Tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tomahawk...how about referencing Lott's
> > repudiation of the info I provided? And oh by
> the
> > way...how does Mr Lott make a living? Does
> he/she
> > also have blood on his hands by being a
> > "professional" defender of our supposed rights?
>
>
> My mistake, it wasn't Lott (who is an author and
> an economics professor, IIRC).
>
> Here are some links:
>
> Odds of dying from various causes:
>
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
>
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
> m.asp?ID=2257
>
> Unintentional injuries chart:
>
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
> m.asp?ID=2256
>
> Flaw in Kellerman study:
>
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
> m.asp?ID=2331
>
> The last link is to a website you will reflexively
> want to reject, but you should read it anyway. A
> key paragraph is this:
>
> "How many successful self-defense events do not
> result in death of the criminal? An analysis by
> Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law
> and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 ) of successful
> defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack
> concluded that the criminal is killed in only one
> case in approximately every one thousand attacks.
> If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in
> the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a
> factor of a thousand and should be at least as
> small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the
> effectiveness of firearms as defense against
> criminal assault should incorporate every event
> where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated;
> thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal
> favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts
> only the one event in which the criminal is
> killed."
>
> In other words, for every criminal that is killed
> by a gun in self defense, 1000 incidents of
> self-defense occurred which did not result in a
> criminal's death. Most of these do not get
> reported, of course, because a story about a
> mugger or a burgler who runs away when he sees a
> gun is not sensational.
You know...I really wonder about people on here...actually quite often! How you can use as a reputable source of information/data an organization who MAKES MONEY solely by defending the uncontrolled use of fire arms is beyond me. I hope they enjoy their 30 schillings of silver! Soooo..its the right to bear arms group statististics versus the The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and the Athe New England Journal of Medicine). I wonder which organizations are more prone to take an objective view? The one that dissapears if guns dissapear or two of the most respected Journals in their respective areas that will be around even if guns dissapear?
The discussion to eliminate suicides from the statistics is right up there with a debate on "what the definition of is, is"! In the table it lists the odds during a persons lifehood of committing suicide by firearms as 1 in 169! That is an incredible and sobering statistic. It means that if 50 families (with an avg of 4 people per family) go out and buy a gun 1.2 of those families will experience a suicide by firearms incident! That is horrific...and anyone who brings a gun into their family knowing that is as guilty as sin of intentional murder.
Compare that statistic with the odds of your house ever being broken into. Add on top of that..if it is broken into the odds of you being there to even possibly use your gun, Add that to the odds of you being on the loosing end of that gun battle!
I know the Michael Vick stories and scarey...and there appears to be a simple solution in having a gun. BUT IT JUST AIN'T SO!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2008 03:13PM by Vince(1).