Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Colonel
"The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count.
|
Ohh dear. This is where we're going to divert even further. Are you suggesting that killing a burgler is alright if he's trying to enter your house (no matter how small the percentage of this happening is)? Since when did individuals become the executors of the law? Let alone the death penalty issue at stake here.
[quote:4a7cc]Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."p[/quote:4a7cc]
Did you read all the links I posted? There was one good one which criticised pro-gun studies saying they did the same thing, exaggerated cases of defensive (e.g. getting up when you here a bump in the night).
[quote:4a7cc]
I agree that this is difficult. As in the case I mentioned earlier, I believe my father's flife was saved by his gun. Can I prove it? No. Can I be reasonably sure that a young guy with a baseball bat who is ramming your door, and who tries even harder to break down that door after he sees the 75 year old liilte guy inside, intends to cause someone serious bodily injury? yes. [/quote:4a7cc]
I can't comment because I don't know your father's incident, but no doubt that most cases are exaggerated.
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—
1.3 unintentional deaths
4.6 criminal homicides
37 suicides22
People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home
In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.
Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.
Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm (those stats are from the FBI. There's alot more interesting info on there)
[quote:4a7cc]This is not an unusual case, "criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)"[/quote:4a7cc]
See above.
[quote:4a7cc]Ah, but the point is that crime in general, and even violent crime increased.[/quote:4a7cc]
No, that isn't a point, because you are drawing a conclusion with no actual evidence. Just because crime increases does not mean it is control related. As I said, gun crimes are down. The reason other crime is up... well that's a seperate issue.
[quote:4a7cc]
This is a little insulting. Crime is crime regardless of skin color. This statement is like me saying to you that your only concerned about banning guns because you don't want to be "blasted away" and that you don't care about all of the women that are raped because "You don't have to live with it"[/quote:4a7cc]
Unfortunately crime is not just crime. Racism inflitrates every institution and you are kidding yourself if you think the politicians or the police are the same about the middle-class suburbs as they do about the poor downtown areas.
[quote:4a7cc]By the way, in the murder/attempted murder category in the Australian stats they increased from 639 cases to 666 cases, sexual assaults increased from 14,353 to 14,568. I guess you don't want the stats about accidental deaths. But.. 100,000 people of all ages were accidentaly killed in the US in 1999 (sorry that the last of year of stats that I could find). Tragically 824 were from accidental firearm deaths. 42,401 from autos, 13,162 from falls, 12,186 from poisoning, etc - firearms deaths were way down the list.[/quote:4a7cc]
Australia has quite strict control.... perhaps a link?
Anyway, I concede that accidental (although what exactly that means) death is rather small, but that is still 824 too many. 824 which I believe, if guns were bannedm wouldn't exist.
[quote:4a7cc]Your comments about my 19th century values will have to wait until another time - got to pick my daughter up from school - but I will say that freedom is never old fashioned. I think we are looking at this from two different directions. you say that "your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead" and I agree.[/quote:4a7cc]
No, I was suggesting your idea of freedom is old fashioned. It is not the same now as it was back then.
[quote:4a7cc]But your freedom from the fear of being "blasted away" will not be worth a penny if a guy bigger than you beats you to death or rapes your daughter, etc. I guess it is all in how you look at it.[/quote:4a7cc]
And you think a gun will stop that? I don't, not one bit. All that happens is that the "bad" guys end up with more weapons.
[quote:4a7cc]By the way, you also said that non-lethal by definition cannot kill you. Maybe its not designed to, but it can. Remember the actor a few years ago that was killed by a blank firing gun because it was fired too close to his head? Haven't you occasionally read about someone in a crowd getting killed by a rubber bullet that happens to hit them just right? Don't you remember Mama Cass choking on a ham sandwich? (actually I think she had a heart attack while eating a sandwich but it didn't go down in history that way). -- Boy I wish this had spell check cause there's no way I'm gonna proof this.[/quote:4a7cc]
Yes, but you're being pedantic. Certain incidents under certain circumstances.
