Samira wrote:
I would also point out that the 80s in particular saw an upsurge in gang activity with the advent of crack cocaine. By definition, that would increase stranger and acquaintance crime, bloating those stats for that period of time. As Smash pointed out, violent crime has been on a steady decline since then.
Also, as I attempted to point out earlier, some of this is methodology changes. I'd have to go back and look at the methodology for the older data, but the new data lists as "non-stranger" anyone who is a "neighbor". Depending on how loosely that's interpreted, that could mean that the gang banger who lives on your block counts as an acquaintance rather than a stranger, where in the older data set, he may not have been.
In any case, let's not forget the original context. The claim made was about the likelihood of a firearm being used by someone you know against you versus you using it to defend yourself. The argument was that since most violent crime is committed against family or acquaintances, that those people would just use your gun against you. The problem is that even if we can make an argument for this when looking at "all violent crimes", this doesn't hold true if we limit things to gun crimes, and when we limit the "friend and family" to people who would have physical access to your firearm, the numbers slant even more.
It's easy to get lost in the stats, but at the end of the day, the claim that by buying a gun you're only arming those most likely to commit a crime against you is clearly not true.