16 thoughts on “Selective Disservice”

1. The presence of guns in a country is not correlated to the presence of violent crime.

2. It’s 5 years old but still illustrative as I don’t believe things have changed much in the last 5 years:

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

3. But it is correlated to gun crime. Get rid of guns and you get rid of gun crime, duh. And less crime is always good.

   Of course, there is no Substitution Effect in crime. Criminals are not subject to the laws of economics. Gunless murders won’t resort to bludgeons or knives. So ban guns and solve crime for all time!

4. “Violent crime” in both Britain and America does not include homicide. Homicide is a separate category. When looking at the data, you will find America has a homicide rate which is four times higher than that of Britain.

5. Given that most homicides are between criminals, I have a very hard time finding much sympathy towards those victims.

   With that in mind, if you back out criminal on criminal homicides, how does the US compare to Britain?

6. Most Americans are not at significant risk from firearms, other than from the one that may be in their own home, which, being a personal choice, does not impact their public policy views.

   Here are a few links that may address your query.

   DOJ: Firearm Violence 1993–2011
   http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

   DOJ: National Crime Victimization Survey 2013
   http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpcncvs.pdf

   Crime in England and Wales 2010/11
   https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf

7. MBerg’s isn’t the least accurate crime–stat quote I’ve ever heard, but it’s not accurate, and more importantly it’s very misleading.

8. Depends on the report, Emery.

   The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report covers all violent crime known to law enforcement, including murder. It measures what cops know. England’s “Crime Survey” asks people if they’ve been victims of crime, whether or not reported to the cops. It doesn’t include murder (can’t ask the victim). And it caps crimes at 5 per year meaning if you got mugged 6 times, the last one doesn’t count in the survey. In the US, we have a National Crime Victim survey but it only asks select households about select crimes (again, can’t ask murder victim anything).

   Worse, the definition of “murder” varies by country. In the US, we count all dead bodies; in the UK, they count convictions. So yes, America has a murder rate of 4.7 and UK has a murder rate of 1.1, using those definitions. But those definitions are idiotic. What about dead bodies for which there is no conviction – do they suddenly spring back to life?

9. This analysis might be useful:

   http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

10. Violent-crime stats are usually based on survey data rather than police reports, since many crimes are never reported to the police; but homicide victims tend not to respond to surveys.

11. If that held true across political lines, anecdotal evidence would prove rampant electoral fraud. Liberals shift methodology to guarantee the outcome fits The Narrative.

12. Nate, partisans of all stripes frame their message one way or the other. On the other hand, I supplied the necessary links to refute the ‘crime–stat quote’ MBerg would have you believe is true.

13. No matter how high or low the gun crime rate, or how you measure it, the number only matters in public policy debates. In the US, we have the 2nd amendment and gun control remains unpopular with most voters. It’s even less popular with the passage of time, which, ironically, seems to drive our liberal elites into a murderous rage. How many of them have wished a violent gun death on NRA head Wayne LaPierre? LaPierre has never committed a crime, as far as I know.

14. In the US, most people who own guns, particularly multiple guns, live in rural or semi-rural areas that have absolutely no gun violence problems. Some of those guns make their way to poor inner city neighborhoods where there is a huge gun violence problem, linked to criminal organizations and illegal drugs. But having said that, most parts of densely populated cities in the US do not have a gun violence problem. Gun hobbyists form a much larger minority of the population than the small group that is directly affected by gun violence, which is why the laws don’t change.

15. Well, Emery, the 2nd amendment doesn’t give us the freedom to bear arms for hobby and hunting purposes. The entire text of the amendment reads:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    A militia, in those days was any group acting in legitimate common defense. If bandits or Indians raided a farm, the neighbors who banded together to deal with the problem were the militia. I am not certain what a “well regulated militia” meant in the context of late 18th century America, but it doesn’t obviously mean the US armed forces or the state militia.
    If one amendment needs clarification, I would vote for the 14th over the 2nd. The scope of the 2nd is pretty narrow. The 14th can be interpreted to mean just about anything. “You’re requiring people to show ID to vote? That unequal protection of the laws!” “You’re not requiring ID to vote? That’s unequal protection of the laws!”

16. “But having said that, most parts of densely populated cities in the US do not have a gun violence problem.”

    Best way to find trouble spots is to follow the Democrat supplied “Get Out The Takers” short busses at election time….before the sun goes down.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.