Kleck also states that the percentage decrease was larger than in any

other US city with a population of over 100,000. Kleck neglects to

tell us what the population of Orlando was, but by looking at the

granularity of the data you can deduce that the population of Orlando

was less than 100,000 for the whole period 1958-1972. Comparing

apples with oranges. Cute, real cute. Orlando itself experienced a

larger percentage decrease in 1963.

Greg Booth said:

I don't have an almanac handy, but Orlando is a huge city, and has been

for quite some time. Look up the info before you knock down

straw men.

It may now be a big city if you include the suburbs, but the

population of the city proper used by Kleck to compute crime rates was

95.7k in 1967. It is easy to determine this: the rape rate is given

as 4.18 and the homicide rate as 21.97. The ratio of these numbers is

4:21. This means that there were 4 rapes and 21 homicides or some

multiple of this and the population was a multiple of 95.7k. Looking

at the rates for other crimes lets us conclude that 95.7k is the most

probable figure. (The only other likely possibility is that the

number of crimes was an even number for all of these -- which is

unlikely for 5 numbers, and near impossible for 30 numbers.)

The point is that if you want to show that the reduction was unusual,

you must compare it with changes in cities with populations in the

range 50k-150k. Comparing it with cities >100k and not telling us the

population is dishonest.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by

25% in Orlando, in addition to the rape reductions.

And homicide increased by 22%, in spite of decreasing in Florida

overall. Should we chalk that up to the gun training program too?

Of course not. It has already been stated that none of women ever fired a

gun in defense or inappropriately.

So why credit the reduction in rape and burglary to the program? Oh I

see, you would claim this as an indirect effect, where rapists and

burglars gave up because they were worried about armed victims. Well,

what if some criminals instead armed themselves to help deal with this

threat. With-gun robberies are three times as likely as with-knife

robberies to be fatal to the victim[1], and it seems plausible that

this lethality extends to other crimes. Hence, the program could cause

more armed criminals and more homicides. It is interesting to note

that the "effect" of the the gun training program cited by Kleck (KC

in 67) was a 2% increase in robberies and a 48% increase in homicides.