Comments on GUN CONTROL, OR "BAD GUN! BAD, BAD GUN!"

Go to THRAWN RICKLE - Add a comment - Go to GUN CONTROL, OR "BAD GUN! BAD, BAD GUN!"

thanks I'll take a look argee

it is very cluttered here today

posted by beachbelle on October 2, 2003 at 8:26 AM | link to this | reply

G'morning, Belle...

I did respond to you. You may have missed it in the clutter.

posted by arGee on October 2, 2003 at 8:25 AM | link to this | reply

Argee - Any comments to my post

and reply to you last night?

posted by beachbelle on October 2, 2003 at 8:11 AM | link to this | reply

Come on, DL...!

I am not backing out. It's just that our discussion has reached an impass. I see no need to churn the waters for my own ego. I have supplied you with sufficient information (or pointed to appropriate sources) so that you can inform yourself more completely. You choose to do that, or not. I can't control that (nor wish to).

Regarding the data you present from other countries: According to John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, "Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control [term of art for limiting extraneous influences on the study] for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries."

I don't have an answer for you on Canada. Since it is practically a "Third World Counrty," that may have something to do with it. Might be interesting to investigate sometime.

You know I don't believe I have ALL the facts...but I do consider all the facts I can find, and I NEVER eliminate facts simply because they don't seem to support myh position, NEVER EVER!

posted by arGee on October 2, 2003 at 7:57 AM | link to this | reply

You Are Showing a Weird...

...trait of backing out of discussions when the evidence against you mounts. You've done the same on the green issue, I see. Well, I can understand that.

However...

"Overwhelming evidence from across the country shows that wherever gun ownership rules are lessened, gun violence goes DOWN." But overwhelming evidence from around the world shows that countries with gun ownership rules have far fewer gun deaths than the US. See data provided.

And you never did answer my question on Canada. I'm not sure what the answer to the US disease is, but if you can figure out what Canada is getting right, and the US is getting wrong, then you may be some way forward.

Oh, and don't fool yourself that you consider 'all the facts' before giving forth. No one has all the facts, and you are just as liable as I, or anyone else, to select those facts that fit your own bias and disguard the rest. You scientists have been doing that for centuries ;-)

D

posted by DamonLeigh on October 2, 2003 at 7:40 AM | link to this | reply

Interesting data compilation...

A portion of your data is disputable because of its source, which is demonstrably biased, and has a history of distorting information to make a specific point, BUT...

This does not matter, because you have completely missed the point. Whether or not more or less people die from gun violence in the United States, and whether or not there is a higher level of crime involving guns in the United States, is NOT at issue—at least not in my article. My point is that restricting gun ownership is not the best way to solve this problem (which we all recognize is real).

The tragic statistics you cite (accepting for argument that they are to the point, if not totally accurate) CLEARLY demonstrate that we have a problem. It is, however, a problem of VIOLENCE, not guns. I do not say this lightly. Overwhelming evidence from across the country shows that wherever gun ownership rules are lessened, gun violence goes DOWN.

In the world I live in, I take ALL facts into account. When facts disagree with my point of view, I change my point of view, I don't ignore the facts, or try to explain them away.

John R. Lott, Jr. teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School, where he is the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. He has published over 70 articles in academic journals. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, in which he argues the point of the title, using data compiled for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

His arguments and the data underlying them are compelling. It is senseless to argue facts, and it is equally senseless to argue opinion which is based upon assumptions and distorted information. Lott concludes a published interview with these words: “All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.”

His book is available through this link.

I don’t wish to continue this debate since there probably is little chance that we can reach a meeting of minds, BUT I urge you to read Lott’s book so that you, too, can “develop an informed opinion.”

posted by arGee on October 2, 2003 at 6:42 AM | link to this | reply

PS...

...just expanded on this for a Fishing in the Rivers of Light post, now playing on a homepage near you.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on October 2, 2003 at 3:36 AM | link to this | reply

Smirk...

...you are a one!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on October 2, 2003 at 3:35 AM | link to this | reply

DL putting source data on your comments diminishes their credibility.

No sorry I'm wrong.

posted by Mike_Manc on October 2, 2003 at 3:34 AM | link to this | reply

As The Man Says, Check Your Facts...

FACT: Every two years (sorry - I said 1) more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874, a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8

FACT: People who keeps guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771).

FACT: Everyday in the United States, 9 children are killed by guns. In 2000, gun violence killed 28,663 Americans:

* 10,801 in homicides
* 16,586 in suicides
* 776 in unintentional shootings
* 270 in legal interventions, and
* 230 in undetermined events

While this is a welcome decrease from 1999 data, too many Americans are being killed by a preventable problem.
- Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics WISQARS online data service, obtained 2002

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.
- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

FACT: Despite popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3 to 4 year olds, 70% of 5 to 6 year olds, and 90% of 7 to 8 year olds can fire most handguns.
- Naureckas, SM, Christoffel, KK, et al. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995

FACT: Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)

FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40

FACT: In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

FACT: From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

FACT: As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.
- National Institute of Justice, May 1997

Pretty much knocks all your arguements comprehensively for six, wouldn't you say? (I'm compiling a similar pure-facts list for your Greens post, but it may take a bit longer).

D

posted by DamonLeigh on October 2, 2003 at 3:21 AM | link to this | reply

Thrawn Rickle - I don't know what your definition of freedom is but

its not real freedom if people feel compelled to takes gun everywhere they go. The trouble with that too is that it leaves the vulnerable people in society, those who are not capable of handling a gun, even more vulnerable. What do you recommend to them - bullet proof boxes and lives? Please see my post in BB's news aand views about the gun incident on my way home today.

posted by beachbelle on October 1, 2003 at 4:27 PM | link to this | reply

Belle, I grew up in one of those countries...

...W Germany. I can tell yhou that anyone who wanted a gun could get one outside of the legal channels. Germany had bullet proof windows in its banks long before this became necessary in America. I am not saying that countries with tighter gun controls enjoy NO freedom, but that they routinely enjoy LESS freedom.

I cannot believe that you would restrict the freedom of an entire people simply to exercise a possible control over a small minority of criminals who don't know how to get guns outside the system. The simple fact is that ANYBODY can get an illegal gun in less than a hour anywhere in America, and within two or three hours anywere else. You cannot control gun violence by controlling guns.

Nobody of good will wants gun violence. It's just that some of us see more clearly how to solve the problem. And remember that where our solution has been implemented, it has worked--always!

posted by arGee on October 1, 2003 at 12:11 PM | link to this | reply

Yes I understand ARGEE that bad guys will get guns anywhere if they want them

but where there are tighter restrictions on guns some of the bad guys who are not so efficient or organised and not too bright will find it more difficult to get hold of guns.

It is preposterous to suggest that all nations with tighter restrictions on guns do not enjoy freedom. Many Western nations have a much smaller proportion of gun ownership and gun crime and people in those places live free

posted by beachbelle on October 1, 2003 at 10:50 AM | link to this | reply

Please check your facts, Belle...

In every study so far, even those where the original intent was to prove the opposite, wherever there is free access to guns, crime of ALL KINDS is MUCH lower.

I understand your argument, but it simply is not true. I believe the reason is that criminals will always be able to get guns illegally, no matter what lows you pass. When this happens, only the bad guys have guns, and this is not a good situation.

In those countries where there is tight gun control and little crime, you will see (if you choose to investigate) that there also is little freedom of any other kind as well. I prefer to live free, don 't you?

posted by arGee on October 1, 2003 at 10:33 AM | link to this | reply

Thrawn Rickle - Better to stop the problem at source

If few people, no matter how responsible they are, (and who can judge that?) had access to firearms, gun-related crimes would be less prevalent. There are still many places in the world where it is still not the norm to have a firearm waved in your face and where gun crime is low compared to the US. Of course the horse as bolted but even the wildest horse can be captured. That they cannot travel with guns must deter many US citizens from foreign travel. As D said, the difference between guns and most other things that one needs a permit for is that guns are designed to kill or injure.

posted by beachbelle on October 1, 2003 at 9:33 AM | link to this | reply

To Belle...

I don't disagree, BUT it remains nearly impossible in a free society to keep dangerous things from irresponsible people. We do, however, have some success with controlling their behavior by threats against their persons when they do dangerous things. Thus my call for severe penalties for using firearms in the commission of a crime.

posted by arGee on October 1, 2003 at 9:07 AM | link to this | reply

Once again--check your facts!

50,000 people died in Vietnam. Are you really saying that more than 50,000 people die from gun related incidents each year in the U.S.? You're kidding, right?

Of course guns are designed for killing. That doesn't change the point that they don't do the killing: PEOPLE do the killing. Do you really not understand this elementary statement of logic?

posted by arGee on October 1, 2003 at 9:02 AM | link to this | reply

Me Again

This is the old, worn-out arguement that basically says - Guns don't kill people - people kill people. And the flaw in the arguement remains, as illustrated well by your goodself.

See, cars are designed to transport people from A to B. Golf balls are designed for the golf course. Guns are designed to kill. Therein lies the difference. (And of coursze some people shoot targets, or less valuable forms of life than humans (!), but the bottom line is - guns are designed to kill.

But I have a question. Why is it that more Americans die of gunshot wounds in the US EVERY YEAR than died in Vietnam while, just over the border in Canada, per capita gun ownership is equal to, if not higher, than that in the US, yet their gun death tally is usually in single figures?

D