In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Shooting Down Gun Data article
Workingzombie
Member Posts: 235 ✭✭✭
I found some interesting gun info on the benefits of Gun Ownership.
A bit dated, but still relavent.
<b>Shooting Down Gun Data
April 01 1999
Cost-benefit analysis</b>
Against the backdrop of lawsuits alleging that gun manufacturers impose a significant cost on society, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) makes the audacious argument that guns contribute a significant benefit to society. Their cost-benefit analysis is showcased in a shower of provocatively titled newspaper op-eds; such as "Ban Gun Lawsuits, Not Guns" (Investor's Business Daily, Mar. 23); and "Cities Bankrupting Gun-makers Won't Solve Crime Problems" (Sacramento Bee, Mar. 29). Can this be true? As usual, it all depends on how you manage the costs and benefits.
As well as taking account of directly-incurred costs and benefits, cost-benefit analysis seeks to assign economic costs and benefits to concepts most people think of in social, emotional or moral terms. It can therefore be used to allow decision-makers to weigh up issues which might otherwise be drowned in a flood of complex arguments. Given the strong arguments deployed on both sides of the gun debate, an accurate cost-benefit analysis would make a useful objective contribution.
The NCPA calculated the total annual costs of gun crime by multiplying the number of gun crimes committed each year by the average economic cost of a crime. They used a range of values for each component, since criminologists (not surprisingly) disagree in assigning dollar costs to a crime. Estimates range from $524 to over $20,000, incorporating values for the cost of pain and suffering. Nor is there unanimity on how many gun crimes are committed each year. Official figures from the Justice Department say 483,000. Many academics put the figure nearer 900,000. With these values, a range for the annual cost of gun crime can be calculated.
Working out the benefits of gun use is even more complicated. Opinions differ widely on how many crimes are prevented each year by the "defensive" use of guns. Official government figures suggest about 80,000, but most criminologists give much higher estimates, ranging from 764,000 to 3.6 million defensive uses a year, which include circumstances where the gun is merely displayed without discharging or even just referred to. Multiplying these figures by the average costs of crime produces a range of estimates about how much money is saved by defensive gun use. The NCPA then added in another amount based on the number of criminals killed by civilians, taking into account the crimes that criminal would no longer commit over the next 10 years. Based on these assumptions, the NCPA calculated the net annual benefit to society from defensive gun use to be somewhere between 90 million and 39 billion (!) dollars.
But if an analysis takes into account some form of long-term benefit, it really also has to take into account long-term costs. After all, if you assume criminals who are killed would have committed more crimes, you have to assume that those who commit gun crime will also commit more crimes. Unfortunately, the NCPA did not do this. The figures ideally would have to include the costs of all the gun crimes committed over the next ten years and the benefits both from the crimes directly prevented by defensive gun use and from all the costs avoided by the killing of criminals. Once all this is worked out, taking into account how values change over time, the analysis would have fair dollar values for how much good and bad guns will do in the next decade.
STATS took the NCPA figures, re-worked them to include full long-term values and applied tests to see how sensitive the data were to certain factors. Our conclusions:
* If 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by defensive gun use, there is a clear and substantial (over $1 billion) net benefit to society from the use of guns.
* If civilians kill 3,000 criminals a year, there is a clear net benefit to society.
* If the Justice Department figure of 483,000 crimes per year committed with guns is correct, there is a clear net benefit to society.
* However, if you accept the Justice Department figures for crimes prevented and criminals killed, there is a clear and substantial net cost to society.
* If a median figure for crimes prevented each year (764,000) is used, then there is a clear net cost to society (from $33 million to over $1 billion) unless over 2000 criminals are killed each year.
The differing conclusions show how unsettled the debate still is. They show that criminal use of guns does inflict a significant cost on society, and, if the rate of firearms crime were to rise appreciatively, that cost would be difficult to balance. But they also suggest that the defensive use of guns is important in negating the effects of all crime, not just gun crime. It also becomes clear that the fewer gun crimes that are committed, the more likely the public is to gain from law-abiding citizens using guns defensively. To that extent, these calculations may help the debate focus on strategies for getting guns out of the hands of criminals.
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=253
A bit dated, but still relavent.
<b>Shooting Down Gun Data
April 01 1999
Cost-benefit analysis</b>
Against the backdrop of lawsuits alleging that gun manufacturers impose a significant cost on society, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) makes the audacious argument that guns contribute a significant benefit to society. Their cost-benefit analysis is showcased in a shower of provocatively titled newspaper op-eds; such as "Ban Gun Lawsuits, Not Guns" (Investor's Business Daily, Mar. 23); and "Cities Bankrupting Gun-makers Won't Solve Crime Problems" (Sacramento Bee, Mar. 29). Can this be true? As usual, it all depends on how you manage the costs and benefits.
As well as taking account of directly-incurred costs and benefits, cost-benefit analysis seeks to assign economic costs and benefits to concepts most people think of in social, emotional or moral terms. It can therefore be used to allow decision-makers to weigh up issues which might otherwise be drowned in a flood of complex arguments. Given the strong arguments deployed on both sides of the gun debate, an accurate cost-benefit analysis would make a useful objective contribution.
The NCPA calculated the total annual costs of gun crime by multiplying the number of gun crimes committed each year by the average economic cost of a crime. They used a range of values for each component, since criminologists (not surprisingly) disagree in assigning dollar costs to a crime. Estimates range from $524 to over $20,000, incorporating values for the cost of pain and suffering. Nor is there unanimity on how many gun crimes are committed each year. Official figures from the Justice Department say 483,000. Many academics put the figure nearer 900,000. With these values, a range for the annual cost of gun crime can be calculated.
Working out the benefits of gun use is even more complicated. Opinions differ widely on how many crimes are prevented each year by the "defensive" use of guns. Official government figures suggest about 80,000, but most criminologists give much higher estimates, ranging from 764,000 to 3.6 million defensive uses a year, which include circumstances where the gun is merely displayed without discharging or even just referred to. Multiplying these figures by the average costs of crime produces a range of estimates about how much money is saved by defensive gun use. The NCPA then added in another amount based on the number of criminals killed by civilians, taking into account the crimes that criminal would no longer commit over the next 10 years. Based on these assumptions, the NCPA calculated the net annual benefit to society from defensive gun use to be somewhere between 90 million and 39 billion (!) dollars.
But if an analysis takes into account some form of long-term benefit, it really also has to take into account long-term costs. After all, if you assume criminals who are killed would have committed more crimes, you have to assume that those who commit gun crime will also commit more crimes. Unfortunately, the NCPA did not do this. The figures ideally would have to include the costs of all the gun crimes committed over the next ten years and the benefits both from the crimes directly prevented by defensive gun use and from all the costs avoided by the killing of criminals. Once all this is worked out, taking into account how values change over time, the analysis would have fair dollar values for how much good and bad guns will do in the next decade.
STATS took the NCPA figures, re-worked them to include full long-term values and applied tests to see how sensitive the data were to certain factors. Our conclusions:
* If 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by defensive gun use, there is a clear and substantial (over $1 billion) net benefit to society from the use of guns.
* If civilians kill 3,000 criminals a year, there is a clear net benefit to society.
* If the Justice Department figure of 483,000 crimes per year committed with guns is correct, there is a clear net benefit to society.
* However, if you accept the Justice Department figures for crimes prevented and criminals killed, there is a clear and substantial net cost to society.
* If a median figure for crimes prevented each year (764,000) is used, then there is a clear net cost to society (from $33 million to over $1 billion) unless over 2000 criminals are killed each year.
The differing conclusions show how unsettled the debate still is. They show that criminal use of guns does inflict a significant cost on society, and, if the rate of firearms crime were to rise appreciatively, that cost would be difficult to balance. But they also suggest that the defensive use of guns is important in negating the effects of all crime, not just gun crime. It also becomes clear that the fewer gun crimes that are committed, the more likely the public is to gain from law-abiding citizens using guns defensively. To that extent, these calculations may help the debate focus on strategies for getting guns out of the hands of criminals.
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=253
Comments
that the estimated benefits of gun owership far outweight the negative.
Toooo many "ifs" and "assumptions" made. We know that the shootings numbers are wrong because they include justified and criminal useage of guns. Homicide numbers are skewed also since they don't separate law enforcement/justified civilian shootings from criminal ones. I absolutely hate statistics because for the most part they are basing numbers on assumptions, not facts. If real data were used and shootings were actually catagorized for a one year period I think the gun nazis would be out of business for good!!!!
I'd have to agree 100%.[;)] How's it goin' ja, haven't seen you around much?
Neo-Jedi Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Workingzombie- I understand what the point of the article was. My point is that in order for the sheeple in this country to grasp our point of view is to show them cold, hard real numbers with NO statistics thrown in. You give them real, unaltered and correctly catagorized numbers that prove our long cried point and it WILL turn their heads. Guarenteed>
killed on the job we save the cost of trials and room and board.
You may have noticed that the main anti-gunners
are liberal trial lawyers. They don't want to lose a meal ticket to one of us. ACLU need I say more.
The most dangerous enemies of the people are the ones who represent us and those who work for government . BATFE comes to mind.
1. The amount they are using to base their overall figure on is wrong. They left out a whole bunch of different factors that also come into play, leaving us with a much higher dollar benefit for gun ownership as opposed to no gun ownership.
2. The only way to accurately figure this is to, obviously, add all the different possibilities into the equations. Such as; how much money would be taken out of the economy because guns, ammo, and accessories were no longer being purchased?; How about the steel industry, lumber products, small machining shops, international trade, brass, lead, copper, chemicals used in the powders, internet revenues, gun shops, plastics and polymers, engineering, glass manufacturers, nuts, bolts, and springs, paper products, clothiers, footwear, hearing protection, gun show revenues, fuel consumed while doing an activity using guns, Hotel accomodations, hunting lodges, the cost to control the animal population, and the list goes on and on and on. There is no way to put a dollar figure on this. The premise is shot to hell before it even gets started.
3. Even though this appears to be positive it is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. Because there are so many different facets to the gun industry, it would be nearly impossible to figure the financila benefit versus the financial liabilities associated with gun ownership or no guns at all. The no guns at all theory adds more to the other side than it can claim for itself, therefore, this is a total anhialation numbers wise. The no gun crowd would be writing checks to make up the difference, while the pro gunners eat lobster and crab cakes, drinking Dom Perignon or Krystaal. It reaches a point where it is so overwhelming it becomes unbelievable, this is our wolf.
4. It is economical suicide to shut down the gun industry. That is about as clear as it can get and probably the angle this article should have taken.
Good post, good food for thought.
Neo-Jedi Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?