Those who follow the debate on restoring Second Amendment rights have probably heard the other side proclaim some variant of:
“Most victims are murdered by people they know.”
The implication is defending yourself from a murderer is futile, because there is no point in trying to defend yourself from a person who is close to you.
This is a way of lying with statistics.The truth is far different.
Few victims are murdered by someone they live with.
In 2013, this correspondent published an essay on the Misleading Murderer that you Know. The numbers were from 2010. This update uses the latest numbers. They are from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2019.
The most accurate crime statistics involves homicides, particularly murders. The most easily solved homicides are murders of passion between intimates. The hardest homicides to solve are those where there is no connection between the murderer and the victim.
The largest category of victim in the FBI reports of victim relationships to their murderer is unknown. In 2019, those victims are 49% of the total. It is a huge number. Some of this is because FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) are often filed before an investigation is complete. As murders of passion among intimates are the easiest to solve, this means a much higher percentage of strangers and acquaintances fall into the unknown category when the UCR report is filled out.
The clearance rate for murder in 2019 was 59%. This means 41% were not solved. About 84% of the murderers who are unknown by the time of the UCR report remain unknown. It is likely most of the 16% solved are not intimate partner murders. Those that are, are unlikely to have been living with their victim.
I suspect the next step will be to go after the dealer who sold the gun to Dominick Black.
On August 25, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself from numerous attackers with an AR15 type (Smith & Wesson M&P 15) rifle. The rifle was not legally owned by Kyle. He had legal possession of it. This was due to a quirk in the law. People under the age of 18 have always been able to buy rifles from private owners and possess them, but they are not allowed to buy them from licensed federal dealers.
This correspondent noted the dropping or dismissing of the Wisconsin weapons charges against Dominick Black, was almost certain, because the Wisconsin weapons charges against Kyle Rittenhouse were dismissed by Judge Bruce Schroeder during his trial.
A prediction: the charges against Dominick Black will be dropped or dismissed.
The dismissal is likely to occur on 10 January, 2022.
THE PURDUE STUDY:
Several years ago I corresponded with Dr. J. Eric Dietz, who, with the help of three co-author/students, was working on a study on how to mitigate active shooter attacks. What security measures, the study sought to answer, were effective in stopping attacks, or at least, in minimizing casualties? Dr. Dietz let me know when the study was done. A download is available here.
Those wishing to be informed about the methodology of the study should download it. It is only 25 pages long and very readable, even for the scientific layman. Basically, the study used computer modeling based on data from actual school attacks to determine which of four scenarios would be most effective:
Scenario 1: A normal school. No access control or security present, no one carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.
Scenario 2: A school where 5%-10% of the staff are carrying concealed handguns.
Scenario 3: A school with an assigned school resource officer–an armed police officer.
Scenario 4: A school with a school resource officer and 5-10% of the school staff carrying concealed handguns.
The study correctly controls for common variables and influencing factors, and there has been very little media coverage or scientific criticism of the study. Dr. Dietz was interviewed for a brief, local news article:
For the past year, Dietz and his students have used data from real-life events including the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook Elementary tragedies to analyze further. Research shows it takes, on average, 12 minutes, for police to respond to a school shooting in the United States.
Dietz said it’s the reason why every second counts.
They found adding one armed school resource office in school could reduce response times by 80-percent. Casualties dropped by nearly 70-percent.
Researchers also determined arming up to 10-percent of a school’s teachers and faculty could decrease casualties by 10-percent.
‘We have to put everything on the table and try to get emotion out,’ said Dietz. ‘We’re not looking to arm schools and we’re not trying to create gunfire fights in schools. We’re just looking at it with a police and science point-of-view and how we can benefit children in schools.
Imagine that. I suspect the very absence of criticism is a sign anti-liberty/gun proponents—which is much of the Media–-do not want to give the study any publicity. When the Clinton Administration did a study on the defensive use of guns in the hope of finding justification for gun bans, they were horrified to find Americans use guns to stop crimes up to 1.5 million times a year, commonly without firing a shot. They did everything they could to disown and bury the study. Fortunately, they failed.
Source: School Attacks: #6 of a series
I spend a great deal of time, gentle readers, reading. I read because I enjoy reading, because I find inspiration there, and because as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become just barely wise enough to realize how very, very much I don’t know and will never learn. I do, however, do what I can to try […]The Second Civil War, 26: Alternatives — Stately McDaniel Manor
Also this piece by Larry Correia
UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This is bold talk from a military, and a government, that hasn’t won a war in my lifetime. Not even the War On Poverty . . . But the Transgender Awareness Training is up-to-date, I’m sure.
Seriously, this kind of threat is not just absurd and unseemly, but a disqualification for public office. One of many, I realize.
And I guess the ammo shortage will be back on.
ANOTHER UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Larry Correia: So you want to nuke Omaha? “For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a novelist now, but I retired from the Evil Military Industrial Complex, where I helped maintain those various advanced weapon systems you expect to bomb me with. Before that I was a gun dealer and firearms instructor. So basically I sold guns to the people you expect the people I trained to take them from.”
Plus: “In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because ‘we kept the gloves on’, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas. You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns?”
In a U.S. civil war, the first targets would be politicians, and media figures, and they’re all soft targets. Which is odd, because they seem the most eager to get things started.
Also: “The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.”
Three years ago, this correspondent wrote an essay on how to understand people who want a disarmed population. It was popular, but did not appear on AmmoLand.
I have updated the essay for current conditions.
There is an easy way to understand people who wish you to be unarmed.
It takes a little discipline. You may have a little mental discomfort. It is not particularly difficult. For the ability to understand the other, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.
Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.
Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement “guns are bad”.
Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed.
If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to accept that as true.
If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.
Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive, because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person. You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.
One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant.
Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions. Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.
Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed.
Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.
There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.
1. The AR stands for Armalite Rifle (not assault rifle) because the gun was developed by a company called “Armalite.”
2. It is not an “assault rifle.”
3. It’s not a machine gun either. It’s semi-automatic. One trigger squeeze gets you one commie stopper.
4. They are not used in a majority of mass shootings.
5. The Assault Weapons ban of 1994 didn’t keep ONE rifle from being made. It just called for certain gun modifications, like no lug for a bayonet (you know, to curb all the mass bayonet murders), no high-cap mags, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, and no pistol grips.
6. Big, scary AR-15s actually come in many pretty colors. Great Lakes Fire Arms makes one in black cherry. You can find them in camo pink.
7. More people are murdered every year by edged weapons (knives, swords, Ginsus, etc.) than by ALL rifles combined (ARs, hunting, Civil War reenactors, etc.).
8. More people are murdered every year by feet and fists (Kung Fu, Krav Maga, punches) than by ALL rifles combined.
Source: AR-15 facts
The recent string of multiple-victim incidents of gun violence and police shootings of black Americans has once again resulted in renewed calls for restrictions on gun ownership. President Biden has said that executive instructions to various branches of the Federal government will attempt to reduce the frequency and possibility of such violence.
BUT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WERE UNKNOWN: Flashback: When toting guns in high school was cool.
New York City high schoolers used to pack heat as often as they packed lunch.
This month, more than 100,000 city public school kids walked out to protest gun violence — but last century some students attended class armed with their rifles and practiced shooting on school grounds.
Many of the city’s public high schools had shooting clubs and a few even had gun ranges on their premises, according to accounts from the Department of Education and others.
By James D. Agresti and William T. Reynolds March 31, 2021
Beyond the duplicity of highlighting race only when the killer is white and the victims are not, progressive lawmakers, activists, and journalists are using a litany of falsehoods in an attempt to ban common semi-automatic guns used for home defense and hunting.
In the wake of the Boulder supermarket massacre and other mass shootings, progressive activists, politicians, and journalists have misled the public about major aspects of these tragedies. In contrast to their claims:
Less than 1% of all murders in the U.S. occur in mass shootings, defined as shootings where four or more people are killed.
The defining feature of firearms commonly used in war is that they are automatic and have the capacity to fire multiple bullets with the single pull of a trigger.
AR-15s and other guns that progressives call “weapons of war” are actually semi-automatic guns that can fire only one bullet with each pull of a trigger.
Federal law has generally banned civilians from possessing military firearms— including machine guns and assault rifles—since 1986.
The 1986 ban is not associated with a decline in deaths from mass shootings.
Two years after automatic firearms were banned, progressives moved to ban certain semi-automatic guns by calling them “assault weapons,” a phrase that sounds like “assault rifles”—the most common type of military firearm.
A leading gun control activist wrote that their strategy to achieve a ban would take advantage of the “public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic” guns.
The guns that progressives are now seeking to ban are popular firearms used for home-defense and hunting.
Federal law banned such guns along with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds from September 1994 to 2004.
Magazine capacity restrictions give a strategic edge to the killers who plot mass shootings over law-abiding citizens who carry a gun to protect themselves and others.
Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the portion of the U.S. population killed in mass shootings in the decade after the ban expired rose by 12% compared to the decade while the ban was in effect.
The weapons banned in 1994 became more accessible in the early years of the ban.
Some infamous mass shooters have stated they were motivated to kill for the fame that the media bestows on the perpetrators of such massacres.
Perpetrators of indiscriminate mass shootings are far more likely to suffer from serious mental illness than the general public.
Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the average annual rate of indiscriminate mass shootings rose by more than five times along with the mass psychiatric deinstitutionalization that occurred in the U.S. from 1955 to 2010.
The U.S. has one of lowest rates of psychiatric institutionalization in the developed world, and Japan’s rate is about 10 times greater.