Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control

"pbamvv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pbamvv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ab82c38f-9c74-44cf-a7dc-3074cf3a7012@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 12 jan, 18:54, Jim Bianchi <ji...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:7de0b8d8-1973-4353-9502-20a7a2333cfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
m:
I do not attribute criminal violence with gun ownership.
I do believe there is some correlation between gun-ownership and
being shot.

        Huh? If you look at what you're saying, these two sentence
s are
mutually contradictory. The second sentence is totally incorrect.
There is

(and has never been) any correlation between firearm ownership and
'being shot' (except that, before firearms existed, there was no
danger of being shot -- stabbed, choked, beheaded, beaten, yes --
shot no). I'll take your

use of 'being shot' as meaning 'becoming a victim of violent crime,'
and point out that both the number of firearms existing as well as
the estimat
ed
annual sales figures do not track in any way with the amount of
violent crime (or the possibility of 'being shot').


That part of your respons was intended for me I guess.
I meant to say that violence involves beatings, stabbings and other
kinds of violence, for which no gun is required.

So that is the part if JIm Yanik's claim I acknowledge without
hesitation.
However for shooting a gun is required. I remember someone arguing
some thirty years ago, that people who own a gun, statistically have a
higher chance of getting shot.

the old Kellerman "study".
see http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

And even Kellerman now admits his study was "flawed".

Wether that was so because they were
shot with their own gun (happens quite often) or because the fact that
they showed their gun, was reason for another person to fire at them,
or whether it was that because they realized they were in danger, that
they obtained the gun in the first place, wasn't said.

Or maybe they were engaged in criminal activity such as drug dealing,which
innately has a high rate of violence.

The thruth of this can be easily reckognized because I do not think
anyone will contradict that a soldier has a higher chance of getting
shot than a civilian.

I do not know whether this old statistic is still valid, but I have
reason to presume it is.

And that reason would be....???? Lets hear it,so we can evaluate it or
debunk it.
Or is it really your imagination?

Even in Jim Yanik's stories about civilians
defending them self against armed criminals, we have gun owners (the
criminals) being shot at!

Ah,you want to include criminals which are NOT legal gun owners.
Their very possession fo a firearm or even ONE round of ammo is a felony.
Nice attempt at skewing the data.


that's just your imagination;you have no factual evidence for that
belie
f.

        ..ah, no. It is found in the FBI UCR figures (or can easil
y be
derived from them).

Per the NCVS, 97% of the criminal victimizations did not involve a
firearm....only 3% did. In that same NCVS, only 29% of the *violent*
criminal victimizations involved a firearm, 71% did not.

-90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any
type. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998)

-Less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of
a crime. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)

        What was that you were saying about "that's all your imagi
nation?"  

--
ji...@xxxxxxxxx





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
.

Relevant Pages