LOAD YOUR WEAPONS NOW!

J

Jffal

New member
Someone threw some stats and comments at me in an effort to prove that while America is safer than, say, Algeria, firearms in the hands of citizens make it a very dangerous nation to live in. There are a number of you out there who have more familarity with these facts and figures. So, have a crack at these comments now.
Jeff (who never met a figure he entirely trusted after taking a college statistic course)

"Source Australian Institute of Criminology May 1996, and Killias 1993 (1994 data except Switzerland 1983-1986.)

International firearm and other homicide rates per 100,000 persons, 1994        
Swiss Eng Aus Can USA
Guns 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 6.3
Othr 0.7 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.7
Total 1.2 1.3 1.9 2.3 9.0
 
As for guns being good for self-defense against serial killers and mass-murderers, and the monsters of our society, well:
Most gun deaths have nothing to do with crime. To regard firearm-related mortality as merely a crime-related problem is to dismiss 90% of gun deaths, which have nothing to do with crime. These are New Zealand figures, very close to the Australian situation:
      Three-quarters of gun killings -- 76% -- are suicides. (In Australia it's 80%)   Twelve percent are unintentional deaths.
      Only the remaining 12% are criminal homicides.
---------
      This from 1992-1994:
      95% of the victims were killed by a familiar person   63% of all the dead were shot during family violence   30% were shot by a family member
      5% were shot by their current partner
  15% by an estranged partner
  30% by a friend or acquaintance
  7.5% were shot by a known sexual rival
  7.5% were killed by a known gang rival
      only 5% were killed by a stranger
As in rape and assault, "stranger danger", "home invasion" and "dark alley" encounters are extreme rarities in the real world of firearm homicide in both New Zealand and Australia. Instead, 95% of victims in this study were killed by familiar people, usually by intimates and family, 70% of them in the safest place they know - at home or at work.
Guns don't make you safe.

[This message has been edited by Jffal (edited June 15, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Jffal (edited June 15, 1999).]
 
Sorry the first big set of statistics got crushed together, despite my editing.
Switzerland is supposed to be atop the column with these figures
Guns 0.5
Other 0.7
Total 1.2


Jeff
 
It seems to me that your post stands for the anti-gun position. I have been working in the heat all day and suffer from brain-drain so please correct me if I am wrong.

GUNS DO MAKE YOU SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I personally don't really care about a study , statistics, ect anti-gun OR pro-gun. Statistics mean nothing to me, freedom means EVERYTHING! If statistics are your game what about the Lott and Kleck studies?

Guns make you safe from an oppresive and tyranical government and from that you get what the Second Amendment is really about. Freedom is what gun ownership is all about and the safety of my freedom is secured only by the firearms I own.

Later
Daren
 
Daren: Jeff was quoting the original message from another list, not listing his own opinion. Jeff is just asking for info to combat the original anti-gun poster's stats.
 
Part of the problem with numbers like these is that they don't tell the whole story. To look at the household violence portion and have it make any sense, you cannot just isolate as a set of numbers.

According to police numbers, when there is a shooting in a home (even if it is not associated with drug-dealing) there is a history of complaints from either neighbors or household members. The police are rarely surprised by such an event, apparently.

The problem, then, is that we have no provision in law, or otherwise within our legal system, where a person not convicted of a felony can be disarmed in advance of anticipated violence. I understand why (innocent until proven guilty, etc.) and have no answer.

Guns, in and of themselves, are obviously not the problem, proven by the very numbers given Jeff. After all, Switzerland is included, and all males from about 17 to around 45 (?) have battle rifles and ammunition within their homes.

Go to the website of the Center for Disease Control and browse. It give such mortality figures as homicides, suicides, various medical causes, etc., by age group. And, it gives homicides by age, gender, and ethnic group. Some startling numbers. It gives a breakdown by gun and non-gun homicides. Remember that "homicide" includes justifiable as well as criminal deaths.

I note in passing that the homicide rate among white US residents is less than the homicide rate of most European countries commonly used for comparison to us...

There were 16,804 homicides (all methods) in the US in 1996. There were about 44,000 deaths from automobiles. There were some 30,000 suicides (all methods).

Accidental child deaths, 0-14 years, 1996: Falls, 101. Poison, 109. Guns, 138. Bicycles, 197. Suffocation, 666. Fires, 740. Drowning, 981. Motor vehicles, 3,015.

That is, of 5,947 accidental deaths of children 14 and under, 2.3 percent involved guns.

Deliberate deaths, 0-14, 1996 from firearms, 379. For 15-19 it was 2,457.

All ages, firearms, 14,037l; down from 1993's 18,253...Almost a 25% reduction.

We have a population of 270 million, roughly. 16,804 divided by 270 million is 6.2 homicdes per 100,000. This compares with a European range of about 4.5 for England and Germany, 5.6 or so for France, and 6.2 for Italy. (These numbers are older than 1996, and are withing 0.2 of reality. I'm recalling them from an article in National Review from a few years ago.)

If it is factual that 40% of US households own some 200 million guns, I'd say we're a fairly peaceful country. I believe also that we have fewer police per capita than almost any other developed country...

FWIW, Art

Pregnancy can occur from anal sex: How else could we have lawyers?
 
I presented the information above to give those of you more intimate with the facts and figures of the gun debate an oppurtunity to take it apart.

I learned from studying statistics that even the most unbiased, honest figures can be invalidated for any number of reasons, including not factoring in all the crucial variables. To make matters worse, many of those who set up stastical surveys are biased and therefore dishonest, coaxing the final study to support their position regardless of the truth.

Lott and Kleck? I think I actually read some of their persuasive work in one form or another online. Wish to hell I could remember the urls!
Jeff
 
Gentlemen: Figures lie and liers figure !

The problem is the different methods of recording the numbers... many of the justifiable homicides are still recorded as homicides in the US, which skews the numbers, also other countries have had a much stricter judicial and prison system, and haven't fostered a criminal class over the last 30 years, along with the "lets keep it going " war on drugs in the USA , which creates a high incidence of fatalities between drug dealers ... ala prohibition in the twenties... turf wars etc......they also stab alot of people in England, they survive , although are frequently mamed of life , thats part of the difference.... Aus is a realitively uncrowded nation and has less trouble as a result..... Its all about disarming the populace... DON'T EVER FORGET THAT !!!

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
As Art pointed out, the stats alone make little sense without the context of teh whole study. You need to understand teh methodology in order to make an informed opinion about how teh numbers were developed. someone recently posted a link to the 1999 Gun fact sheet put put out by GOA. Here it is again - http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm It's very well organized with all of the citations referenced by source. It does a good job of telling the whole story, but net-net, guns in teh hands of teh law abiding DO reduce crime, make you safer, and have a positive social contribution.
Take care, M2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top