW for LACs takes a significant bite out of crime.

    3.-BGs fear armed LACs more than the police.
     
  9. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,268
    292
    83
    ALRIGHT! This link leads to a reference for John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws". The most direct statistic quoted in the writeup about the book is this: In 1993, police killed 330 innocent people. In the same time frame, private citizens killed 30 innocent people. Not trying to bash LEOs, they have a lot more encounters than the private citizens. But the point is that armed private citizens are NOT an increased risk to society.

    There were two reviews of this book. One is full of praise for someone doing a good job of presenting detailed statistical analysis in a way that laypeople can understand. The other (by a Massachusetts liberal economist) seeks to discredit the work. Both reviews encourage me that this book may be a good starting point for the statistics that I'm interested in!

    I plan to get this book and I'll let you know what other nuggets are buried in "them thar hills".
     
  10. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    On this first "proven" stat... yes and no.

    Yes, as LACs go to the range more often than LEOs are required to.

    No, considering that MANY just go to shoot, and not to actually improve their aim or skill level.

    I go to the range every weekend. I see people there that have been shooting for years that think that just hitting the paper is all they need to do and make no effort to group their shots.
     
  11. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Prison interviews with criminals who stated they were afraid of

    LACs with CCWs for two main reasons:

    1. They aren't uniformed, or marked in any way, as

    police are.

    2. They pop up anywhere, and don't have any police

    restraints. Many (and rightly so, IMO) fear being shot in the back.

    Many others are afraid of their sudden death or permanent injury,

    without the benefit of the rather slack treatment of our justice system-

    style jurisprudence...


    ...were a major contributor toward my decision to get a CCW Permit.

    Now, instead of my loved ones and myself sweating about who's got

    a gun around the next corner, the BGs can worry about it.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  12. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Keep me posted...funny, I saw this thread while doing research of my own...Local news asshats put up a new stat of how prescription pills were the new #1 cause of unnatural death (I think it was "unnatural", maybe premature but whatever). Pill OD's were #1 at 34k, auto accidents #2 at 33k and gun deaths #3 at 32k...my BS radar was going off like crazy.

    I love how they leave out the fact that 17k of the gun deaths were suicides, also omitting police involved shootings and LAC (justified) shootings (roughly another 2k) which got me to wondering about gang related shootings...NOTHING, NADA ZIP ZILCH on those stats. Not on any gov't site or anywhere in between could I find any reliable...or just ANY for that matter about gang shootings. Scratching head and wondering why :confused:

    Are these #'s just not kept? Are they impossible to track? Are they being held for some reason? Out of the roughly 13k shootings per year, how many are gang related??? The number HAS to be significant!!! This is where I ran into dead ends... I want to know so if you can find any on that I'd be very interested to hear what you come up with! :cool:
     
  13. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    They distort gun statistics:

    If you break your leg falling off a ladder, and you own a

    gun, that's a "gun-related injury" for instance.
     
  14. rebelcowboy

    rebelcowboy New Member

    103
    0
    0
    Therewolf is right they distort those stats very badly to the point of they actually put them under other stats so they can say the crime rate has dropped I can't remember the exact state but it is extremely high due to the fact the r told to file it differently
     
  15. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Well yeah, hence the 17k in suicides being included "gun deaths"...it's a given that the deck is stacked. What I want is answers to the lefty libbys who are claiming blood is running through the streets by hyping these "stats"...show me the numbers.

    I understand there are lies, damn lies and statistics but when folks create a random number of "victims"...then lets's see exactly WHO these "victims" are...From my best guess, I've got 10k "victims" unaccounted for and are seemingly non-existent....(cuz they probably are...:cool:)
     
  16. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    While debating statistics is fine,

    perhaps we should gather our power

    at the same time.

    Here's some statistics for you:

    Percentage of American population which

    own guns: 45%( That's over 140 MILLION gun owners)

    Total enrollment in NRA: 6 million- so approximately 1 in 24 gun owners

    carry the water for the rest, who are too apathetic

    or lazy to get involved.

    Total voting population (actual voters who voted): 129,391,711.

    IF we were to get our gun owning population to vote

    unilaterally, we would have @12 MILLION MORE VOTES

    THAN THE TOTAL VOTES OF BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES

    IN THE 2008 ELECTION


    IF we could unify, statistics would be moot.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  17. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Great post Therewolf!! :cool:
     
  18. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,268
    292
    83
    OK. Add Mr. Lott to your list of superheroes!!! He has somehow managed to translate the essential results of a huge academic treatise of mind-numbing statistics (his original paper) into about 160 pages of readable, understandable literature. He supports all of his common-sensical claims with valid statistical backup.

    I didn't find a direct equivalent to my ITIB statistic, but Lott still manages to prove the point: armed LACs are not an increased risk to society. In fact, the existence of armed LACs creates a deterrent to violent crime. And that deterrent effect winds up benefiting unarmed LACs as well. Along the way, he also provides real world examples of the general patterns found in his study. The book is well worth the $5-$10 price tag, buying used from Amazon.

    The key point of the book is that statistical reductions in violent crime are directly related to the number of CCW permits. There are small (statistically insignificant) increases in accidents with handguns when more LACs are armed. But the reductions in murders alone (in the thousands) are many times greater than the accidents (in the dozens).

    What I called ITIBs by LACs would fall in his category of accidental handgun injuries or deaths. His statistics show that accidental handgun deaths are a small fraction of all accidental deaths. He also shows that accidental handgun deaths in CCW counties are much lower than in non-CCW counties. That seems to suggest that handguns in the hands of CCW permit holders are handled a little more carefully. Could be a little more training? A little more sense of responsibility? Who knows?

    Ironically, although support for gun control legislation is generally greatest in urban areas, the areas that benefit most from CCW permits are urban areas with low incomes and high population densities. The deterrent effect of CCW permits is applied to a much larger criminal base and produces the largest reductions in violent crime.
     
  19. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,268
    292
    83
    There's lots of numbers in Lott's book. Here's a few. "When state CCW laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by about 8%, rapes fell by 5%, and aggravated assaults fell by 7%. (That's after adjusting for trends in the crime rates and other non-CCW factors. That's the percentage attributable to CCW alone!) In 1992, there were 18,469 murders, 79,272 rapes ... and 861,103 aggravated assaults (total) in counties (across the US) without CCW (shall issue). The statistical study suggests that if these counties had been subject to CCW (shall issue), murders would have been reduced by about 1,400, ... rapes reduced by 4,200 and aggravated assaults by 60,000 ..." That would be the benefit in one year!

    While he was at it, he was able to make rough estimates of dollar values associated with these reductions. How does $5.7 BILLION in 1992 dollars strike you as a number?
     
  20. rebelcowboy

    rebelcowboy New Member

    103
    0
    0
    That's alot and go figure the deterrent is a Lac carry but the libs think we r a high risk gee libs have no sense of safety for others