Skip to main content

Guns and Bullets and Statistics, oh my





Instapundit has already commented on this piece of silliness, Gun Show Fantasies, but I figure I might as well put in my two cents worth.



Kristoff trots out the usual stereotypes about gun show participants, then trots out the standard statistics, which look something like this:



In 1999, there were 828,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)
Obvious typo, in that they meant to write 28,874 gun-related deaths, which yields the 80 deaths a day, which gives Kristoff's one every twenty minute claim. However, if you're going to quote anti-gun stats, don't forget:



In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)
(Both of these are courtesy of a fact page at Gun Control Network.)



If you exclude suicide the overall figure drops to 12,127. (Why exclude suicide? Because those people killed themselves, of course. You could argue that no gun, no suicide, but the research on that is still out.) So, accepting the numbers you get that in 1999, 10,972 gun-related deaths were homicides. Where's my calculator...? Ah, here we go. Doing the math means that if you have a total figure 28,874 deaths, subtract suicides, subtract homicides, leaving you with...1,155 gun-related deaths that weren't homicides and weren't suicides. Hmm, so we assume those are "accidental"?



(Wait a moment, the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1999 says there were a total of 12,658 homicides, with 8,259 involving the use of firearms. I...I am confused, because these other fine folk say that there were 10,972 gun-related homicides that year. Where does the discrepancy come from? Darn, tricky things these statistics. Obviously Disraeli was right. Now, back to the show....)



Anyway, Kristoff's one death every twenty minutes now shrinks to about 1.25 an hour. Without seeing the raw figures, it's hard to justify even that figure, because how many of those are "justifiable" homicides? (Oops, there are those pesky numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1999, which says that some 291 justifiable homicides by police officers, and another 154 done by private citizens, both via firearm. Let's not mix apples and oranges, though, since we've already seen that the figures from the anti-gun crowd don't agree with the FBI's.) And where are the numbers for self-defense? Last, even Join Together, another anti-gun organization, notes that gun deaths continue to decline:



New data from the federal Centers for Disease Control show gun deaths continue to decline in the U.S., especially among children and teenagers. The 1999 gun-death toll was 28,874 persons, the first time the figure has dropped below 30,000 since national statistics on gun deaths were first kept in 1979.
Noting that the number of gun-related deaths is on the decline is not conducive with the focus of the article, of course, so out comes the guise that it's an "anti-terrorist" measure to require Congress to close the dreaded Gun Show Loophole.



The problem--if you're anti-gun--is that most uses of a gun in self-defense don't result in the gun ever going "bang." That is, brandishing the weapon is usually sufficient to stop any threat, perceived or real. Each time this happens is a very real use of a gun for self-defense that never gets counted by anyone remotely anti-gunnish. The frustration--if you're anti-gun--is that crime is dropping, gun-related deaths (of all types) are dropping, all despite more states issuing conceal carry permits. And the horror--if you're anti-gun--are the recent reports that gun-related crimes are on the rise in that paragon of virtue--if you're anti-gun--England. Obviously a new boogeyman must be found.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...