------- start of forwarded message ------- Path: news.umbc.edu!not-for-mail From: jjasen1@umbc.edu (John "E.R." Jasen) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,md.politics,dc.politics,balt.general Subject: Reasoning Against Gun Control -- was Re: [MD Politics] Thank You Parris Glendening Date: 29 Sep 1998 16:16:29 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lines: 178 Message-ID: <6urf6t$9t9@umbc9.umbc.edu> References: <6ulrle$2kj@umbc9.umbc.edu> <3610dfd9.5964954@enews.newsguy.com> <6ur6gs$863@umbc9.umbc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc9.umbc.edu Xref: news.umbc.edu talk.politics.guns:221436 md.politics:326 dc.politics:6081 balt.general:11105 There's a lot of misconceptions that have been allowed to permeate, in regards to the issues surrounding the banning of firearms. So, let's take on a few of the big ones: 1) banning firearms will reduce availability to criminals. a) One merely needs to look at our proximity to South American countries ruled by criminals, open sea coasts and thousands of miles of an open border with Mexico, to realize that any prohibitions against smuggled contraband will run into a serious problem. I cite, as example, our failed war on drugs. In spite of the time, money and effort expended by our government, anyone with money in their pockets can quickly obtain the illicit drug of their choice, most likely with a small chance of being caught, prosecuted and convicted. b) Even if firearms were completely removed from civilian hands, the police and military still possess them. Currently, the police and military already have problems accounting for the firearms in their possession, as many have already trickled into the criminal market, by theft, illicit sale or bribe. c) Current estimates from the DC Metropolitan Police force indicate that 40% of the firearms that they recover are homemade. Simple and effective firearms designs, like the SKS, Sten, M-43 'grease gun', AK-47, and even a M1911A1, are not beyond the capabilities of a reasonably accomplished machinist or metalworker. Even if, somehow, illegal imports and acquisitions from the military and police were stopped, it would just serve to increase the profitability of illicit manufacture. As another note, during the Afghani revolution against the Soviets, whole Pakistani villages were turned into arsenals, making AK-47-like weapons, primers, powders, and full-metal-jacket bullets, from mere handtools. 2) firearms kill ~35000 people each year. a) of those 35,000 people, close to 20,000 are suicides. Research has shown that the implement of self-destruction is incidental to the decision to commit suicide. In other words, trying to regulate firearms as a means of decreasing suicides is putting the chicken before the egg, as the victim has already decided upon the deed, and will use what tools are at hand. b) of the remaining 15,000 people, roughly 14,000 die due to violent crime. [FBI UCR 1995] According to Department of Justice and Chicago Police Department statistics, 66% of the victims had a prior criminal record, as did 70% of the apprehended perpetrators. In an ideal world, we could reduce the murder rate to under 5000 people, just by enacting effective criminal reform! Further analysis points to the bulk of the homicides being gang or drug related, which brings up the question of 1) would a ban keep guns out of their hands? and 2) would they really not pursue a lethal attack without a firearm? c) Of the final 1000 or so people, the number of accidental deaths has been steadily declining, partially through improvements in firearms technology [hammer block safeties, etc] and better education -- education, the only solution that's been proven to help. d) How many people do firearms save each year? Here's a sample of estimated "defensive gun usages" each year, from various [and variously respected] researchers: Study Implied Defensive Gun Usages Field 3,052,717 Bordua 1,414,544 DMIa 2,141,512 DMIb 1,098,409 Hart 1,797,461 Ohio 771,043 Mauser 1,487,342 Gallup '91 777,153 Gallup '93 1,621,377 LA Times 3,609,682 Tarrance 764,036 Kleck 2,549,862 NCVS 128,000 Average 1,631,779 How many of those were saved by the use of a firearm? Hard to tell, but perhaps most telling of all is that, if we compare defensive firearms usages to criminal usages, the good use outnumbers the bad, three to one. [based on FBI UCR 1995 estimation of ~544,000 firearms crimes] 3) firearms kill (10-12 children a day|a child every two hours|3000-4000- 5000 children a year). This is actually an HCI 'cook book' statistic. What I mean by cook book is simple, they cooked the books to bring you this factoid. First, in some of their various advertisements, children can mean 17-year-old teenagers, 18-19 year old young adults and 20-25 year old adults. Pardon me for assuming that someone over the age of 18 is completely responsible for their own actions. Furthermore, you are left with the image that all of these deaths stem from toddlers who find a firearm, think it is a toy, and fall victim to this tragic mistake. Understandably, this leaves you upset. However, what if 90% of these children were above the age of 15, and *willingly chose* a life of violent crime. Do you still have the same level of emotion for a teenaged murderer, as you would an innocent toddler? Would you still feel as strongly that guns should be banned, now that you've found out that feral human beings are the problem? It is estimated that three hundred children or less a year die, due to firearms accidents, and each is a tragedy. However, in every year since 1970, firearms owners have irrefuteably proven that the strongest medicine against such a calamity is two-fold: education and responsible parenting. 4) a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to kill the owner or a loved one than an intruder This, again, is an anti-firearms 'cook book' statistic. The actual breakdown of the statistics goes something like this: The original research lumped deaths into two categories: justifiable homicide and unjustifiable. According to their tallies, there were 9 of the former, and 387 of the latter -- hence the 43:1 ratio. However, we've already discussed suicide and firearms, and suicides counted for 333 of those unjustifiable homicides, reducing the ratio to 6:1. Of the remainging 54, 12 were determined to be accidental, and 42 to be criminal. However, let's look at how the study defined acquaintences and loved ones: if the victim and the perpetrator knew each other by sight and/or name. That's right -- rival drug dealers would be filed under 'acquaintances and loved ones' -- mildly ironic, I would say. To use previous data regarding criminals and homicide, between 66%-70% of the cases involved had at least one prior felon, which further lessens the image of innocent people killing each other. Furthermore, the original tally did not bother to pursue each case to fruition, to determine if a homicide, say with the battered wife as the perpetrator, was later ruled justifiable. Also, without a crystal ball and a necromancer, it is impossible to determine if all 12 'accidental deaths' were accidental, or misdiagnosed homicide/suicide. 5) a gun used for defense is more likely to be taken away from you and used on you than to thwart crime a) If this were true, we would not have 13 studies indicating an average of 1.6 million defensive firearms usage each year -- at least not without an equally large backlash of failed firearms defenses. b) A 1994(?) Department of Justice study on resistence to crime indicated that resistence with a firearm was FIVE TIMES more likely to result in no harm to the defender than ANY OTHER METHOD, especially passive compliance. 6) allowing people to carry concealed weapons would result in (a return to the Wild West|blood flowing in the streets|gun fights over car accidents) a) Thirty one states have various degrees of 'shall-issue' concealed carry permits, some [Florida] for over a decade. Not only have these gloom and doom predictions not happened, the *arrest rate* for concealed weapons holders in Texas is *less than* the *conviction rate* for the larger population of Texas. b) In his studies, Prof, John Lott indicates that "more guns" does equal "less crime," as the liberalisation of concealed carry laws reduced violent crime, on an average of 2% per year. Furthermore, relaxed concealed carry systems reduce the incidence and brutality of massacres, similar to Jonesboro, Ark., or the incident on the Long Island Rail a few years back. There's tons more to demonstrate the abject failure of gun control, but I think you begin to get the point. -- -- John E. Jasen // DNRC Ambassador to Earth \\ jjasen1@umbc.edu -- -- My views are those of the DNRC only. Prepare to be domesticated -- ------- end of forwarded message -------