3 ms·

The article "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html ht

The article "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732471250457813... from December 8, 2012 provides some perspective on falling absolute numbers (and thus a falling rate) of gunshot deaths. "Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half. . . . . "After a steady decline through the 1990s, the annual number of homicides zigzagged before resuming a decline in 2007, falling from 16,929 that year to an estimated 14,722 in 2010, according to FBI crime data. "At the same time, medical data and other surveys in the U.S. show a rising number of serious injuries from assaults with guns and knives. The estimated number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from 20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program. The CDC estimates showed the number of people injured in serious stabbings rose to 23,550 from 22,047 over the same period." Emergency medicine for gunshot victims has improved enormously in the last twenty years, and many people who are shot by criminals now survive for a lifetime of permanent disability rather dying on the street. A crime can only be classified as a "homicide" by the uniform statistical methods if someone dies, but a crime can still be very serious and harmful to the victim if it involves a gunshot by a criminal.

jsonne 14y ago
Is it possible that the rise from 2001 to 2011 has to do with the recession rather than a general upward trend? Would it be possible to see statistics from 2001 to say 2007 instead? Or even better the last 20 years.
jeffdavis 14y ago
There's a graph of "non-fatal violent firearm crime" right in the article. It looks flat to me between 2001 and 2011. Are both true somehow? Those facts seem to be in conflict.
- saraid216 14y ago
  The one you really want is the third one: "All non-fatal violent crime". Basically, all crime is down from its 1993 peak, and it so happens that firearm-related crimes are a subset of that. I don't have the time to run numbers to see what the percentage change is, but it'd probably be enlightening.
- bjterry 14y ago
  First, the quoted WSJ data is stated on an absolute basis (inflating/sensationalizing the numbers, obviously), while the graph in this article is stated on a relative basis. This still leaves an apparent discrepancy. Other real causes for the discrepancy could be improvements in emergency response in areas with gun violence. This could cause in increase in hospitalizations based on people not dying before getting to the hospital, but this doesn't seem like a large factor. This leaves quality of data as the more likely culprit. The article goes on to say after the portion tokenadult quoted: > Criminologists say they are cautious about using such medical statistics to draw conclusions because of year-to-year inconsistencies in the number of medical institutions reporting data. The FBI collects annual homicide and aggravated assault statistics but doesn't have reliable numbers for gun and knife attacks. > Jens Ludwig, a law professor and the director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said he was leery of any number beyond reported homicides. > "Homicide is the one thing we're measuring well," he said. "Everything else is subject to much more uncertainty," including varying numbers of emergency departments contributing data, as well as differences in how injuries are classified. So basically, take your pre-existing political biases and use that as a guide to choose which data you believe, just like everyone else does.
ellyagg 14y ago
As usual, you post an authoritative sounding reference that confirms a popular slant--in this case "gun violence is as bad as ever or even getting worse!"--and it gets voted to the top of the comments where it stays visible just long enough to protect the confirmation biases of those who agree with it, then falls off the front page before it can be refuted. Your link is behind a pay wall for me and I don't have time to completely analyze how they're justifying their spin, but according to the Bureau of Justice, non-fatal firearm crimes have indeed been falling for the last 20 years, so, no, it's not just a product of improving treatment of gunshot wounds: Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s. [http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm] As this is a well-known trend, I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to can find lots and lots of citations. Moreover, this should be obvious to anyone who has participated in public society for the last 20 years. Decreasing crime statistics, including gun crime, aren't fool's gold. Crime is down. Society is getting gentler. Twenty years ago I was 15. Gang violence dominated the news. Hard gangsta rap infused pop culture and music and it carried with it a true dangerous edge. Now culture is changing. Electronic music is popular. NBA basketball players dress up to look like Carleton Banks for press conferences. Internet culture, reddit culture is taking over. Kids spend all their time watching silly YouTube videos and playing iPhone games. There is far less free time for roving bands of aimless punks to get up to mischief. My teen-age son and his friends are incredibly nerdy and gentle and I've noticed this throughout the generation.

jsonne 14y ago

Is it possible that the rise from 2001 to 2011 has to do with the recession rather than a general upward trend? Would it be possible to see statistics from 2001 to say 2007 instead? Or even better the last 20 years.

jeffdavis 14y ago

There's a graph of "non-fatal violent firearm crime" right in the article. It looks flat to me between 2001 and 2011. Are both true somehow? Those facts seem to be in conflict.

saraid216 14y ago
The one you really want is the third one: "All non-fatal violent crime". Basically, all crime is down from its 1993 peak, and it so happens that firearm-related crimes are a subset of that. I don't have the time to run numbers to see what the percentage change is, but it'd probably be enlightening.
bjterry 14y ago
First, the quoted WSJ data is stated on an absolute basis (inflating/sensationalizing the numbers, obviously), while the graph in this article is stated on a relative basis. This still leaves an apparent discrepancy. Other real causes for the discrepancy could be improvements in emergency response in areas with gun violence. This could cause in increase in hospitalizations based on people not dying before getting to the hospital, but this doesn't seem like a large factor. This leaves quality of data as the more likely culprit. The article goes on to say after the portion tokenadult quoted: > Criminologists say they are cautious about using such medical statistics to draw conclusions because of year-to-year inconsistencies in the number of medical institutions reporting data. The FBI collects annual homicide and aggravated assault statistics but doesn't have reliable numbers for gun and knife attacks. > Jens Ludwig, a law professor and the director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said he was leery of any number beyond reported homicides. > "Homicide is the one thing we're measuring well," he said. "Everything else is subject to much more uncertainty," including varying numbers of emergency departments contributing data, as well as differences in how injuries are classified. So basically, take your pre-existing political biases and use that as a guide to choose which data you believe, just like everyone else does.

ellyagg 14y ago

As usual, you post an authoritative sounding reference that confirms a popular slant--in this case "gun violence is as bad as ever or even getting worse!"--and it gets voted to the top of the comments where it stays visible just long enough to protect the confirmation biases of those who agree with it, then falls off the front page before it can be refuted. Your link is behind a pay wall for me and I don't have time to completely analyze how they're justifying their spin, but according to the Bureau of Justice, non-fatal firearm crimes have indeed been falling for the last 20 years, so, no, it's not just a product of improving treatment of gunshot wounds: Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s. [http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm] As this is a well-known trend, I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to can find lots and lots of citations. Moreover, this should be obvious to anyone who has participated in public society for the last 20 years. Decreasing crime statistics, including gun crime, aren't fool's gold. Crime is down. Society is getting gentler. Twenty years ago I was 15. Gang violence dominated the news. Hard gangsta rap infused pop culture and music and it carried with it a true dangerous edge. Now culture is changing. Electronic music is popular. NBA basketball players dress up to look like Carleton Banks for press conferences. Internet culture, reddit culture is taking over. Kids spend all their time watching silly YouTube videos and playing iPhone games. There is far less free time for roving bands of aimless punks to get up to mischief. My teen-age son and his friends are incredibly nerdy and gentle and I've noticed this throughout the generation.