Just how rare they were.
Murders at the turn of the century?
For the US, 1.2 per 100,000:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htmNote how the rate drops as low as 1.1 by 1903, 1.3 in 1904, then begins its rapid rise, 2.1, 3.9, 4.9. It drops back slightly before increasing again, hitting 6.2 by 1914.
The rate in England and Wales in 1900 was 0.96 per 100,000, pretty close to the US rate. However, ours didn't increase, dropping slightly to 0.81 in 1910. Then again, we had the first pistol licensing act in 1903...
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 17,602 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities. Drunk (those at or above an illegal BAC of .08) drivers were involved in 13,470 fatalities in 2006.This is about the same as 2005, when 17,590 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes and 13,582 people were killed in crashes involving drunk drivers.
How many of the dead were the ones who were drunk? A pretty large proportion, I'd bet. Of course, firearms
murders excludes all those who killed themselves, accidental deaths, etc.
As noted, the most conservative, pro gun control statistics put defensive firearm usage at 100000. The department of Justice figure is 1.5 million, as stated before. You don't need to shoot to deter. Criminals are not ideological warriors willing to sacrafice their lives at all costs. If you are not easy meat they are not interested.
They put it at about 100,000 in the high crime mid 90s.
Of which 70 to 90 percent had extensive criminal records.
Source for a national figure, rather than just a local one?
I'm sure that's true for certain high crime inner cities with extensive gang warfare, but I doubt it for general murders.
As long as you use the study that best fits your personal opinion,
No, I use the study that seems most credible.
I know that any credible opinion poll will tell the the margin of error is 1 - 3%. Kleck found that about 1% had used guns defensively.
But above all, what Kleck's respondents said does not match with the figures known.
According to Kleck, his interviews showed that there had been 2.5 million DGUs in a year.
They also said that in 15.6% of those cases, they had fired at the criminal (not warning shots, fired to hit). That's 390,000 criminals shot at.
Just over half those who fired, 8.3% of the total DGUs, told Kleck that they had hit the criminal. That's 207,500 criminals shot.
However, the police only recorded about 200 criminals shot and killed.
So either less than 1 in 1,000 shot criminals dies, there are loads of bodies lying in the bushes no one knows about, or people were lying to Kleck.
Kleck's "explanation" is that people overestimate their accuracy, and that a lot less than half those who shot hit the criminal. But if you assume only 1 in 10 of those hit dies, that means that 2,000 criminals were hit, out of 390,000 shot at.
That would mean only 1 in 200 who fired at the criminal actually hit, and an accuracy of less than 0.5%, in close quarters with criminals, isn't credible either.
Kleck's figures don't match up to the hard facts that are known. The fact that the method he used is known to be faulty is almost besides the fact, compared to that.
The Department of Justice survey in 1994 (under the anti gun Clinton Administration even) titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
Using exactly the same method. Note that the DOJ themselves point out the errors, and discount the result:
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack. "
"The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.
Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52"
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7."
"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals
are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders.
That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number
of gunshot cases.[14]"
"Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based
on screening the general population is likely to
have a positive bias. The reason can best be
explained by use of an epidemiological
framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject
to error, whether the "test" is a medical
examination for cancer or an interview question for
DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or
"false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber
the former, the population prevalence will be
exaggerated.
The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the
case of rare events boils down to a matter of
arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in
1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1
can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any
of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even
2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result
will be a positive bias--regardless of whether the
one true positive tells the truth.
Respondents might falsely provide a positive
response to the DGU question for any of a number of
reasons:
o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories.
o They may actually have used a gun defensively
within the last couple of years but falsely report
it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why
that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
defensively within the time frame may have decided
not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the
arithmetic dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate."
"The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims. Most
NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
DGU question, falsely or otherwise."
"The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether
consumers who buy guns for protection against crime
get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate
of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates
the true number, as do other estimates based on
similar surveys."
You are relying on a survey that the survey takers point out the error in, and discount the results.
I know you want to believe in Kleck's figure, but the method is known to be flawed, and the results do not match the facts known.
Incidentally, doesn't this board have direct evidence that people lie to claim DGU? And even self defence in general?
Criminal armed/me armed -- draw, though I likely win since I train with my weapon
So secret service armed, criminal armed = draw? What is the win/lose record on that one? I know the secret service normally uncover plots in advance, what is their actual record if a nut gets close enough to pull a gun? The only two cases I can think of are the other Kennedy and Reagan, both got shot despite multiple armed security around them.
The truth is the criminal has a huge advantage in such cases, because he knows what is about to happen. He has the initiative.
If you can avoid the initial bounce you stand some sort of chance, I suppose, but the statistics show your chances are not good.
