Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[crimresearch]

He'll never answer anything specific. Just watch and enjoy the show.

It's a re-run.

 

[Flex]

I wasn’t going to point this out, after all, this thread is bizarre enough as it is.

Most of the discussion for the past ten pages has centered around the following quote:

Originally posted by ShaneK
….no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this.

This is in support of a statement that people having guns reduces the crime rate.

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about what ShaneK really meant when he said this, but this is a common argument from people who are afraid that the government is going to take away their guns.

I do want to dissect the original statement a little further.

There are a few things necessary to show that this statement is correct.

1. The crime rate in Mississippi for household break-ins, while the owner is home, is lower than other states.
2. Homeowners in Mississippi are more likely to own a gun and use it than homeowners in other states.
3. The criminals are in their right mind
4. Juries in Mississippi are less likely to convict householders who shoot an intruder than juries in other states.

The last piece of necessary evidence is where the argument truly breaks down.

Assuming that the intruder was shown to be acting unlawfully themselves, that is, breaking and entering, theft, rape, or any other of the options listed throughout the thread, I don’t know that there is a jury in this land which would convict the homeowner of even manslaughter.

If this statement is true, than the fear of juries is not a factor in determining the likelihood of an intruder, and thus the original statement collapses. To put it another way, if juries across the USA behave similarly with respect to this issue, than there is no correlation between jury decisions and gun control laws.

So, how would you prove that in the other 49 states juries are more likely to convict a homeowner who shoots an intruder? The FBI statistics are of no help here. As far as I know there is no centralized legal database for decisions from the lowest courts in any state. That means that a review would have to made for each court district, which likely as not isn’t on-line anywhere yet, and only jury cases which involve a homeowner shooting an intruder to determine how many homeowners were convicted for that shooting. This would have to be done for Mississippi, and I would suspect at least four or five other states to get a feeling for the range. To be convincing, it would have to be done for all states.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, if guns are less regulated in Mississippi, more people should have them. Which leads directly to the idea that criminals don’t want to face a homeowner in Mississippi because there is a greater chance that the homeowner is armed. So the original claim may need to be modified to say “… no criminal in his right mind would break into a house in Mississippi, because more homeowners own and/or use guns than any other state.”

To show this you need to show that more homeowners in Mississippi own guns and/or are more likely to use them than homeowners in other states.

But what is the evidence you are looking at?

It appears that you are looking at criminal statistics from the FBI uniform crime reports.

What are you expecting that data to tell you?

It won’t show any connection between intruder crime and gun ownership.

At best it may show that some states have higher rates of certain intruder crimes than others. Which is exactly what you expect it to show.

Once again, what is the question? What are the steps necessary to conclude that increased gun ownership reduces the crime rate? What supporting evidence is available for each of those steps? These steps need to be pretty small and clear to most people here. Remember, nothing is obvious.

Now, back to my studies....

-Flex

 

[shanek]

I wasn't aware the FBI data was yours.

It wasn't; it was mine. Typical Claus lie. Just like saying that states that don't issue permits are more permissive of gun ownership than shall-issue states.

 

[shanek]

There are a few things necessary to show that this statement is correct.

1. The crime rate in Mississippi for household break-ins, while the owner is home, is lower than other states.

I agree, but the statistics just don't seem to be available for that. I think using the violent crime index is a good proxy, as if someone breaks into a home and then commits a violent crime it's probably the violent crime that counts in the UCR.

2. Homeowners in Mississippi are more likely to own a gun and use it than homeowners in other states.

I think that's been shown by the statistics from the gun sites.

4. Juries in Mississippi are less likely to convict householders who shoot an intruder than juries in other states.

Sadly, statistics for this just don't seem to be available as well. I've actually been looking for conviction rates for a long time; if anyone can tell me where to find them, please do so. The UCR only lists crimes "cleared by arrest," not conviction.

So, how would you prove that in the other 49 states juries are more likely to convict a homeowner who shoots an intruder?

I guess by the conviction rates. How many juries convict people who plead self-defense because the victim broke into their homes? Again, the statistics just don't seem to be available.

The FBI statistics are of no help here.

Agreed.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, if guns are less regulated in Mississippi, more people should have them. Which leads directly to the idea that criminals don’t want to face a homeowner in Mississippi because there is a greater chance that the homeowner is armed. So the original claim may need to be modified to say “… no criminal in his right mind would break into a house in Mississippi, because more homeowners own and/or use guns than any other state.”

I do want to point out one thing: I have been making the above argument for years on this forum. The original argument you quoted above is something I passed on from someone else.

It appears that you are looking at criminal statistics from the FBI uniform crime reports.

What are you expecting that data to tell you?

It won’t show any connection between intruder crime and gun ownership.

Not on its own, but we also have the databases of gun laws available. The states that have more permissive gun laws, such as shall-issue permits or even unrestricted carry, have on average lower rates of violent crime but higher rates of property crime. The same is true for the 20 most populous cities in the US (with the exception of forcible rape). The numbers are so clear I honestly don't see how anyone can argue with them.

What are the steps necessary to conclude that increased gun ownership reduces the crime rate? What supporting evidence is available for each of those steps? These steps need to be pretty small and clear to most people here.

I think it's very simple:

1) Some states are more permissive of carrying guns than others.
2) Criminals don't want to meet an armed opponent if they can avoid it.
3) In states more permissive of carrying guns, criminals are going to be more worried about meeting armed opponents¹.
4) Therefore, in states that are more permissive of carrying guns, criminals are going to commit fewer violent crimes and instead turn to crimes where there's little or no chance of meeting anyone who might be armed (e.g., property crimes).

And this is exactly what we find. Again, I don't see how anyone can argue with this.

¹Note: It is not necessary for more people to actually carry guns. Just the possibility that they might is enough.

 

[CFLarsen]

I wasn't aware the FBI data was yours.

I wasn't aware that we were allowed to make up our own data.

 

[CFLarsen]

You already said that.

I know. Shanek still hasn't shown his data. Should I stop asking for evidence? Or is that "bullying"?

No, he doesn't, as already said, but you do have a history of bullying, as already said.

Yes, he does. You may ignore it, but he does have a history of cheating.

It is very telling that you do not demand evidence from shanek.

So you post a link to an FBI site that has data. SO WHAT? So what are you going to do about it? Are we supposed to be impressed with a link to a site?

Whatever..

No, you are not supposed to be impressed. But if you had taken the time to click on the link, you would find datasets in Excel.

 

[CFLarsen]

It wasn't; it was mine. Typical Claus lie. Just like saying that states that don't issue permits are more permissive of gun ownership than shall-issue states.

When we look at your own claims, and compare them to your own data, that is the case.

You still haven't shown where you found your data re. what cities have which legislation.

 

[Donks]

Okay, in the spirit of cooperation, I tried to find the UCRs for all states. I couldn't. Some states' websites suck @$$ (Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio), some had the webserver down where I hoped to find the info (Maryland, New Mexico). Most are in PDF format. Oh, why can't they all be like Missouri or Pennsylvania.
I also found some sites that might have all the stats for all the states. Those links are on top. I pity the fool who tries to actually collect all of this into a database.

Data for Analysis (DOJ)
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U. S. Crime
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut 1
Connecticut 2
Delaware (2002 Only)
Florida
Georgia (They hate me and I always have to access all GA gov sites through a proxy)
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas (OMFG what a horrible color scheme)
Kentucky
Massachusetts (Research ^ Statistics, lower right)
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington DC
Washington State
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

 

[shanek]

Okay, in the spirit of cooperation, I tried to find the UCRs for all states. I couldn't.

The ones I used were at fbi.gov, in the Excel file titled "Crime in the United States by State, 2003." It has the summary data for population and the number of the different crimes.

 

[Roadtoad]

Just thought I'd bump this one. I'm feeling masochistic.

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you sure that's not sadistic?