From: Matt Jensen (mattj@newsblip.com)
Date: Mon Dec 18 2000 - 13:51:26 PST
The facts you mentioned are very interesting. (However, they would be
more useful to the discussion if you included sources, rather than putting
that burden on your readers.) Thanks,
-Matt Jensen
NewsBlip.com
Seattle
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> I've not trimmed this thing (except for sigs) because I think Bill's
> points need to be reiterated.
>
> Australia's violent crime rate is up more than 40% in some areas since
> guns were made illegal there.
>
> In the US, violent crimes have dropped more than 50% in Richmond VA and
> Rochester NY since "experimental" programs to actually enforce existing
> federal firearms laws have been in operation. The US has more firearms
> laws than any other country, but chooses not to enforce them. In Texas
> and Virginia, violent crime is down 15-25% since relaxed requirements
> for obtaining concealed carry permits (still requiring a criminal
> background check by state or county officials) were passed. It seems
> criminals show more caution when they're not sure who's armed and who's
> not. What's the violent crime rate in Wyoming? 8^)
>
> Britain had a mass murder from a flamethrower wielding individual while
> they were in the process of banning firearms (this time) but did not
> make welding torches illegal as well.
>
> Before WW II Britain had very strict firearms ownership laws that
> precluded most citizens from owning firearms. Sometime shortly before
> Lend Lease got going, Britain was appealing to US gun owners to donate
> their weapons, at the time assuming Germany would launch an amphibious
> invasion. Ask your grandparents, you whippersnappers. My dad told me
> about this one.
>
> Guns intelligently stored do not kill children, same with cars
> intelligently operated. Either thing used, handled, maintained, or
> stored stupidly kills, and that's the real point of this comparison.
> There are twice as many firearms as cars in the US, BTW.
>
> The vast majority of crimes *prevented* by firearms owners involve
> display of the gun only, not the use of it. This is an ever-ignored fact
> in the debate.
>
> The largest school murder in US history came in the first half of the
> twentieth century when a madman dynamited a school in Michigan. This
> made US news for about ten seconds during the recent Columbine
> shootings.
>
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have owned firearms all my life as have most of my friends and family.
> > I
> > > > have never known anyone who has been injured by a firearm (well I got a
> > > > blister on my hand from the recoil from shooting my .44 mag, but that
> > doesn't
> > > > count) or injured someone else with a firearm. I know of several cases
> > where a
> > > > firearm was used in self defence (no shots fired). Oh, and I have never
> > know
> > > > anyone to commit a crime with a firearm either. My experience is not
> > > > uncommon, dispite what most "Journalists" in the media would have you to
> > > > believe.
> > >
> > > It depends what you mean by "uncommon". With 200 million guns in
> > > America[1], certainly 99% of them are not used in fatal shootings each
> > > year. Most guns are sitting in a closet or gun rack most of the time, so
> > > any gun use (outside of target practice) could be considered uncommon.
> > >
> > > But the other set of statistics to look at are the circumstances in which
> > > guns *are* used. Of the ~37,000 gun deaths each year, about 17,000 are
> > > suicides, 6,000 are accidents, and about 14,000 are homicides. Of the
> > > 14,000 homicides, about 250 are considered justifiable (according to the
> > > FBI)[1,2]. The average person who shoots someone in his home is 22 times
> > > more likely to kill himself or someone he knows than to kill in
> > > self-defense[3].
> > >
> > > (BTW, I'm surprised when FoRKers use anecdotal evidence to counter
> > > statistical evidence
> >
> > Matt,
> > Careful with those 'statistics'. What exactly is the definition of the
> > 'average' person? I would like to see these statistics broken out into even
> > more demographic detail but I doubt that will ever happen because it will not
> > support the pro GC crowd's fear mongering than the "average suburban housewife
> > and her children are in mortal danger from firearms". Suburban housewives and
> > their kids are NOT in any significant danger from firearms and the
> > 'statistics' will show that if you dig deep enough. Let's bring ALL the
> > statistics out in the public and have a TOTALLY informed debate.
> >
> > <rant>
> > I suspect the leaders of the GC crowd (as opposed to their drone followers)
> > are not interested in truth, they are interested in thrusting their world view
> > on everyone (at the point of a gun if necessary). If, after an -informed-
> > debate, the American public decides it wants to ban gun ownership, then lets
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment and be done with it. What the GC leaders are doing
> > now is completely immoral, IMHO.
> >
> > Ahh, now I feel better :-)
> > </rant>
> >
> > On a more personal note, would you like it if decisions were made for you by
> > your government based on 'studies' of the 'average' person? I guess I just
> > have a LOT of first hand (anecdotal) evidence that the folks I have spent my
> > life with are not 'average' people :-)
> >
> > > The fact that Uncle Charlie smokes two packs a day
> > > and is 80 years old does not dispute the statistical proof that smoking is
> > > likely to kill people.)
> >
> > Bad analogy. There is a good cause and effect relationship between tobacco use
> > and disease, regardless of where the user lives, culture, education level,
> > professional training, training on 'how to use tobacco properly :-)',
> > political beliefs, or whatever. Comparing this to 'gun control' is, ummm, not
> > rigorous :-). Guns are not a disease, despite what the CDC would have you
> > believe. Jeeesh, I go off on a rant about the U.S. Govt. spending tax dollars
> > on obviously politically biased CDC 'studies' with the intent of circumventing
> > the 2nd amendment, but I won't.
> >
> > >
> > > The trickier numbers to get are the non-lethal successes, such as scaring
> > > a burglar off by showing your gun. Of course, non-lethal incidents from
> > > the other side, where a criminal holds up a liquor store or robs someone
> > > at gunpoint, also have to be counted (and generally are, in police
> > > reports, at around 1 million criminal handgun incidents per year [2]).
> >
> > Have you seen Gary Kleck's reports?
> >
> > http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
> >
> > Here is quote from that site...
> >
> > "The author (Gary Kleck) is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union,
> > Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common
> > Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong
> > registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic
> > candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor
> > to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other
> > advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such
> > organization. "
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps a good question to ask is, "If we had strict enforcement of gun
> > > control laws, would there be as much need to defend ourselves with guns?"
> > > E.g., how many of those 250 justifiable shootings were at people who
> > > pulled a gun on the homeowner, as opposed to a knife? I think the
> > > evidence from Canada, Japan, and Europe suggests we would be safer with
> > > strict gun control.
> >
> > We have pretty strict drug laws in this country and we still have drugs
> > galore. Taking another tact, if I am a criminal and I am confident that no one
> > else has a gun, then if I have a gun that gives me a great advantage. Now
> > consider that it is almost trivial to manufacture a firearm that is sufficient
> > for committing a robbery.
> >
> > IMHO, much of the violence in the U.S. has cultural roots thus comparisons
> > with other countries is really not that useful. The canonical example is
> > Switzerland; each household is required to have a fully automatic "assault
> > rifle" with ammo yet the violence rate in that country is remarkably low. It
> > is rather obvious that factors other than availability of firearms play a
> > bigger role in violence.
> >
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/gunhome.asp
> > > [2] FBI UCRs, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99c2_03.pdf
> > > [3] http://www.nejm.org/content/1993/0329/0015/1084.asp
> > >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&uid=9224179&Do
> > pt=r
> > >
> > > p.s. - [This thread does not pull in 2nd Amendment arguments, etc.; it's
> > > only talking about personal safety.]
> >
> > I agree that pulling in 2nd amendment arguments adds significant complexity.
> > Should be part of the debate though.
>
> --
> Chuck
> Chuck Murcko
> Topsail Group
> chuck@topsail.org
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 18 2000 - 14:06:17 PST