Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu misc.headlines:41579 talk.politics.guns:53323
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!uwm.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.020206.2084@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <1pfc6o$e56@hpchase.rose.hp.com> <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:02:06 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
>effect on homicide rates.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there would be no effect. But
there would be no _net_ _positive_ effect. You also have to 
consider the negative side: Law abiding citizens, armed with 
fireamrs (pistols for the most part), prevent between 80,000
(National Crime Survey) and 1,000,000 (Dr. Kleck) crimes
each year. (Those are the extremes. Most studies find
the number to be 500,000 to 600,000.) About 1% of those crimes are
homicides, so private ownership of firearms _saves_ approximately
5,000 lives each year. There are roughly 12,000 criminal homicides
and fatal accidents involving guns each year. For there to 
be any net benefit, you would have to show that gun control measures
would disarm over 40% of the criminals currently using guns.
That would be very hard to do: According the the federal BATF,
only 8% of criminals buy their guns over the counter. Since
gun control laws, by their very nature, only effect legal
sales, such a law would remove all the benefits of armed,
law-abiding citizens while having only a minimal effect on
armed criminals (who, by and large, get their guns illegally.) 
That doesn't sound like a net benefit to me.
  
>...There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
>homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.

Since most were with licensed weapons, I assume you are not
supporting "reasonable" laws (i.e. waiting periods, background
checks, licenses, etc...). Since only a complete ban would 
alter the statistic you refer to, I assume that's what you
are supporting.

By the way, 1135 people dies in 1986 from falling down stairs.
250 accidental handgun deaths isn't significant next to 
other household accidents.

>...More
>American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
>than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.

1080 children under the age of 10 died by drowning, 69 from 
drinking poisonous household chemicals (like Drano), 139 from
falls. If the real goal is to reduce the tragic, accidental
deaths of children, wouldn't a ban on drain cleaners be a 
better palce to start? (Or, perhaps, restricting ownership to
professionals like plumbers?)

>...Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
>TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).

While you might call it "emphasis", refering to completely two
statistics in the same sentence _implies_ a comparison. If it
isn't valid, and you put the numbers together to convince people
you are right, the kindest thing I could call it is propaganda.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

